tcon-10k_20191231.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of June 28, 2019, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $14.7 million, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on June 28, 2019 of $6.80 per share.

The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock as of February 14, 2020 was 5,397,938.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or this Annual Report, including the sections entitled “Summary,” “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business,” contains forward-looking statements. We may, in some cases, use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would” or the negative of those terms, and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes, to identify these forward-looking statements. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

These forward-looking statements reflect our management’s beliefs and views with respect to future events and are based on estimates and assumptions as of the date of this Annual Report and are subject to risks and uncertainties. We discuss many of these risks in greater detail under “Risk Factors.” Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

We qualify all of the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report by these cautionary statements. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel targeted therapeutics for cancer, wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD, through our license to Santen Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Santen), and utilizing our product development platform to partner with ex-U.S. companies to develop and commercialize innovative products in the United States.

envafolimab in combination with Yervoy® (ipilimumab), a checkpoint inhibitor marketed by Bristol-Meyers Squib (BMS), with the primary endpoint in each of the cohorts being overall response rate (ORR), which could be the basis for accelerated approval of envafolimab by the FDA as a single agent and/or in combination with Yervoy. We estimate disclosing a summary of the independent data monitoring committee decisions following reviews of interim data in 2021, having a final response assessment in early 2022, and, assuming positive data, submitting a biologics license application (BLA) for accelerated approval in early 2023. Additionally, assuming positive data from the initial UPS trial, we plan to initiate a randomized trial for multiple soft tissue sarcoma subtypes, which could include biomarker directed enrollment, to expand the target patient population.

We continue to support Santen’s development of the ophthalmic formulation of carotuximab, called DE-122, for the treatment of wet AMD, the leading cause of blindness in the Western world. In March 2014, Santen licensed from us exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize our endoglin antibodies for ophthalmology indications and in July 2017, Santen initiated dosing in the randomized Phase 2a AVANTE study of DE-122, which is a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy and safety of repeated intravitreal injections of DE-122 in combination with Lucentis® (ranibizumab) compared to Lucentis single agent therapy in patients with wet AMD. Santen completed enrollment in the randomized Phase 2a AVANTE study in 2019 and we expect top-line data in the first half of 2020.

Other clinical stage oncology product candidates include TRC102, which is a small molecule that is in Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical development for the treatment of mesothelioma, lung cancer and solid tumors, TRC253, which is a small molecule that is in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, that we licensed from Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. (Janssen) in September 2016, and TJ004309, which is a CD73 antibody in Phase 1 clinical development for the treatment of solid tumors, that we licensed from I-Mab Biopharma (I-Mab) in November 2018.

TRC102 is designed to reverse resistance to specific chemotherapeutics by inhibiting base excision repair, or BER. In initial clinical trials of more than 100 patients, TRC102 has shown good tolerability and promising anti-tumor activity in combination with alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients. TRC102 began Phase 2 testing in mesothelioma in combination with the approved chemotherapeutic Alimta in 2015. TRC102 is also being studied in three Phase 1 clinical trials: in combination with Alimta and cisplatin in solid tumor patients, in combination with chemoradiation in lung cancer patients, and in combination with Temodar in ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer patients. All current TRC102 trials are sponsored and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). We retain global rights to develop and commercialize TRC102 in all indications.

TRC253 is being developed for the treatment of men with prostate cancer and is a novel small molecule high affinity competitive inhibitor of wild type androgen receptor (AR) and multiple AR mutant receptors containing point mutations that cause drug resistance to currently approved treatments. In November 2019, following review of available Phase 2 data indicating a lower than expected initial response rate and prevalence of the F877L mutation, we agreed with Janssen that the more than 70 currently enrolled patients in the Phase 1/2 trial of TRC253 are sufficient to determine the risk-benefit profile of the drug in three cohorts of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer patients: those with a F877L mutation, those with another undisclosed androgen receptor point mutation, and those with another basis for resistance to Xtandi or Erleada. We expect to provide Phase 2 proof of concept data to Janssen in the first half of 2020. Until 90 days after receiving Phase 2 proof of concept data, Janssen has an exclusive option to reacquire full rights to TRC253 for an upfront payment of $45.0 million to us, and obligations to make regulatory and commercialization milestone payments totaling up to $137.5 million upon achievement of specified events and a low single-digit royalty. If Janssen does not exercise its exclusive option to reacquire the program, we would then have the ability to retain worldwide development and commercialization rights, in which case we would be obligated to pay Janssen a total of up to $45.0 million in development and regulatory milestones upon achievement of specified events, in addition to a low single digit royalty.

TJ004309, also known as TJD5, is a novel humanized antibody against CD73 expressed on stromal cells and tumors that converts extracellular adenosine monophosphate (AMP) to the immunosuppressive metabolite adenosine. We are developing TJ004309 in collaboration with I-Mab under a strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement that we entered into in November 2018 (the TJ004309 Agreement). In July 2019, we began enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical study to assess safety and preliminary efficacy of TJ004309 as a single agent and when combined with the PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor Tecentriq® in patients with advanced solid tumors. We also entered into a separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement (the Bispecific Agreement) which allows for the development of up to five of I-Mab’s proprietary bispecific antibody product candidates to be nominated within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America, with the option to opt-in and acquire product rights outside of Greater China and Korea prior to completing the first pivotal clinical study for any bispecific product candidate.

In April 2019, we announced the termination of enrollment in trials of carotuximab in oncology following the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) recommendation that the Phase 3 TAPPAS trial be terminated for futility. We have terminated activities related to carotuximab development in oncology.

The following table summarizes key information regarding ongoing and planned development of clinical stage product candidates:

We utilize a product development platform that emphasizes capital efficiency. Our experienced clinical operations, data management, quality assurance, product development and regulatory affairs groups manage significant aspects of our clinical trials with internal resources. We use these internal resources to minimize the costs associated with utilizing contract research organizations, or CROs, to conduct clinical trials. In our experience, this model has resulted in capital efficiencies and improved communication with clinical trial sites, which expedites patient enrollment and improves the quality of patient data as compared to a CRO-managed model. We have leveraged this platform in all of our sponsored clinical trials. We have also leveraged our product development platform to diversify our product pipeline without payment of upfront license fees through license agreements with 3D Medicines and Alphamab, I-Mab, and Janssen. We continue to evaluate ex-U.S. companies who would benefit from a rapid and capital-efficient U.S. drug development solution that includes U.S. and European Union (EU) clinical development expertise. We believe we will continue to be recognized as a preferred U.S. clinical development partner through a cost- and risk-sharing partnership structure which may include U.S. commercialization.

Our goal is to be a leader in the development of targeted therapies for patients with cancer and other diseases of high unmet medical need.

PD-L1 is an immune-inhibitory checkpoint molecule expressed on epithelial and vascular endothelial cells, as well as by a number of immune cells, that is utilized by tumor cells as an immune escape mechanism. Numerous preclinical and clinical studies of PD-1/PD-L1 products have demonstrated that antibodies that block the interaction of PD-1 with its ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2, or those that block only the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1, can augment anti-tumor T-cell responses and lead to complete and durable tumor eradication in a certain proportion of patients. Potent therapeutic anti-tumor responses due to blocking of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction has been demonstrated by these approved products in patients with various solid tumors including, but not limited to, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), head and neck cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and urothelial carcinoma.

Envafolimab is an investigational sdAb that binds selectively to PD-L1 and is administered by subcutaneous injection without an adjuvant. Envafolimab is being developed by 3D Medicines for the treatment of various cancer indications, including in two ongoing pivotal trials in China.

Single-domain antibodies are a novel class of therapeutic protein that contain the unique structural and functional properties of naturally-occurring heavy chains and lack light chains. On February 6, 2019, the FDA approved the first sdAb, Cablivi® (caplacizumab), for adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Envafolimab is a camelid IgG4 sdAb with single digit nanomolar affinity to PD-L1. Benefitting from the sdAb format, envafolimab has half the molecular weight as compared to a full antibody with better stability and high solubility, which enables the development of high concentration formulation injections suitable for subcutaneous injection. In addition, the effector functions are muted in envafolimab to help limit its exposure to the immune system and avoid unwanted adverse immune responses. As a result, compared with approved PD-(L)1 inhibitors, envafolimab potentially has the following advantages:

In pre-clinical studies in human cell models and a humanized mouse model, envafolimab was compared with 2.41H90P, an antibody with a sequence that is identical to durvalumab, the only approved PD-L1 inhibitor at the time, and envafolimab showed the following potential advantages:

As of December 31, 2019, envafolimab had been dosed in more than 650 patients in a total of 6 ongoing clinical trials in the United States, China or Japan, including a pivotal Phase 2 trial in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) cancer patients in China, a Phase 2 trial of envafolimab plus chemotherapy in gastric cancer, a Phase 3 randomized trial of envafolimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in biliary tract cancer (BTC) in China, a Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration trial in the United States, a Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration trial in China, and a Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration trial in Japan.

An open-label, single-arm Phase 1 dose escalation and exploration clinical trial of envafolimab has completed enrollment in China. The safety and efficacy data from this trial were presented at the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in June 2019. Based on the data presented in the ASCO Annual Meeting (ASCO Presentation), 17 subjects were enrolled in the dose escalation phase in this trial as of May 1, 2019. A total of 287 subjects were enrolled in this Phase 1 study at dose levels shown to be tolerable during dose escalation.

Study purpose. The primary objectives of the Phase 1 dose escalation were to assess the safety and tolerability profile and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of single agent envafolimab administered subcutaneously in subjects with advanced solid tumors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the PK profile, immunogenicity and anti-tumor activity.

Study design of the dose escalation phase. This trial adopted a modified “3+3” design with a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period of 28 days. Subjects received envafolimab in six cohorts at 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg and 10.0 mg/kg once every week (QW) subcutaneously. Starting from the 1.0 mg/kg cohort, a traditional “3+3” design was followed. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Tumor assessments were performed based on RECIST version 1.1.

Safety of dose escalation phase. The majority of the subjects received two or more prior systemic oncology treatments. According to the ASCO Presentation, 16 of the subjects discontinued treatment due to disease progression (n=15) or consent withdrawal (n=1). All of the enrolled subjects experienced TEAEs. 13 (76.5%) experienced treatment-related TEAEs. Three (17.6%) subjects experienced serious TEAEs, although none were determined to be treatment-related. A TEAE led to treatment discontinuation in one subject and was also determined to be not treatment-related. No DLT was reported and the MTD was not reached. Details of the TEAEs observed from the 17 subjects enrolled in the Phase 1 dose escalation study are summarized in the following table.

Efficacy. According to the ASCO Presentation, 15 out of 17 subjects were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Three subjects had confirmed partial response (PR), including one renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subject in the 2.5 mg/kg cohort, one intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma subject from the 5.0 mg/kg cohort and one BTC subject from the 10.0 mg/kg cohort. In addition, five subjects achieved stable disease (SD). All 15 subjects completed at least one post-baseline tumor assessment, according to the ASCO Presentation. Two enrolled subjects who had not reached the first post-baseline tumor assessment were excluded. The table below summarizes the best overall response in the efficacy analysis of this trial, according to the ASCO Presentation.

The following waterfall plot shows the best overall response of the 15 evaluable subjects receiving envafolimab as measured by percentage of change of target lesions from baseline, according to the ASCO Presentation.

Conclusion. According to the ASCO Presentation, envafolimab exhibited a tolerable safety profile and preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced malignancies in the Phase 1 dose escalation trial in China.

An open-label Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration clinical trial of envafolimab is being conducted in the United States. Safety and efficacy data from the dose escalation phase of the trial were presented at the 2018 Annual Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in October 2018. Based on the data presented at ESMO (the ESMO Presentation), 18 subjects were enrolled in the dose escalation phase of this trial as of July 5, 2018.

Study purpose of the dose escalation phase. The primary objectives of the Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial were to evaluate and characterize the tolerability and safety profile of single agent envafolimab in subjects with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. The secondary objectives were to characterize the PK profile, determine MTD and to evaluate anti-tumor activity.

Study design of the dose escalation phase. This trial adopted a modified “3+3” design with a DLT evaluation period of 28 days. Subjects received envafolimab across eight cohorts at 0.01 mg/kg, 0.03 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg and 10.0 mg/kg QW subcutaneously. Starting from the 0.3 mg/kg cohort, a traditional “3+3” design was followed. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring TEAEs. Tumor assessments were performed based on RECIST version 1.1.

Safety of dose escalation phase. The median duration of exposure to envafolimab was 9 weeks with a range of 6 to 32 weeks. As of July 5, 2018, two of the subjects (11.1%) remained in the study, 11 subjects had discontinued treatment due to disease progression, three subjects had discontinued treatment due to TEAEs, and two subjects had discontinued treatment due to the opinion of the investigator that no more clinical benefit could be obtained or for other reasons. All of the 18 enrolled subjects experienced TEAEs. Treatment-related TEAEs at grade 3 or above included increased aspartate aminotransferase (10.5%), increased alanine aminotransferase (10.5%) and lymphopenia (10.5%). No DLT was observed and the planned maximum dose of 10.0 mg/kg was reached.

Efficacy of dose escalation phase. According to the ESMO Presentation, 17 out of 18 subjects were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Two subjects had confirmed PR, including one NSCLC subject from the 0.3 mg/kg QW cohort (response duration of 9 months) and one MSI-H prostate cancer subject from the 2.5 mg/kg QW cohort. In addition, five subjects achieved SD. All 17 evaluable subjects completed at least one post-baseline tumor assessment according to the ESMO Presentation. One enrolled subject who had not reached the first post-baseline tumor assessment was excluded. The table below summarizes the best overall response in the efficacy analysis of this trial according to the ESMO Presentation.

PK profile of dose escalation phase. This study showed that the exposure to envafolimab was dose-dependent and increased proportionally across all eight dose levels. Mean half-life of envafolimab was approximately 200 hours.

Conclusion. According to the ESMO Presentation, envafolimab exhibited a favorable safety profile in subjects with advanced solid tumors and preliminary efficacy results demonstrated encouraging anti-tumor activity. Based on the PK profile, patients in the trial were treated with envafolimab at 300 mg every 4 weeks by subcutaneous injection.

An open-label Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration clinical trial of envafolimab is being conducted in Japan. The safety, efficacy and PK data of this trial as of May 5, 2019 were presented at the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in June 2019. Based on the data presented in the ASCO Annual Meeting (the Japan Trial ASCO Presentation), 26 subjects were enrolled in this trial as of May 5, 2019.

Study purpose. The primary objectives of the Phase 1 clinical trial are to assess the safety and tolerability profile of single agent envafolimab in Japanese subjects with previously treated advanced solid tumors. The secondary objectives are to characterize the PK profile, determine MTD and evaluate the anti-tumor activity.

Study design. This Phase 1 trial consists of a multi-dose escalation phase followed by a dose exploration phase. Subjects will receive envafolimab across five cohorts at 1.0 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg and 5.0 mg/kg QW subcutaneously, and 2.5 mg/kg and 5.0 mg/kg Q2W subcutaneously. The QW schedule adopted a traditional “3+3” design. For the Q2W schedule, six patients were planned for each cohort. Safety and tolerability are being assessed by monitoring TEAEs under common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Tumor assessments are being performed based on RECIST version 1.1. Full PK sampling is performed after the first dose of cycle 1 (28 days) and sparse PK samples are collected at pre-dose and around Cmax during the subsequent cycles.

Safety. According to the Japan Trial ASCO Presentation, as of May 5, 2019, no MTD had been reached. As of the same date, three subjects had remained in the study. 21 subjects had discontinued treatment due to disease progression and two subjects had discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. All of the enrolled subjects experienced TEAEs, 17 subjects (65.4%) experienced treatment-related TEAEs, and only one grade 3 treatment-related TEAE (cerebral infraction) was reported. There were no grade 4/5 treatment-related TEAEs. There were a total of four SAEs, two of which were treatment-related. No DLT was reported.

Efficacy. According to the Japan Trial ASCO Presentation, nine out of 26 patients were evaluable for the efficacy analysis as of May 5, 2019. Two subjects had confirmed PR and two subjects had unconfirmed PR. The other five evaluable subjects had achieved SD. 17 enrolled subjects who did not reach the first post-baseline tumor assessment were excluded.

PK profile. In the dose escalation phase, the exposure to envafolimab was dose-dependent and increased proportionally. Tmax varied from 96 to 168 hours after a single dose as shown in Figure 1 below. In the dose exploration phase, the exposure to envafolimab was dose-dependent and increased proportionally. Preliminary PK suggested a prolonged half-life that may support a less frequent dosing schedule than once every 2 weeks.

Conclusion. Envafolimab exhibited a favorable safety profile in patients with advanced malignancies and preliminary efficacy results demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in the Phase 1 clinical trial in Japan. Based on the PK profile, patients in the trial are currently being treated with envafolimab at 300 mg every 4 weeks by subcutaneous injection.

A pivotal clinical trial of envafolimab dosed as a single agent for the treatment of MSI-H tumors was initiated in August 2018. The trial is a non-randomized trial enrolling approximately 110 patients in China, including colorectal cancer patients who are required to have been previously treated with standard therapies, which must include fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin or irinotecan, and other solid tumor patients, who are required to have been previously treated with at least one line of systemic standard of care therapy. Patients will receive 150mg of envafolimab subcutaneously dosed weekly. Top-line data from the trial are expected in 2020 with ORR as the primary endpoint defined by RECIST version 1.1. 3D Medicines is planning to file a BLA in China for envafolimab in 2020. The filing will be based on the principle that the response rate required for approval in China is similar to the response rate demonstrated by products approved in the United States for the treatment of MSI-H cancer patients. Data from this trial may be presented by our partner 3D Medicines at ASCO 2020.

A Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in BTC was initiated in April 2018. This trial is an open-label study to assess the safety and efficacy of envafolimab plus standard of care gemcitabine-based chemotherapy compared to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy alone with overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint. In the envafolimab arm, envafolimab will be dosed at 2.5 mg/kg subcutaneously weekly, along with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin at recommended doses. The trial is expected to enroll over 390 patients in China and data are expected in 2022.

A Phase 2 study of envafolimab in combination with chemotherapy (FOLFOX) in first line treatment of advanced gastric cancer was fully enrolled (n=15) as of January 15, 2019. Data have not been presented publicly.

We intend to file an IND application, apply for orphan drug status, and initiate a registration enabling study of envafolimab in UPS and select STS subtypes in 2020. Subject to input from the FDA, we expect that the trial will include one cohort of approximately 80 patients who will receive single agent treatment with envafolimab and a second cohort of approximately 80 patients who will receive envafolimab in combination with Yervoy (ipilimumab) with the primary endpoint in each of the cohorts being ORR, which could be the basis for accelerated approval of envafolimab by the FDA as a single agent and in combination with Yervoy. We estimate disclosing a summary of the independent data monitoring committee decisions following reviews of interim data in 2021, having a final response assessment in early 2022, and, assuming positive data, submitting a BLA for accelerated approval in early 2023. Additionally, assuming positive data from the initial UPS trial, we plan to initiate a randomized trial for multiple soft tissue sarcoma subtypes, which could include biomarker directed enrollment, to expand the target patient population.

UPS has an incidence of 0.8 to 1.0 cases per 100,000 patients in the western world and accounts for 10% of new cases of soft tissue sarcoma in the United States, with prevalence rates estimated at approximately 1.5 to 2.0 times incidence. We estimate that refractory UPS could generate net sales of up to $200 million in the United States without considering a price premium to the reference PD-1 inhibitors Opdivo® (nivolumab) or Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) that are administered intravenously.

AMD is a major public health problem that has a devastating effect on patients. AMD distorts central vision, which is necessary for daily activities such as reading, face recognition, watching television and driving and can lead to loss of central vision and blindness. According to a 2010 study sponsored by AMD Alliance International, the annual direct healthcare system cost of visual impairment worldwide due to AMD was estimated at approximately $255 billion.

According to the Macular Degeneration Partnership, approximately 15 million people in the United States and 30 million people worldwide suffer from some form of AMD. There are two forms of AMD: dry AMD and wet AMD. It is reported that wet AMD represents approximately 10% of all cases of AMD, but is responsible for 90% of the severe vision loss associated with the disease. Wet AMD is the leading cause of blindness in the Western world.

In a subset of AMD patients, dry AMD progresses to wet AMD as a result of abnormal angiogenesis in the choroid layer beneath the retina, which is referred to as choroidal neovascularization, or CNV. In the context of wet AMD, CNV is associated with the accumulation of other cell types and altered tissue. The new blood vessels associated with this abnormal angiogenesis tend to be fragile and often bleed and leak fluid into the macula, the central-most portion of the retina responsible for central vision and color perception. If left untreated, the blood vessel growth and associated leakage typically lead to retinal distortion and eventual retinal scarring, with irreversible destruction of the macula and loss of vision. This visual loss occurs rapidly with a progressive course.

The current standard of care for wet AMD is administration by intraocular injection of VEGF inhibitors as single agents. VEGF inhibitors have been reported to be effective in treating wet AMD because of their ability to inhibit the effects of abnormal angiogenesis that defines CNV. The FDA has approved the VEGF inhibitors Lucentis (ranibizumab), Eylea® (aflibercept), Beovu® (brolucizumab) and Macugen® (pegaptanib sodium) for the treatment of wet AMD. Lucentis is an antibody fragment derived from the same full length antibody from which Avastin was derived. In 2018, annual worldwide sales of Lucentis and Eylea for all indications totaled more than $10.0 billion. This sales number does not include Avastin, which is commonly used off-label to treat wet AMD in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in the European Union.

The availability of VEGF inhibitors has significantly improved visual outcomes for many patients with wet AMD. A retrospective study published in 2012 confirmed that the prevalence of both legal blindness and moderate visual impairment in patients two years after being diagnosed with wet AMD has decreased substantially following the introduction of VEGF inhibitor therapy. Nonetheless, the condition of many patients with wet AMD treated with VEGF inhibitors does not improve significantly and in many cases deteriorates.

VEGF inhibitors prevent VEGF from binding to its natural receptor on endothelial cells in the abnormal new blood vessels, thereby inhibiting further CNV and leakage associated with wet AMD. However, VEGF inhibitor therapy may be limited in its ability to improve CNV. Results of third-party clinical trials suggest that visual outcomes for wet AMD patients receiving treatment with a VEGF inhibitor worsen over time and are often associated with the development of subretinal fibrosis and the growth of CNV over time. At the present time, the development of agents that effectively complement approved treatment in wet AMD remains an unmet need.

As is the case with angiogenesis that drives tumor growth, we believe that the endoglin pathway serves as an escape pathway that allows continued CNV despite inhibition of the VEGF pathway. In addition, the impact of VEGF inhibitors may be limited by the activity of pericytes, which are the cells that cover the outside of blood vessels and support and stabilize newly formed vessels. Pericytes are not targeted by VEGF inhibitor therapies, but because they express endoglin, they are an additional target for endoglin antibodies such as TRC105. These facts provide the rationale for treating wet AMD with a combination of endoglin antibodies and VEGF inhibitors.

Our endoglin antibodies for ophthalmology indications are being developed in collaboration with Santen. We have produced a formulation of carotuximab for development in ophthalmology that Santen is developing under the name DE-122.

In June 2015, Santen filed an IND with the FDA for the initiation of clinical studies for DE‐122 in patients with wet AMD and began enrollment into the Phase 1/2 PAVE trial. Safety and bioactivity data from the Phase 1/2 PAVE trial were reported at the Bascom Palmer conference on Angiogenesis, Exudation and Regeneration on February 10, 2018.

The open-label, dose-escalation, sequential-cohort Phase 1/2 study assessed the safety, tolerability, and bioactivity of a single intravitreal injection of DE-122 at four dose levels in 12 subjects (n=3 per dose) with wet AMD refractory to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. Subjects were followed up to 90 days. No serious adverse events were reported. One adverse event of yellowish deposits in the vitreous was reported to be related to DE-122 in cohort 2 of 4, that spontaneously resolved. Eight of twelve refractory wet AMD patients demonstrated signs of bioactivity, as evidenced by improved visual acuity, decreased macular edema or decreased fluorescein leak by angiography, after treatment with DE-122 followed by a single dose of the VEGF inhibitor treatment used prior to study entry.

In July 2017, Santen initiated the Phase 2a AVANTE clinical study of DE-122 for the treatment of patients with wet AMD. The Phase 2a AVANTE study is a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy and safety of repeated intravitreal injections of DE-122 in combination with Lucentis compared to Lucentis monotherapy in patients with wet AMD. Santen completed enrollment of the Phase 2a AVANTE study of DE-122 in wet AMD patients in 2019 and top-line data are expected in the first half of 2020.

Base-excision repair, or BER, is a complex and fundamental cellular process used by cancer cells to repair the DNA damage caused by chemotherapeutics, especially the classes of chemotherapeutics known as alkylating agents, including Temodar, dacarbazine and bis-dichloroethyl-nitrosourea, or BCNU, and anti-metabolite agents, including Fludara and Alimta. The process of BER removes DNA bases damaged by chemotherapy, resulting in the formation of gaps in the DNA strand called apurinic and

apyrimidinic, or AP, sites. The appropriate base is then inserted in this gap to restore the proper tumor DNA sequence. By this process, cancer cells can circumvent the anti-tumor effects of chemotherapy.

Inhibition of BER has been proposed as a way to improve the efficacy of chemotherapeutics; however, to our knowledge, no inhibitors of BER have been tested in clinical trials. We are developing TRC102 (methoxyamine hydrochloride) to reverse resistance to specific chemotherapeutics by inhibiting BER. TRC102 interrupts BER by rapidly and covalently binding within AP sites, converting the AP site to a substrate for the enzyme topoisomerase II, which cleaves TRC102-bound DNA, resulting in an accumulation of DNA strand breaks that trigger cellular apoptosis, or programmed cell death, as illustrated in the figure below:

The induction of apoptosis by TRC102 is relatively selective for cancer cells, which typically overexpress topoisomerase II. In nonmalignant cells with low topoisomerase II expression, TRC102-bound DNA is excised and replaced by a separate DNA repair system.

TRC102 is being developed to reverse resistance to Temodar, an alkylating chemotherapeutic, as well as to Alimta and Fludara, two antimetabolite chemotherapeutics. We consider it advantageous to combine TRC102 with Alimta because Alimta is approved in one large market indication (lung cancer) and one orphan drug indication (mesothelioma). Temodar is an approved chemotherapeutic used as a standard of care agent to treat glioblastoma, and Fludara is an approved chemotherapeutic used as a standard of care agent to treat lymphoma and leukemia. In initial clinical trials of more than 100 patients, TRC102 has shown good tolerability and promising anti-tumor activity in combination with alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapy.

We filed an IND for TRC102 in March 2008, Case Western filed an IND for TRC102 in March 2006, and NCI filed an IND for TRC102 in March 2013, all for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors. The IND filed by NCI cross references our IND.

Phase 1 ascending dose clinical trials evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and anti-tumor activity of TRC102 were completed with Alimta in patients with advanced solid tumors, with Fludara in patients with hematologic malignancy and with Temodar in patients with solid tumors. In each trial, TRC102 was tolerable with the companion chemotherapeutic, and demonstrated signs of activity. One patient treated with TRC102 and Alimta had a partial response as assessed by RECIST 1.1 and remained in our clinical trial without cancer progression for 14 months. In addition, 14 patients had SD including patients with squamous cell lung cancer (three patients), epithelial ovarian cancer (three patients), colorectal cancer (two patients), non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (one patient), pancreatic cancer (one patient), prostate cancer (one patient), endometrial cancer (one patient), head and neck cancer (one patient) and breast cancer (one patient). These data were published in Investigational New Drugs in 2012. Case Western reported data from a trial of intravenous TRC102 given in combination with Fludara in a Phase 1

clinical trial that were published in Oncotarget in 2017. Anti-tumor activity, including partial response, was noted in patients with lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, including patients treated previously with Fludara. TRC102 combined with Fludara was safe and well tolerated. Hematologic toxicity was comparable to single agent Fludara and activity appeared to correlate with increased levels of DNA damage. Case Western reported data from a trial of TRC102 given intravenously in combination with Temodar in a Phase 1 clinical trial at the ASCO annual meeting in June 2015. Anti-tumor activity was noted in patients with ovarian cancer and neuroendocrine tumors.

The following table summarizes certain key information regarding ongoing clinical trials of TRC102 in cancer patients:

The NCI reported data from the Phase 1 study of TRC102 in combination with Temodar in relapsed solid tumors and lymphoma patients at ASCO in 2017. There were no pharmacologic interactions between the two drugs and TRC102 target concentrations were achieved. Based on partial responses in patients with ovarian cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and KRAS-positive colorectal cancer, the NCI decided to enroll expansion cohorts in each of these tumor types at the recommended Phase 2 oral dose of TRC102. The authors concluded that the combination of Temodar and TRC102 is active, and DNA damage response markers (Rad51, ϒ-H2AX and/or pNbs1) were induced in four of five paired colonic biopsies, indicating DNA damage following treatment. Updated data in the cohort of patients with colorectal cancer reported by the NCI at AACR in 2019 indicated a low response rate in patients with colorectal cancer treated with Temodar and TRC102.

The combination of TRC102 and Temodar was assessed in a Phase 2 trial of patients with recurrent glioblastoma that was reported at the Society for Neuro-Oncology annual meeting in November 2018. The combination of Temodar and TRC102 was tolerable, but did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of demonstrating objective responses by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria in the 19 enrolled patients, most of whom were treated at Cleveland Clinic. Two patients (10.5%) demonstrated evidence of clinical benefit and met the secondary endpoint of progression free survival (PFS) beyond 6 months. Both patients who demonstrated PFS for more than 11 months were alive over 30 months following treatment initiation with TRC102 and Temodar for recurrent glioblastoma. PFS of greater than 11 months was associated with N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase expression, a biomarker that initiates the BER pathway of resistance that is inhibited by TRC102. Efforts to identify whether DNA glycosylase expression or other biomarkers can be used as a predictive biomarker of TRC102 activity are expected to continue in ongoing TRC102 trials in 2020. Data from multiple trials of TRC102 may be presented by investigators associated with the NCI Cancer Therapeutics Evaluation Program at ASCO 2020

TRC253 (formerly JNJ-63576253) is a novel, orally bioavailable small molecule discovered and developed by Janssen that is a potent, high affinity competitive inhibitor of the wild type androgen receptor (AR) and multiple AR mutations, including the F877L mutation, and is under development for the treatment of men with prostate cancer. The AR F877L mutation results in an alteration in the ligand binding domain that confers resistance to current AR inhibitors, including Xtandi® (enzalutamide) and Erleada® (apalutamide). TRC253 also potently inhibits signaling through the wild type AR and may also be developed in earlier lines of treatment as a single agent or in combination with drugs approved in prostate cancer.

Activation of the AR is crucial for the growth of prostate cancer at all stages of the disease. Therapies targeting the AR have demonstrated clinical efficacy by extending time to disease progression, and in some cases, the survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, resistance to these agents is often observed and several molecular mechanisms of resistance have been identified, including amplification, overexpression, alternative splicing, or mutation of the AR.

We filed an IND in December 2016, which was cleared by the FDA in January 2017. We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of TRC253 in March 2017 and the recommended Phase 2 dose was established in July 2018, allowing dosing to commence in the Phase 2 portion of the Phase 1/2 trial. In November 2019, following review of available Phase 2 data indicating a lower than expected initial response rate and prevalence of the F877L mutation, we agreed with Janssen that the more than 70 currently enrolled patients in the Phase 1/2 trial of TRC253 are sufficient to determine the risk-benefit profile of the drug in three cohorts of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer patients: those with a F877L mutation, those with another undisclosed androgen receptor point mutation, and those with another basis for resistance to Xtandi or Erleada. We expect to provide Phase 2 proof of concept data to Janssen in the first half of 2020.

TJ004309, is a novel, humanized antibody against CD73, an ecto-enzyme expressed on stromal cells and tumors that converts extracellular AMP to the immunosuppressive metabolite adenosine. In December 2018, we submitted an IND application with the FDA for the initiation of a Phase 1 clinical study in patients with advanced solid tumors, which was cleared by the FDA in January 2019. In July 2019, we began enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical study to assess safety and preliminary efficacy of TJ004309 as a single agent and when combined with the PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor Tecentriq® (atezolizumab) in patients with advanced solid tumors. We expect Phase 1 data in 2020.

In December 2019, we, 3D Medicines, and Alphamab entered into the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement for the development of envafolimab.

Pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we were granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America. We are responsible for conducting, and will bear the costs of any Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, or post-approval clinical trial in North America for envafolimab in the indications of refractory and first line treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. 3D Medicines and Alphamab are responsible for conducting, and will bear the costs of IND-enabling studies (other than those specific to the sarcoma indication) and the preparation of CMC activities sections of an IND application for envafolimab. 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply envafolimab to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use. 3D Medicines and Alphamab retained the right to develop envafolimab in all territories outside of North America as well as within North America for all indications other than soft tissue sarcoma.

We will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue, unless (a) envafolimab is first approved in North America for an indication other than soft tissue sarcoma and launched in North America, or (b) envafolimab is first approved in North America for soft tissue sarcoma and subsequently approved in North America for an additional non-orphan indication and sold commercially by 3D Medicines and/or Alphamab, in which case 3D Medicines and Alphamab will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for soft tissue sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue. If 3D Medicines and Alphamab become responsible for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we have the option to co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America. In the event that envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and within three years of the commercial launch of envafolimab in North America for sarcoma 3D Medicines and Alphamab replace us as the party responsible for commercialization, and we elect and 3D Medicines and Alphamab agree for us to not co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, then 3D Medicine and Alphamab will be required to compensate us for our costs associated with preparing for and conducting commercial activities.

If we have the responsibility for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we will owe 3D Medicines and Alphamab tiered double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits. If 3D Medicines and Alphamab have responsibility for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we will be entitled to (a) tiered double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits if we have elected to not co-market envafolimab in sarcoma or (b) a 50% royalty on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America if we have chosen to co-market envafolimab in sarcoma. Payment obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continue on a country-by-country basis until the last to expire licensed patent covering envafolimab expires.

3D Medicines and Alphamab retain the right to reacquire the rights to envafolimab for sarcoma in North America in connection with an arm’s length sale to a third party of the rights to develop and commercialize envafolimab in North America for all indications, provided that the sale may not occur prior to completion of a pivotal trial of envafolimab in sarcoma without our written consent and the parties must negotiate in good faith and agree to fair compensation be paid to us for the value of and opportunity represented by the reacquired rights.

Each party agreed that during the term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, it would not develop or license from any third party a monospecific inhibitor to PD-L1 or PD-1.

The term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continues until the later of the date the parties cease further development and commercialization of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America or the expiration of all payment obligations. The Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement may be terminated earlier by a party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to envafolimab. In the event we elect, or a joint steering committee determines, to cease further development or commercialization of envafolimab, or if we fail to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop (including progress in clinical trials) and commercialize envafolimab and do not cure such failure within a specified time period, then our rights and obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement will revert to 3D Medicines and Alphamab.

In November 2018, we entered into separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreements (the Collaboration Agreements) with I-Mab for the development of multiple immuno-oncology programs, including I-Mab’s proprietary CD73 antibody TJ004309 (the TJ4309 Agreement) as well as up to five proprietary bispecific antibodies currently under development by I-Mab (the Bispecific Agreement).

In the TJ004309 Agreement, we are collaborating with I-Mab on developing TJ004309, also known as TJD5, and will bear the costs of filing an IND and for Phase 1 clinical trials, share costs equally for Phase 2 clinical trials, and we will bear 40% and I-Mab 60% of the costs for pivotal clinical trials. I-Mab will also be responsible for the cost of certain non-clinical activities and the supply of TJ004309 and any reference drugs used in the development activities. We also agreed with I-Mab for a specified period of time to not develop or license to or from a third party any monoclonal antibody targeting CD73 or any other biologic for certain indications that a joint steering committee (JSC), as set up under the TJ004309 Agreement, selects for TJ004309 development.

In the event that I-Mab licenses rights to TJ004309 to a third party, we would be entitled to receive escalating portions of royalty and non-royalty consideration received by I-Mab with respect to territories outside of Greater China. In the event that I-Mab commercializes TJ004309, we would be entitled to receive a royalty on net sales by I-Mab in North America ranging from the mid-single digits to low double digits, and in the EU and Japan in the mid-single digits. The portions of certain third party royalty and non-royalty consideration and the royalty from net sales by I-Mab to which we would be entitled escalate based on the phase of development and relevant clinical trial obligations we complete under the TJ004309 Agreement, ranging from a high-single digit to a mid-teen percentage of non-royalty consideration as well as a double digit percentage of royalty consideration.

The TJ004309 Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to TJ004309. I-Mab may also terminate the TJ004309 Agreement if we cause certain delays in completing a Phase 1 clinical trial. In addition, I-Mab may terminate the TJ004309 Agreement for any reason within 90 days following the completion of the first Phase 1 clinical trial, in which case we would be entitled to a minimum termination fee of $9.0 million, or following the completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial, in which case we would be entitled to a pre-specified termination fee of $15.0 million and either a percentage of non-royalty consideration I-Mab may receive as part of a license to a third party or an additional payment if TJ004309 is approved for marketing outside Greater China before a third party license is executed, in addition to a double digit percentage of royalty consideration.

Pursuant to the Bispecific Agreement, we and I-Mab may mutually select through a joint steering committee (JSC) up to five of I-Mab’s bispecific antibody product candidates within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America.

For each product candidate selected by the JSC for development under the Bispecific Agreement, I-Mab will be responsible and bear the costs for IND-enabling studies and establishing manufacturing for the product candidate, we will be responsible for and bear the costs of filing an IND and conducting Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, and we will be responsible for and will share equally with I-Mab in the costs of conducting Phase 3 or pivotal clinical trials, in each case within North America. Subject to I-Mab’s right to co-promote an approved product candidate, we will be responsible for commercializing any approved product candidates in North America, and we will share profits and losses equally with I-Mab in North America. We would also be entitled to receive tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of product candidates in the EU and Japan.

At any time prior to completing the first pivotal clinical study for a product candidate or if I-Mab ceases to support development costs or pay its portion of Phase 3 clinical trials costs for a product candidate or the JSC decides to cease development over our objections after initiating Phase 3 clinical trials, we will have an option to obtain an exclusive license to such product candidate in all territories except Greater China and Korea and any other territories in which I-Mab previously licensed rights to a third party subject to our right of first refusal for any licenses I-Mab may grant to third-parties.

would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $10.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $90.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the mid-single digits on annual net sales; (ii) if after IND submission but before completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial of the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $25.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $125.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high single digits on annual net sales; (iii) if after completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial but before completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept study for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $50.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $250.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the low double digits on annual net sales; and (iv) if after completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept study and before completion of a pivotal study for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $80.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $420.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high-teens on annual net sales.

Each party agreed that for a specified period of time, it would not develop or license to or from any third party any bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting the same two biological targets as those of any selected product candidates under the Bispecific Agreement.

If development of any selected product candidates is terminated by a decision of the JSC, all rights to the product candidate will revert to I-Mab, subject to our rights to obtain an exclusive license in certain circumstances. If development is terminated after submission of an IND and prior to initiating Phase 3 clinical studies or after initiating Phase 3 clinical studies and with our concurrence, we would be entitled to tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of the product candidate in North America, the EU and Japan.

The Bispecific Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or with respect to any selected product candidate, for safety reasons related to that product candidate.

In September 2016, we entered into a strategic licensing collaboration with Janssen for two novel oncology assets from Janssen’s early oncology development portfolio. The agreement, as amended, grants us the rights to develop TRC253 (formerly JNJ-63576253), a novel small molecule high affinity competitive inhibitor of wild type androgen receptor (AR Mutant Program) and multiple AR mutant receptors which display drug resistance to approved treatments, which is intended for the treatment of men with prostate cancer. The other oncology asset licensed from Janssen, TRC694, the Company determined the compound did not warrant further development and, in February 2019, issued written notice to terminate the licensing collaboration with respect to the TRC694 program and returned TRC694 and all rights thereto to Janssen.

Janssen maintains an option, which is exercisable until 90 days after we demonstrate clinical proof of concept with respect to the AR Mutant Program, to regain the rights to the licensed intellectual property and to obtain an exclusive license to commercialize the compounds and certain other specified intellectual property developed under the AR Mutant Program. If Janssen exercises the option, Janssen will be obligated to pay us (i) a one-time option exercise fee of $45.0 million; (ii) regulatory and commercial based milestone payments totaling up to $137.5 million upon achievement of specified events; and (iii) royalties in the low single digits on annual net sales of AR Mutant Program products. If Janssen does not exercise the option, we would then have the right to retain worldwide development and commercialization rights to the AR Mutant Program, in which case, we would be obligated to pay to Janssen (x) development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $45.0 million upon achievement of specified events, and (y) royalties in the low single digits based on annual net sales of AR Mutant Program products, subject to certain specified reductions.

The license agreement may be terminated for uncured breach (including failure to satisfy specified development and spending obligations we have in relation to the AR Mutant Program), bankruptcy, or the failure or inability to demonstrate clinical proof of concept with respect to the AR Mutant Program during specified timeframes. In addition, the license and agreement will automatically terminate with respect to the AR Mutant Program, upon Janssen exercising its option in respect of the AR Mutant Program and making payment of the option exercise fee to us or, if Janssen does not exercise the option, upon the expiration of all our payment obligations to Janssen with respect of the AR Mutant Program. We may also terminate the agreement in its entirety without cause, subject to specified conditions.

In March 2014, we entered into a license agreement with Santen, under which we granted Santen an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents, information and know-how related to carotuximab, or the Carotuximab Technology. Under the agreement, as amended, Santen is permitted to use, develop, manufacture and commercialize carotuximab products for ophthalmology indications, excluding systemic treatment of ocular tumors. Santen also has the right to grant sublicenses to affiliates and third party collaborators, provided such sublicenses are consistent with the terms of our agreement. In the event Santen sublicenses any of its

rights under the agreement relating to the Carotuximab Technology, Santen will be obligated to pay us a portion of any upfront and certain milestone payments received under such sublicense.

Santen has sole responsibility for funding, developing, seeking regulatory approval for and commercializing carotuximab products in the field of ophthalmology. In the event that Santen fails to meet certain commercial diligence obligations, we will have the option to co-promote carotuximab products in the field of ophthalmology in the United States with Santen. If we exercise this option, we will pay Santen a percentage of certain development expenses, and we will receive a percentage of profits from sales of the licensed products in the ophthalmology field in the United States, but will not also receive royalties on such sales.

We will own any and all discoveries and inventions made solely by us under the agreement, and Santen will own any and all discoveries and inventions made solely by Santen under the agreement. We will jointly own discoveries and inventions made jointly by us and Santen. We have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the patents licensed to Santen under the agreement, and Santen has the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the patents it controls that are related to carotuximab and the patents owned jointly by us and Santen. Subject to certain limitations, if the party with the first right to enforce a patent fails to timely do so, the other party will have the right to enforce such patent.

In consideration of the rights granted to Santen under the agreement, we received a one-time upfront fee of $10.0 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive up to a total of $155.0 million in milestone payments upon the achievement of certain milestones, of which $20.0 million relates to the initiation of certain development activities, $52.5 million relates to the submission of certain regulatory filings and receipt of certain regulatory approvals, and $82.5 million relates to commercialization activities and the achievement of specified levels of product sales. If carotuximab products are successfully commercialized in the field of ophthalmology, Santen will be required to pay us tiered royalties on net sales ranging from high single digits to low teens, depending on the volume of sales, subject to adjustments in certain circumstances. In addition, Santen will reimburse us for all royalties due by us under certain third party agreements with respect to the use, manufacture or commercialization of carotuximab products in the field of ophthalmology by Santen and its affiliates and sublicensees. Royalties will continue on a country-by-country basis through the later of the expiration of our patent rights applicable to the carotuximab products in a given country or 12 years after the first commercial sale of the first carotuximab product commercially launched in such country.

Santen may unilaterally terminate this agreement in its entirety, or on a country-by-country basis, for any reason or for no reason upon at least 90 days’ notice to us (or 30 days’ notice if after a change in control). Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or dissolution or for the other party’s material breach of the agreement that remains uncured 90 days (or 30 days with respect to a payment breach) after receiving notice from the non-breaching party. Unless earlier terminated, the agreement continues in effect until the termination of Santen’s payment obligations.

In November 2005, we entered into a license agreement with Health Research Inc. and Roswell Park Cancer Institute, referred to collectively as RPCI. Under the agreement, as amended, we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents and other intellectual property rights controlled by RPCI related to endoglin antibodies, including carotuximab, and their therapeutic uses, which we refer to as the RPCI Technology, and a non-exclusive, worldwide license to certain know-how controlled by RPCI related to the RPCI Technology. Under the agreement, we are permitted to use, manufacture, develop and commercialize products utilizing the RPCI Technology in all fields of use. In addition, we are permitted to sublicense our rights under the agreement to third parties.

Under the agreement, we are responsible for development and commercialization activities for products utilizing the RPCI Technology, and we are obligated to use all commercially reasonable efforts to bring a product utilizing the RPCI Technology to market timely and efficiently.

In consideration of the rights granted to us under the agreement, we paid a one-time upfront fee to RPCI. In addition, we may be required to pay up to an aggregate of approximately $6.4 million upon the achievement of certain milestones for products utilizing the RPCI Technology, including carotuximab, of which approximately $1.4 million relates to the initiation of certain development activities and $5.0 million relates to certain regulatory filings and approvals. Pursuant to an amendment entered into in November 2009, we may also be required to pay up to an aggregate of approximately $6.4 million upon the achievement of certain milestones for products utilizing a patent owned by us covering humanized endoglin antibodies, including TRC205, a humanized and deimmunized endoglin antibody, of which approximately $1.4 million relates to the initiation of certain development activities and $5.0 million relates to certain regulatory filings and approvals. Upon commercialization, we will be required to pay RPCI mid-single-digit royalties based on net sales of products utilizing the RPCI Technology in each calendar quarter, subject to adjustments in certain circumstances. In addition, pursuant to the amendment entered into in November 2009, we will be required to pay RPCI low single-digit royalties based on net sales in each calendar quarter of products utilizing our patent covering humanized endoglin antibodies. Our royalty obligations continue until the expiration of the last valid claim in a patent subject to the agreement, which we expect to occur in 2029, based on the patents currently subject to the agreement.

We may unilaterally terminate this agreement in whole or in part, for any reason or no reason, upon at least 60 days’ notice to RPCI. RPCI may terminate the agreement if we fail to pay any amount due under the agreement or materially breach the agreement and the breach remains uncured 90 days after receiving notice. In the event of our bankruptcy, the agreement will automatically terminate. Unless otherwise terminated, the agreement will remain in effect on a country-by-country basis until the expiration of the last valid claim under the patents subject to the agreement.

In August 2006, we entered into a license agreement with Case Western, under which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property controlled by Case Western related to methoxyamine, which we refer to as the TRC102 Technology. Under the agreement, as amended, we have the right to use, manufacture and commercialize products utilizing the TRC102 Technology for all mammalian therapeutic uses, and to sublicense these rights.

Under the agreement, we are generally obligated to use our best efforts to commercialize the TRC102 Technology as soon as possible. We are also required to meet specified diligence milestones, and if we fail to do so and do not cure such failure, Case Western may convert our license into a non-exclusive license or terminate the agreement.

In consideration of the rights granted to us under the agreement, we paid a one-time upfront fee to Case Western. In addition, we may be required to pay up to an aggregate of approximately $9.8 million in milestone payments, of which $650,000 relates to the initiation of certain development activities and approximately $9.1 million relates to the submission of certain regulatory filings and receipt of certain regulatory approvals. If products utilizing the TRC102 Technology are successfully commercialized, we will be required to pay Case Western a single-digit royalty on net sales, subject to adjustments in certain circumstances. Beginning on the earlier of a specified number of years from the effective date of the agreement and the anniversary of the effective date following the occurrence of a specified event, we will be required to make a minimum annual royalty payment of $75,000, which will be credited against our royalty obligations. In the event we sublicense any of our rights under the agreement relating to the TRC102 Technology, we will be obligated to pay Case Western a portion of certain fees we may receive under the sublicense. Our royalty obligations will continue through the later of (i) the expiration of any orphan drug marketing exclusivity for a product utilizing the TRC102 Technology, (ii) August 2026, or (iii) on a country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last valid claim under the TRC102 Technology or any patent we receive that is a derivative of the TRC102 Technology.

We may unilaterally terminate this agreement in its entirety, for any reason or for no reason, upon at least 30 days’ notice to Case Western. If we do so, we will be required to pay Case Western a termination fee. If we fail to pay any amount required under the agreement and do not cure the default within 90 days of receiving notice, Case Western will have the right to convert our exclusive license to a non-exclusive license or to terminate the agreement entirely. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of the other party’s material breach of the agreement that remains uncured 60 days after receiving notice of the breach.

In June 2009, we entered into a license agreement with Lonza Sales AG, or Lonza, under which we obtained a world-wide non-exclusive license to Lonza’s glutamine synthetase gene expression system consisting of cell lines into which TRC105 may be transfected and corresponding patents and applications, which we refer to as the Lonza Technology. Under the agreement, we are permitted to use, develop, manufacture and commercialize TRC105 obtained through use of the Lonza Technology.

In consideration for the rights granted to us under the agreement, we are required to pay Lonza a low single-digit percentage royalty on the net selling price of TRC105 product manufactured by Lonza. In the event that we or a strategic partner or collaborator manufactures the product, we will be required to pay Lonza an annual lump sum payment of £75,000, along with a low single-digit percentage royalty on the net selling price of the manufactured TRC105 product. In the event that we sublicense our manufacturing rights under the agreement (other than to a strategic partner or collaborator), we will be obligated to pay Lonza an annual lump sum payment of £300,000 per sublicense, along with a low single-digit percentage royalty on the net selling price of the manufactured TRC105 product. If, on a country-by-country basis, the manufacture or sale of the TRC105 product is not protected by a valid claim in a licensed patent, our royalty obligations in such country will decrease and will expire 12 years after the first commercial sale of the product.

We may unilaterally terminate this agreement for any reason upon at least 60 days’ written notice to Lonza. Either party may terminate the agreement by written notice if the other party commits a breach and, if the breach is curable, does not cure the breach within 30 days of receiving notice from the non-breaching party. In addition, either party may terminate the agreement with written notice in the event of the other party’s liquidation or appointment of a receiver. Unless earlier terminated, the agreement continues in

effect until the later of the expiration of the last valid claim in a licensed patent or for so long as the know-how subject to the agreement is identified and remains secret and substantial.

We are a party to a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA, with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by NCI, for the development of TRC102 for the treatment of cancer. We entered into the CRADA governing the development of TRC102 (TRC102 CRADA) in August 2012 with NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.

Under the CRADA, as amended, NCI conducts clinical trials and non-clinical studies of TRC102. Pursuant the TRC102 CRADA, we are required to pay NCI $20,000 per year per Phase 1 clinical trial and $25,000 per year per Phase 2 clinical trial, as well as expenses incurred by NCI in connection with carrying out its responsibilities under the TRC102 CRADA, up to an aggregate maximum per year of $200,000. We may also provide funding to support assays and other studies, and if NCI supplies TRC102 for additional mutually approved clinical trials beyond the planned trials, we will reimburse NCI for costs associated with manufacturing TRC102. In addition, we made a one-time payment of $20,000 for the initial IND filing and may be required to make additional one-time payments of $10,000 each for additional IND filings. Funding for clinical trials beyond those contemplated by the TRC102 CRADA will be determined in an amendment to the applicable CRADA.

Under the CRADA, each party individually owns all inventions, data and materials produced solely by its employees in the course of performing research activities pursuant to the CRADA. The parties jointly own any inventions and materials that are jointly produced by employees of both parties. Subject to certain conditions, we have the option under the CRADA to negotiate commercialization licenses from the government to intellectual property conceived or first reduced to practice in performance of the CRADA research plan that was developed solely by NCI employees or jointly by us and NCI employees.

The TRC102 CRADA had an original five-year term expiring on August 7, 2020. The CRADA may be terminated at any time by mutual written consent, and we or NCI may unilaterally terminate the CRADA for any reason or no reason by providing written notice at least 60 days before the desired termination date.

We do not own or operate, nor do we expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage, distribution or testing. We therefore rely on various third-party manufacturers and corporate partners for the production of our product candidates.

Envafolimab is manufactured by AlphaMab in China and fill finish is performed by a contract manufacturer in the United States. Pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, envafolimab to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use.

TRC102 drug substance is manufactured through a standard chemical synthesis and may be obtained from multiple manufacturers.

TRC253 drug substance is manufactured through a standard chemical synthesis by an experienced contract manufacturer and is currently being produced at clinical scale.

TJ004309 is supplied to us from a contract manufacturer contracted by I-Mab as I-Mab is responsible for the supply of TJ004309 and all related drug supply activities under the terms of the TJ004309 Agreement.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive, and we and our collaborators face competition with respect to each of our product candidates in their target indications. Many of the entities developing and marketing potentially competing products have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop.

If our product candidates are approved, they will compete with currently marketed drugs and therapies used for treatment of the following indications, and potentially with drug candidates currently in development for the same indications.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of any approved product will include its efficacy, safety profile, price, method of administration and level of promotional activity.

There is no PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy approved by the FDA for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. Keytruda (marketed by Merck) has a compendia listing for the treatment of UPS, and is used off-label for the treatment of patients with UPS. If envafolimab is approved, it may nevertheless compete with currently marketed PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, including Opdivo (marketed by Bristol-Meyers Squibb), Keytruda (marketed by Merck), Imfinzi (marketed by AstraZeneca), and Tecentriq (marketed by Roche) which are approved by the FDA in multiple indications other than soft tissue sarcoma. PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors collectively sold over $14 billion in 2018.

We are developing TRC102 to be used in combination with alkylating chemotherapeutics (including Temodar) and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics (including Alimta and Fludara) for the treatment of cancer. If TRC102 is approved, it could compete with other inhibitors of DNA repair. Tesaro, Inc. (now GSK), Clovis Oncology and Astra Zeneca each market inhibitors of DNA repair that work by a mechanism of action that is distinct from that of TRC102. In addition to the therapies mentioned above, there are many generic chemotherapeutics and other regimens commonly used to treat various types of cancer, including soft tissue sarcoma and glioblastoma.

We are developing TRC253 for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. If TRC253 is approved, it could compete with other androgen receptor inhibitors such as Xtandi, Nubeqa (darolutamide) and Erleada. In addition to the therapies mentioned above, there are many generic chemotherapeutics and other agents commonly used to treat prostate cancer.

We are developing TJ004309 for the treatment of solid tumors, including bladder cancer. If TJ004309 is approved, it could compete with other anti-CD73 immunotherapies including CD73 antibodies as well as adenosine receptor inhibitors already in clinical development sponsored by Bristol-Meyers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Arcus Biosciences and Corvus Pharmaceuticals.

Our partner, Santen, is developing DE-122 for the treatment of wet AMD and other eye diseases. If DE-122 is approved as a single agent, it would compete with currently marketed VEGF inhibitors, including Avastin and Lucentis (marketed by Genentech in the United States), and Eylea (marketed by Regeneron in the United States), Beovu (marketed by Novartis) which are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors as the standard of care for the treatment of wet AMD. In addition, DE-122 could face competition from other VEGF inhibitors in development in wet AMD, including gene therapy products.

We hold North America commercialization rights in the field of sarcoma for envafolimab (subject to certain rights held by 3D Medicines and Alphamab) and worldwide commercialization rights for our other oncology product candidates (subject to certain rights held by Janssen for TRC253 and I-Mab for TJ004309), while Santen holds worldwide commercialization rights for our endoglin antibodies, including TRC105, in the field of ophthalmology. If any of our product candidates are approved in oncology indications, our plan is to build an oncology-focused specialty sales force in the U.S. to support their commercialization and seek a partner(s) to support commercialization outside the U.S. to the extent we have commercial rights in other territories. We believe that a specialty sales force will be sufficient to target key prescribing physicians in oncology. We currently do not have any sales or marketing capabilities or experience as a company. We plan to establish the required capabilities within an appropriate time frame ahead of any product approval and commercialization to support a product launch.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our protein therapeutics, novel biological discoveries, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and

implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we expect to benefit from a variety of statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe, Japan and other countries that relate to the regulation of biosimilar molecules and orphan drug status. These statutory frameworks provide periods of non-patent-based exclusivity for qualifying molecules. See “Government Regulation.”

Our patenting strategy is focused on our protein therapeutics. We seek composition of matter and method of treatment patents for each such protein in key therapeutic areas. We also seek patent protection with respect to companion diagnostic methods and compositions and treatments for targeted patient populations. We have sought patent protection alone or jointly with our collaborators, as dictated by our collaboration agreements.

Our patent estate as of December 31, 2019, on a worldwide basis, includes sixteen (16) issued patents/allowed applications and ten (10) pending patent applications in the United States; and includes one hundred eleven (111) issued patents/allowed applications and sixty-five (65) pending patent applications outside the United States with pending and issued claims relating to our product candidates. These figures exclude development rights we have acquired through our licensing and collaboration agreements, including TRC253, TJ004309, and envafolimab.

Individual patents extend for varying periods of time depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued from applications filed in the United States are effective for twenty years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, however, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also twenty years from the earliest international filing date. Our issued patents and pending applications with respect to our protein therapeutic candidates will expire on dates ranging from 2023 to 2038, exclusive of possible patent term extensions. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product by product basis, from country to country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of extensions of patent term, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

National and international patent laws concerning protein therapeutics remain highly unsettled. No consistent policy regarding the patent-eligibility or the breadth of claims allowed in such patents has emerged to date in the United States, Europe or other countries. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries can diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our drugs and technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. We do not know whether any of the patent applications that we may file or license from third parties will result in the issuance of any patents. The issued patents that we own or may receive in the future, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize similar drugs or duplicate our technology, business model or strategy without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a drug we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our drugs can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. The patent positions for our most advanced programs are summarized below:

We hold issued patents covering methods for inhibiting breast cancer or colon cancer with a combination of carotuximab and cyclophosphamide (CPA) or doxorubicin in the United States. The expected expiration date for these method-of-use patents is 2034, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

We are co-owners with Health Research, Inc., to issued patents covering the combination therapy of cancer with carotuximab and VEGF inhibitors in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Eurasia, Israel, South Korea, and Japan and pending patent applications in Europe, Hong Kong, and the United States. We also have an exclusive license from Health Research, Inc., to these issued patents and pending applications. The expected expiration date for these method-of-use patents is 2030, exclusive of any possible patent term extensions.

We hold issued patents and allowed applications covering formulations of endoglin antibodies in Australia, Eurasia, Georgia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and the United States; and patent

applications are pending in Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam. The expected expiration date for any patent that may issue from this application is 2033, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

We hold issued patents and allowed applications covering our humanized and deimmunized anti-endoglin antibodies, including TRC205, in Australia, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and the United States, and similar applications are pending in many other major jurisdictions worldwide, including the United States, and Brazil. The expected expiration date for these composition of matter and methods of use patents is 2029, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

We hold issued patents covering methods of treating fibrosis with our anti-endoglin antibodies in the United States and have pending patent applications in Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, and the United States. The expected expiration date for any patent that may arise from these applications is 2035, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

Specific to the development of envafoloimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in North America, we hold an exclusive license from 3D Medicines and Alphamab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering envafoloimab. We also hold a non-exclusive license for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union in support of the development of envafoloimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in North America. 3D Medicines and Alphamab retain ownership of any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical composition or preparation comprising envafoloimab.

We hold issued patents directed to combination of TRC102 and pemetrexed in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. We also have pending applications in other jurisdictions, including Brazil, China, Hong Kong, and India. The expected expiration date for these patents is 2027, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

We hold an issued patent on further combinations of TRC102 in Europe and have a pending patent application in the United States. The expected expiration date for these patents is 2031, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

We hold an exclusive license to a patent in the United States covering TRC253 and methods of using TRC253. The expected expiration date for the US case and any patents issuing from the PCT application is 2037, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

We also hold an exclusive license to patents in Australia, Eurasia, Europe, Japan, Ukraine, and the United States; and to patent applications in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Europe, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, United States, and Vietnam, which are directed to methods for determining resistance to androgen receptor therapy. The expected expiration date for patents issuing from these applications is 2033, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

Specific to the development of TJ004309 in North America, we hold a non-exclusive license from I-Mab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical composition or preparation comprising or containing TJ004309. I-Mab retains ownership of any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical composition or preparation comprising or containing TJ004309.

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets, trademarks and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These

agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. In addition, we seek trademark protection in the United States and internationally where available and when we deem appropriate. Furthermore, we are a party to a number of license agreements under which we are granted intellectual property rights to know-how that are important to our business.

The preclinical studies and clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, storage, record keeping, advertising, promotion, export, marketing and sales, among other things, of our product candidates and future products, are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. In the United States, pharmaceutical products are regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), in addition to the FDA’s implementing regulations. We expect envafolimab to be regulated by the FDA as a biologic, which requires the submission of a BLA and approval by the FDA prior to being marketed in the United States. We expect our small molecule product candidate TRC102 to be regulated as a drug and subject to New Drug Application, or NDA, requirements, which are substantially similar to the BLA requirements discussed below. Manufacturers of our product candidates may also be subject to state regulation. Failure to comply with FDA requirements, both before and after product approval, may subject us or our partners, contract manufacturers and suppliers to administrative or judicial sanctions, including FDA refusal to approve applications, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, fines and/or criminal prosecution.

The steps required before a biologic may be approved for marketing of an indication in the United States generally include:

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the biologic candidate. Preclinical studies must be conducted in compliance with FDA regulations regarding GLPs. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Nonclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the preclinical testing, the IND will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase or phases of the clinical trial lends themselves to an efficacy determination. The IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA within the 30-day time period places the IND on clinical hold because of its concerns about the drug candidate or the conduct of the trial described in the clinical protocol included in the IND. The FDA can also place the IND on clinical hold at any time during drug development for safety concerns related to the investigational drug or to the class of products to which it belongs. The IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can proceed.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified principal investigators in accordance with GCPs. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the applicable phase of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually. Sponsors also must timely report to the FDA serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator’s brochure, or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug. An institutional review board, or IRB, at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol before a clinical trial commences at that

institution, approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative, and monitor the study until completed.

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap and different trials may be initiated with the same drug candidate within the same phase of development in similar or differing patient populations. Phase 1 clinical trials may be conducted in a limited number of patients, but are usually conducted in healthy volunteer subjects for indications other than oncology. The drug candidate is initially tested for safety and, as appropriate, for absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.

Phase 2 usually involves trials in a larger, but still limited, patient population to evaluate preliminarily the efficacy of the drug candidate for specific, targeted indications to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage and to identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks.

Phase 3 trials are undertaken to further evaluate clinical efficacy of a specific endpoint and to test further for safety within an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 testing might not be completed successfully within any specific time period, if at all, with respect to any of our product candidates. Results from one trial are not necessarily predictive of results from later trials. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

The results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture and composition of the product, are submitted to the FDA as part of a marketing application requesting approval to market the drug candidate for a proposed indication. Under the PDUFA, the fees payable to the FDA for reviewing a marketing application, as well as annual program fees for approved products, can be substantial. The fees typically increase each year. Each marketing application submitted to the FDA for approval is reviewed for administrative completeness and reviewability within 60 days following receipt by the FDA of the application. If the application is found complete, the FDA will file the marketing application, triggering a full review of the application. The FDA may refuse to file any marketing application that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission. The FDA’s established goal is to review 90% of priority marketing applications within six months after the application is accepted for filing and 90% of standard marketing applications within 10 months of the acceptance date, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA, however, may not approve a drug candidate within these established goals and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. Further, the outcome of the review, even if generally favorable, may not be an actual approval but a “complete response letter” that describes additional work that must be done before the application can be approved. Before approving a marketing application, the FDA may inspect the facility or facilities at which the product is manufactured and will not approve the product unless the facility complies with cGMPs. The FDA may deny approval of a marketing application if applicable statutory or regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or may require additional testing or information, which can extend the review process. FDA approval of any application may include many delays or never be granted. If a product is approved, the approval may impose limitations on the uses for which the product may be marketed, may require that warning statements be included in the product labeling, may require that additional studies be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval, and may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. The FDA must approve a marketing application supplement or a new marketing application before a product may be marketed for other uses or before certain manufacturing or other changes may be made. Further post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of a product is required. Also, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety or manufacturing problems occur following initial marketing. In addition, new government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, created a pathway for licensure, or approval, of biological products that are biosimilar to, and possibly interchangeable with, earlier biological products licensed under the PHSA. Also under the BPCIA, innovator manufacturers of original reference biological products are granted 12 years of exclusivity before biosimilars can be approved for marketing in the United States.

Both before and after the FDA approves a product, the manufacturer and the holder or holders of the marketing application for the product are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight. For example, quality control and manufacturing procedures must conform, on an ongoing basis, to cGMP requirements, and the FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to spend time, money and effort to maintain cGMP compliance.

Additionally, the FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment,

prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments but the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Although we currently do not have any products on the market, we may be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal, fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback and false claims, privacy and security and physician sunshine laws and regulations, many of which may become more applicable if our product candidates are approved and we begin commercialization. For additional details regarding the federal, state and foreign healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry— “We are subject to extensive federal, state, and foreign regulation, and our failure to comply with these laws could harm our business.” If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, significant civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, imprisonment, and 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, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

The United States Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to manufacturers to develop and market drugs for rare diseases and conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States at the time of application for orphan drug designation. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the holder of the approval is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that product except in very limited circumstances. For example, a drug that the FDA considers to be clinically superior to, or different from, another approved orphan drug, even though for the same indication, may also obtain approval in the United States during the seven-year exclusive marketing period. In addition, holders of exclusivity for orphan drugs are expected to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of their orphan drugs to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in the withdrawal of marketing exclusivity for the drug.

Legislation similar to the Orphan Drug Act has been enacted outside the United States, including in the European Union and Japan. The orphan legislation in the European Union is available for therapies addressing chronic debilitating or life-threatening conditions that affect five or fewer out of 10,000 persons or are financially not viable to develop. The market exclusivity period is for ten years, although that period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, available evidence establishes that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. The market exclusivity may be extended to 12 years if sponsors complete a pediatric investigation plan agreed upon with the relevant committee of the European Medicines Agency. Orphan legislation in Japan similarly provides for ten years of marketing exclusivity for drugs that are approved for the treatment of rare diseases and conditions.

New biological products will benefit, if approved, from the data exclusivity provisions legislated in the United States, the European Union and Japan. All three regions effectively provide a period of data exclusivity to innovator biologic products. U.S. legislation provides a 12-year period of data exclusivity from the date of first licensure of a reference biologic product. EU legislation provides a period of 10 to 11 years and Japan legislation provides a period of 8 years during which companies cannot be granted approval as generic drugs to approved biologic therapies. Protection from generic competition is also available for new chemical entities, including potentially the small molecule TRC102, in the United States for 5 years, in the European Union for 10 to 11 years and in Japan for 8 years.

The European Union has led the way among the International Council for Harmonisation regions in establishing a regulatory framework for biosimilar products. The marketing authorization of generic medicinal products and similar biological medicinal products are governed in the European Union by Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (2001). Unlike generic medicinal products, which only need to demonstrate bioequivalence to an authorized reference product, similar biological medicinal products are required to submit preclinical and clinical data, the type and quantity of which is dictated by class and product specific guidelines. In order to submit a marketing authorization for a similar biological medicinal product, the reference product must have been authorized for marketing in the European Union for at least 8 years. Biosimilars can only be authorized for use once the period of data exclusivity on the biological reference medicine has expired. In general, this means that the biological reference medicine must have been authorized

for at least 10 years before a similar biological medicine can be made available by another company. The 10-year period can be extended to a maximum of 11 if, during the first 8 years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison to existing therapies.

Many EU countries have banned interchangeability of biosimilars with their reference products to ensure adequate characterization of the safety profile of the biosimilar and to enable comparison to that of reference product.

In 2009, Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, or MHLW, and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Device Agency, or PMDA, issued the first Japanese guidance on biosimilars. The guideline (currently available only in Japanese), which shares common key features to EU guidelines, outlines the nonclinical, clinical and CMC requirements for biosimilar applications and describes the review process, naming conventions and application fees.

Japan does not grant exclusivity to pharmaceutical products; however, the country does have a Post Marketing Surveillance, or PMS, system that affects the timing of generic entry and, in effect, provides a period of market exclusivity to innovator products. This system allows safety data to be acquired for each product. A PMS period is set for most of new drug approvals, and until this period is over, generic companies cannot submit their applications for drug approvals as generic drugs. Recently, this period was extended to 8 years for all new drug approvals. Japan’s regulations do not allow currently for interchangeability of biosimilars with their reference products.

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track, priority review, and accelerated approval, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for reviewing drugs and biologics, and/or provide for the approval of a drug or biologic on the basis of a surrogate endpoint. Even if a drug qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be shortened. Generally, drugs that are eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. For example, Fast Track is a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and fill unmet medical needs. Priority review is designed to give drugs that offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists an initial review within six months as compared to a standard review time of ten months. Although Fast Track and priority review do not affect the standards for approval, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor of a Fast Track designated drug and expedite review of the application for a drug designated for priority review. Accelerated approval provides for an earlier approval for a new drug that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and that fills an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a laboratory measurement or physical sign used as an indirect or substitute measurement representing a clinically meaningful outcome. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug candidate receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to confirm the clinically meaningful outcome as predicted by the surrogate marker trial.

Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, certain drugs may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity, if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA, or a Written Request, relating to the use of the active moiety of the drug in children. The FDA may decline to issue a Written Request for studies on unapproved or approved indications or where it determines that information relating to the use of a drug in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may not produce health benefits in that population.

We have not received a Written Request for such pediatric studies, although we may ask the FDA to issue a Written Request for such studies in the future. To receive the six-month pediatric market exclusivity, we would have to receive a Written Request from the FDA, conduct the requested studies in accordance with a written agreement with the FDA or, if there is no written agreement, in accordance with commonly accepted scientific principles, and submit reports of the studies. A Written Request may include studies for indications that are not currently in the labeling if the FDA determines that such information will benefit the public health. The FDA will accept the reports upon its determination that the studies were conducted in accordance with and are responsive to the original Written Request or commonly accepted scientific principles, as appropriate, and that the reports comply with the FDA’s filing requirements.

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric studies for most drugs and biologicals, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under

PREA, original NDAs, BLAs and supplements thereto must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must include the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric studies for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug or biologic is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric studies begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In both domestic and foreign markets, sales and reimbursement of any approved products will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels, for such products. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Additionally, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, the payors may not cover our products after approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for our products will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates or products to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts. Third-party payors are challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit reimbursement for newly-approved health care products. Recent budgetary pressures in many European Union countries are also causing governments to consider or implement various cost-containment measures, such as price freezes, increased price cuts and rebates. If budget pressures continue, governments may implement additional cost-containment measures. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for products that we may develop or sell, which would result in lower product revenues or royalties payable to us. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products.

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biological products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system of the United States. It is uncertain what legislative proposals will be adopted or what actions federal, state or private payors for medical goods and services may take in response to any healthcare reform proposals or legislation. Adoption of new legislation at the federal or state level could further limit reimbursement for pharmaceuticals, including our product candidates if approved. We cannot predict the effect medical or healthcare reforms may have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms will not have a material adverse effect. For additional details regarding health reform activity, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Commercialization of Product Candidates — “Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.”

In addition to regulations in the United States, we and our collaborators will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our product candidates. Whether or not we or our collaborators obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we or our collaborators must obtain approval from the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, before we or our collaborators may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product

licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Certain countries outside of the United States have a process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be approved by the competent national health authority and by independent ethics committees in each country in which a company intends to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed in that country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCPs and other applicable regulatory requirements.

Under European Union regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the European Medicines Agency where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. A favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one member state, known as the “reference” member state. Under the decentralized approval procedure, an applicant submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a member state does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

In China, the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) monitors and supervises the administration of pharmaceutical products, as well as medical devices and equipment. In order to conduct clinical trials in China a clinical trial application must be submitted and approved by the CFDA. When clinical trials have been completed, an applicant must apply to the CFDA for approval of a new drug application. The CFDA, the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE), and the Drug Inspection Institution will then conduct reviews and on-site inspections. The CFDA determines whether to approve the application according to the comprehensive evaluation opinions produced by the reviews and on-site inspections. We or our collaborators must obtain approval of new drug applications before our product candidates can be manufactured and sold in the Chinese market. In addition, all facilities and techniques used in the manufacture of products for clinical use or for sale in China must be operated in conformity with good manufacturing practice guidelines as established by the CFDA. Failure to comply with applicable requirements could result in the termination of manufacturing and significant fines.

We are also subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential federal, state or local regulations. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological and chemical substances used in, and waste generated by our operations. Our research and development involves the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals and viruses. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources.

As of December 31, 2019, we had 19 full-time employees, 12 of whom are involved in research, development or manufacturing, and two of whom have Ph.D., Pharm.D. or M.D. degrees. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

We were incorporated in the state of Delaware in October 2004 as Lexington Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and we subsequently changed our name to TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005, at which time we relocated to San Diego, California. Our principal executive offices are located at 4350 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92122, and our telephone number is (858) 550-0780. Our corporate website address is www.traconpharma.com and we regularly post copies of our press releases as well

as additional information about us on our website. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this Annual Report, and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report is an inactive textual reference only.

This Annual Report contains references to our trademarks and to trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and you should carefully consider them. Accordingly, in evaluating our business, we encourage you to consider the following discussion of risk factors, in its entirety, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report as well as our other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We have incurred losses from operations since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a clinical stage company with limited operating history. All of the product candidates we are developing will require substantial additional development time and resources before we or our partners would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We have incurred losses from operations in each year since our inception, including net losses of $22.7 million and $35.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. At December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $162.3 million.

We expect to continue to incur substantial expenses as we expand our development activities and advance our clinical programs. To become and remain profitable, we or our partners must succeed in developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for them, and manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we or our partners may obtain regulatory approval. We or they may not succeed in these activities, and we may never generate revenue from product sales that is significant enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical and biological product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. In addition, our expenses could increase if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform studies or trials in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any product candidates. 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.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and failure to obtain additional financing when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our drug development efforts. There is substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. We expect our current level of research and development expenses to decrease slightly due to the termination of carotuximab development in oncology as we expect to initiate a registration enabling study of envafolimab in UPS.

At December 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling $16.4 million. Based upon our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital requirements into early 2021, presuming our payment obligations under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan continue to follow the contractual maturity schedule. We will need additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of product candidates, including envafolimab. In addition, in 2016 we licensed TRC253 from Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., or Janssen, and are subject to obligations to develop the program through clinical proof of concept. To the extent we retain the program, we will need additional funds to advance the program through later stages of development. In November 2018, we entered into separate collaboration and clinical trial agreements with I-Mab for the development of multiple immuno-oncology programs. Under the agreements, we are responsible for various portions of the costs to conduct clinical trials, among other development obligations. We will need additional funds to advance the development of these programs and meet our cost-sharing obligations, and these requirements may be substantial depending on how many programs are selected for development and the stage of development each program reaches. As more fully discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in this report, the uncertainties around our ability to obtain additional funding raise

substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern for a period of one year following the date that these financial statements were issued.

Regardless of our expectations, changing circumstances beyond our control may cause us to consume capital more rapidly than we currently anticipate. For example, our clinical trials may encounter technical, enrollment or other difficulties or we could encounter difficulties obtaining clinical trial material that could increase our development costs more than we expect. In any event, we will require additional capital prior to completing clinical development, filing for regulatory approval, or commercializing any product candidates.

In September 2018, we entered into a Capital on Demand^TM Sales Agreement, or the JonesTrading Agreement, as amended in February 2019, with JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC, or JonesTrading, pursuant to which we could sell from time to time, at our option, up to an aggregate of $11.6 million of shares of our common stock through JonesTrading, as sales agent, subject to limitations on the amount of securities we may sell under our effective registration statement on Form S-3 within any 12 month period. In October 2019, we entered into a Common Stock Purchase Agreement, or the 2019 Purchase Agreement, with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC, or Aspire Capital, pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in the 2019 Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of our common stock at our request from time to time. As of the date of this report, we have sold approximately $5.3 million under the JonesTrading Agreement and we have sold $0.8 million under the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital. While the JonesTrading Agreement and 2019 Purchase Agreement provide us with additional options to raise capital through sales of our common stock, there can be no guarantee that we will be able to sell shares under either agreement in the future, or that any sales will generate sufficient proceeds to meet our capital requirements. In particular, JonesTrading is under no obligation to sell any shares of our common stock that we may request to be sold under the JonesTrading Agreement from time to time, and while Aspire Capital is obligated to purchase shares of our common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the obligation is subject to our satisfaction of various conditions which we may not be able to meet in the future. If sales are made under either the JonesTrading Agreement or the 2019 Purchase Agreement, our existing stockholders may experience dilution and such sales, or the perception that such sales are or will be occurring, may cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

Attempting to secure additional financing may divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital when required or on acceptable terms, we may be required to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of product candidates or otherwise significantly curtail, or cease, operations. If we are unable to pursue or are forced to delay our planned drug development efforts due to lack of financing, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through equity offerings and debt financings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through licensing or collaboration arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

Our loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, contains restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business. We may be required to make a prepayment or repay the outstanding indebtedness earlier than we expect if a prepayment event or an event of default occurs, including a material adverse change with respect to us, which could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

On May 3, 2018, we entered into an amended loan and security agreement with SVB to borrow $7.0 million, all of which was used to refinance amounts outstanding under prior credit facilities with SVB. The agreement, as amended, contains various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions. These covenants limit our ability to, among other things:

The restrictive covenants of the agreement could cause us to be unable to pursue business opportunities that we or our stockholders may consider beneficial.

A breach of any of these covenants could result in an event of default under the agreement. An event of default will also occur if, among other things, a material adverse change in our business, operations or condition occurs, which could potentially include negative results in clinical trials, or a material impairment of the prospect of our repayment of any portion of the amounts we owe under the agreement occurs. In the case of a continuing event of default under the agreement, SVB could elect to declare all amounts outstanding to be immediately due and payable, proceed against the collateral in which we granted SVB a security interest under the agreement, or otherwise exercise the rights of a secured creditor. Amounts outstanding under the agreement are secured by all of our existing and future assets, excluding intellectual property, which is subject to a negative pledge arrangement.

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Regulatory Approval of Product Candidates

If the response rate of envafolimab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab in UPS is not significantly higher than existing therapies, our strategy of basing the initial accelerated approval of envafolimab on overall response rate as the primary endpoint could delay or prevent the approval of envafolimab in UPS.

Envafolimab will be initially developed in refractory UPS, where the PD-(L)1 inhibitors given as single agents or in combination with ipilimumab demonstrated response rates which were significantly higher than the response rate demonstrated by the approved treatment Votrient or chemotherapy in UPS. We believe that the response rate of envafolimab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab has the potential to exceed that of other PD-(L)1 inhibitors given as single agents and when combined with ipilimumab. However, if the response rate of envafolimab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab in UPS is not significantly higher than Votrient or other chemotherapy, our strategy of basing the initial accelerated approval of envafolimab on overall response rate as the primary endpoint will be unlikely to succeed, which could delay or prevent the approval of envafolimab in UPS.

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development.

Clinical development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. For example, we announced in April 2019 that the Phase 3 TAPPAS trial evaluating carotuximab in combination with Votrient (pazopanib) in patients with advanced or metastatic angiosarcoma was terminated for futility based on the recommendation of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee following its review of interim unblinded safety and efficacy data from more than 120 patients enrolled in the trial at the time of the analysis. Given these data, we terminated further enrollment in trials of carotuximab in oncology. It is possible that the failure of carotuximab to show efficacy in late-stage oncology clinical trials makes it less likely that it will be effective in wet AMD due to the same mechanism of action and strategy to combine it with VEGF inhibitors. In addition, favorable results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of subsequent clinical trials.

Even if product candidates demonstrate favorable results in ongoing or planned Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, many product candidates fail to show desired safety and efficacy traits in late-stage clinical trials despite having progressed through earlier trials. In addition to the potential lack of safety or efficacy of product candidates, clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, manufacture of clinical trial material, dose selection and patient enrollment criteria, or differences in determination of progression events by investigators compared to central radiographic reviewers. With respect to envafolimab, while results of trials conducted by others outside of the United States have been promising, they may not be predictive of results in U.S. trials due to differences in study design, target indications, patient populations, availability of alternative treatments and other factors. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we or our partners may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data

obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

If any product candidate is found to be unsafe or lack efficacy, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for it and our stock price would be materially and adversely affected.

Delays in clinical trials are common and have many causes, and any delay could result in increased costs to us and jeopardize or delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commence product sales.

We may experience delays in clinical trials of product candidates. Our ongoing and planned clinical trials may not begin on time, have an effective design, enroll a sufficient number of patients or be completed on schedule, if at all. Our clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including:

If initiation or completion of our ongoing or planned clinical trials are delayed for any of the above reasons or other reasons, our development costs may increase, our approval process could be delayed and our ability to commercialize product candidates could be materially harmed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. For example, we had experienced slower than anticipated enrollment in our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial of TRC253 resulting from a lower than expected frequency of a specific tumor mutation targeted by TRC253 among metastatic prostate cancer patients.

Our product candidates or those of our partners may cause adverse events or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or limit the scope of any approved label or market acceptance.

Adverse events, or AEs, caused by product candidates or other potentially harmful characteristics of product candidates could cause us, our partners, including the National Cancer Institute, or NCI, or other third party clinical trial sponsors, clinical trial sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval.

Phase 1 or Phase 2 clinical trials of TRC102 conducted to date have generated AEs related to the study drug, some of which have been serious. The most common AE identified in our clinical trials of TRC102 has been anemia. TRC253 is currently being tested in a Phase 2 clinical trial and the most common AE identified has been QTcF prolongation. It is possible that the AE profile in our Phase 2 study of TRC253 could preclude further development or cause Janssen to not exercise its option to regain rights to the program. There can be no assurance that adverse events associated with product candidates will not be observed. As is typical in drug development, we have a program of ongoing toxicology studies in animals for clinical stage product candidates and cannot provide assurance that the findings from such studies or any ongoing or future clinical trials will not adversely affect our clinical development activities.

Further, if any approved products cause serious or unexpected side effects after receiving market approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing product candidates.

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

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. For example, we cannot guarantee that for certain oncology indications where the FDA has traditionally granted approval to therapies that can demonstrate progression-free survival, the agency will not later require us to demonstrate overall survival, which would greatly extend the time and increase the capital required to complete clinical development. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market product candidates, which would harm our business, results of operations and prospects significantly.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates or those of our partners.

We are also targeting specific patient populations with TRC253 and if we continue development beyond the current Phase 2 clinical trial we expect to continue to develop companion diagnostic tests in prostate cancer to improve selection of patients that would respond to treatment. If we are unable to establish a companion diagnostic for TRC253, our ability to successfully identify target patient populations for future clinical development may be limited. In addition, as the actual patient population with the specific genetic mutation targeted by TRC253 is lower than originally expected, the commercial opportunity for TRC253 may be limited.

We have not previously submitted a marketing application, or any similar drug approval filing to the FDA or any comparable foreign authority for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that any product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more product candidates, our revenue will be dependent, to a significant extent, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval. If the markets for patients or indications that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, if approved.

We may not receive Fast Track designation for additional product candidates from the FDA, or Fast Track designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

Fast track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor meetings with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed. A new drug or biologic is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, and even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA will grant it. The FDA may also withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may be unsuccessful in our efforts to obtain orphan drug designations from the FDA for product candidates or may not ultimately realize the potential benefits of orphan drug designation.

We intend to seek orphan drug designation for envafolimab for the treatment of UPS and may seek orphan drug designations for other product candidates and indications. The FDA grants orphan designation to drugs that are intended to treat rare diseases with fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States or that affect more than 200,000 persons but are not expected to recover the costs of developing and marketing a treatment drug. Orphan drugs do not require prescription drug user fees with a marketing application, may qualify the drug development sponsor for certain tax credits, and may be eligible for a market exclusivity period of seven years. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to receive orphan drug status from the FDA for any product candidates or indications. If we are unable to secure orphan drug designation for product candidates or indications, our regulatory and commercial prospects may be negatively impacted.

Despite orphan drug exclusivity, the FDA can still approve another drug containing the same active ingredient and used for the same orphan indication if it determines that a subsequent drug is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care, and orphan exclusivity can be lost if the orphan drug manufacturer is unable to assure that a sufficient quantity of the orphan drug is available to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA later determines that the initial request for designation was materially defective. In addition, orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving competing drugs for the same or similar indication containing a different active ingredient. If orphan drug exclusivity is lost and we were unable to successfully enforce any remaining patents covering our eligible product candidates, we could be subject to generic competition earlier than we anticipate. In addition, if a subsequent drug is approved for marketing for the same or a similar indication as any product candidates that receive marketing approval, we may face increased competition and lose market share regardless of orphan drug exclusivity.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as studies or trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it

can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we would intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates or those of our partners will be harmed.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with product candidates.

Any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approvals will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, in order to approve product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, establishment registration and drug listing, as well as continued compliance with regulatory requirements for current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, and current good clinical practices, or cGCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe an approved drug for unapproved indications, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from promoting uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses of approved pharmaceutical products, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label may be subject to significant liability. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

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

We and our partners rely on third party manufacturers to make product candidates, and any failure by a third party manufacturer may delay or impair our ability to complete clinical trials or commercialize our product candidates.

Manufacturing drugs and biologics is complicated and is tightly regulated by regulatory authorities, including the FDA and foreign equivalents. We currently rely on third party manufacturers to supply us with drug substance for preclinical and clinical trials. Moreover, the market for contract manufacturing services for drug products, including small molecules such as TRC253, is highly cyclical, with periods of relatively abundant capacity alternating with periods in which there is little available capacity. If our need for contract manufacturing services increases during a period of industry-wide tight capacity, we may not be able to access the required capacity on a timely basis or on commercially viable terms, which could result in delays in initiating or completing clinical trials or our ability to apply for or receive regulatory approvals.

We rely on other third parties for drug substance and to perform additional steps in the manufacturing process, including filling into vials, shipping and storage. For our clinical stage pipeline programs, there can be no guarantee that lack of clinical supplies will not force us or our partners to delay or terminate any ongoing or planned clinical trials. For example, DE-122 had been supplied to us from Lonza, which we then provided to Santen under our collaboration. In April 2019, we exercised our right to terminate the supply and manufacturing agreement with Lonza following our decision to stop further development of TRC105 in oncology, and cannot be certain that Santen will be able to procure additional supplies of DE-122 from Lonza or any other third party.

We also expect to continue to rely on third party manufacturers for any drug required for commercial supply and do not intend to build our own manufacturing capability. Successfully transferring complicated manufacturing techniques to contract manufacturing organizations and scaling up these techniques for commercial quantities is costly, time consuming and subject to potential difficulties and delays.

We do not have any long-term supply agreements for the manufacture of product candidates and cannot guarantee that any third party manufacturer would be willing to continue supplying drug product for clinical trials or commercial sale at a reasonable cost or at all. In addition, manufacturing agreements are often subject to early termination by the third party manufacturer under certain circumstances.

The facilities used by our current or future third party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit a BLA or an NDA to the FDA. While we work closely with our third party manufacturers on the manufacturing process for product candidates, we generally do not control the implementation of the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our third party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP regulatory requirements and for manufacture of both drug substances and finished drug products. If our third party manufacturers or those of our collaborators cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to applicable specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, we may experience delays in initiating planned clinical trials and we may not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers or other third party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize product candidates.

We depend in part on NCI and other third party sponsors to advance clinical development of TRC102.

NCI is currently sponsoring and funding multiple clinical trials involving TRC102. In addition, Case Western has sponsored and funded two separate clinical trials involving TRC102. The advancement of TRC102 depends in part on the continued sponsorship and funding of clinical trials by these organizations, as our resources and capital would not be sufficient to conduct these trials on our own. None of these third party sponsors are obligated to continue sponsorship or funding of any clinical trials involving our product candidates and could stop their support at any time. If these third party sponsors ceased their support for our product candidates, our ability to advance clinical development of product candidates could be limited and we may not be able to pursue the number of different indications for our product candidates that are currently being pursued.

Even if these third party sponsors continue to sponsor and fund clinical trials of our product candidates, our reliance on their support subjects us to numerous risks. For example, we have limited control over the design, execution or timing of their clinical trials and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to how they are providing and administering our product candidates. If a clinical trial sponsored by a third party has a failure due to poor design of the trial, errors in the way the clinical trial is executed or for any other reason, or if the sponsor fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or if there are errors in the reported data, it could represent a major set-back for the development and approval of our product candidates, even if we were not directly involved in the trial and even if the clinical trial failure was not related to the underlying safety or efficacy of the product candidate. In addition, these third party sponsors could decide to de-prioritize clinical development of our product candidates in relation to other projects, which could adversely affect the timing of further clinical development. We are also subject to various confidentiality obligations with respect to the clinical trials sponsored by third party sponsors, which could prevent us from disclosing current information about the progress or results from these trials until the applicable sponsor publicly discloses such information or permits us to do so. This may make it more difficult to evaluate our business and prospects at any given point in time and could also impair our ability to raise capital on our desired timelines.

We are dependent on 3D Medicines and Alphamab with respect to certain aspects of our development of envafolimab for soft tissue sarcoma in North America. The failure to maintain the collaboration and clinical trial agreement, the failure of 3D Medicines or Alphamab to perform their obligations under the agreement, or the actions of 3D Medicines or Alphamab or their other partners with respect to envafolimab in other indications or outside North America could negatively impact our business.

Pursuant to the terms of our collaboration and clinical trial agreement with 3D Medicines and Alphamab, we were granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize envafolimab for soft tissue sarcoma in North America. While we are generally

responsible for clinical development, 3D Medicines and Alphamab are responsible for certain critical activities, including the manufacture and supply of envafolimab, CMC activities and prosecution and enforcement of intellectual property rights. We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that 3D Medicines and Alphamab will dedicate to their respective efforts, and their failure to perform their obligations would impair our ability to develop envafolimab for soft tissue sarcoma in North America. In addition, we very limited influence or control over 3D Medicines’ or Alphamab’s (or their respective other partners’) activities with respect to the development and commercialization of evnafolimab in indications outside of soft tissue sarcoma or outside of North America, even though these activities could have a significant impact on the development and commercialization of envafolimab for soft tissue sarcoma in North America. For example, adverse events in clinical trials outside of the United States could cause the FDA to put clinical trials of envafolimab in the United States on hold, and negative results of clinical trials of envafolimab in other indications may cast doubt as to the likelihood of positive results of clinical trials in UPS or other soft tissue sarcoma indications.

We are subject to a number of other risks associated with our collaboration and clinical trial agreement with 3D Medicines and Alphamab, including:

If we have disagreements with 3D Medicines or Alphamab, if they do not perform their obligations under the collaboration and clinical trial agreement or there are negative events with respect to envafolimab outside of soft tissue sarcoma or North America, there could be material adverse consequences to our ability to successfully develop and commercialize envafolimab in soft tissue sarcoma in North America or to the value of envafolimab to us.

We are dependent on our license agreement with Santen to develop and commercialize our endoglin antibodies, including DE-122, in the field of ophthalmology and may enter into additional license agreements with third parties. The failure to maintain our license agreements or the failure of our licensees to perform their obligations under the agreements, could negatively impact our business.

Pursuant to the terms of our license agreement with Santen, we granted Santen an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents, information and know-how related to our endoglin antibodies, including carotuximab, which is referred to by Santen as DE-122, for development and commercialization in ophthalmology indications, excluding systemic treatment of ocular tumors. Consequently, our ability to realize value or generate any revenues from our endoglin antibodies in the field of ophthalmology depends on Santen’s willingness and ability to develop and obtain regulatory approvals for and successfully commercialize product candidates using our technology for these indications. We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that Santen or any other licensees will dedicate to their respective efforts. In particular, we will not be entitled to receive additional milestone or royalty payments from Santen absent further development and eventual commercialization of endoglin antibodies in ophthalmology indications.

We are subject to a number of other risks associated with our dependence on our license agreement with Santen and will be subject to similar risks with respect to any other license agreement, including:

The license agreement with Santen is subject to early termination, including through Santen’s right to terminate without cause upon advance notice to us. If our license agreements are terminated early, we may not be able to find another collaborator for the commercialization and further development of our product candidates, on acceptable terms, or at all, and we may otherwise be unable to pursue continued development on our own in the applicable territories or indications.

To the extent we enter into additional agreements for the development and commercialization of our product candidates we would likely be similarly dependent on the performance of those third parties and subject to similar risks. For example, if Janssen exercises its option to reacquire rights to TRC253, we would be entitled to receive a pre-negotiated, up-front fee from Janssen, but we would be dependent on Janssen to further develop the program in order to receive any further value in the form of milestone payments or royalties.

Our ability to realize value from any product candidates developed under our agreements with I-Mab will depend in part on I-Mab’s activities and willingness to fund future development.

Pursuant to the terms of our strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreements with I-Mab, we are largely responsible for clinical development activities and I-Mab is responsible for pre-clinical development and manufacturing activities. Consequently, our ability to realize value or generate any revenues from the development of product candidates in collaboration with I-Mab will depend in part of I-Mab’s willingness and ability to successfully complete pre-clinical development and manufacturing activities, in addition to funding agreed-upon portions of the costs of clinical development. We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that I-Mab will dedicate to its respective efforts, and have limited rights in the event that I-Mab determines to cease development or manufacturing activities or funding for any product candidate under the collaboration. We could also encounter disagreements with I-Mab over the timing and scope of development or manufacturing of any product candidates under the collaboration or which, if any, bispecific antibody product candidates are selected for development.

We may not be successful in establishing and maintaining additional collaborations, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our existing product candidates or to leverage our clinical development capabilities.

A part of our strategy is to strategically evaluate and, as deemed appropriate, enter into additional licensing and collaboration agreements, including potentially with major biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. In particular, we are actively seeking additional corporate partnerships in which we would share in the cost and risk of clinical development and commercialization of innovative product candidates of third parties. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate partners, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. In order for us to successfully partner our product candidates, potential partners must view these product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy and as being economically valuable in light of the terms that we are seeking and other available products for licensing by other companies. With respect to additional partnerships whereby we would develop third party product candidates, we will need to identify promising product candidates where the owner of the development and commercial rights could benefit from our clinical development capabilities. Due to our existing license agreement with Santen, we may find it more difficult to secure additional collaborations for our endoglin antibodies if major biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies would prefer to have exclusive control over development for all indications and in all territories. In addition, under our collaboration and clinical trial agreement with I-Mab for TJ004309, we are prohibited from developing other biologic product candidates targeting the same indications for which TJ004309 is being developed, which increases our reliance on the success of I-Mab’s activities with respect to TJ004309 and could limit our ability to collaborate with others with respect to biologic product candidates in certain indications. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish new collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. Any inability or delay in entering into new collaboration agreements related to our product candidates, in particular in foreign countries where we do not have and do not intend to establish significant capabilities, could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates

and reduce their market potential. If we are unable to enter into additional collaborations that leverage our clinical development capabilities, we may be forced to reduce these capabilities, which could lower the value of our company and make it less likely that third parties will seek to collaborate with us to develop their product candidates.

We rely on third parties to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials of product candidates, and if they do not properly and successfully perform their obligations to us, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for product candidates.

We do not have our own capabilities to perform preclinical testing of product candidates, and therefore rely entirely on third party contractors and laboratories to conduct these studies for us. In addition, while we intend to continue designing, monitoring and managing our clinical trials of product candidates using our clinical operations and regulatory team, we still depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities and medical institutions, to conduct our clinical trials at their sites under agreements with us. We will compete with many other companies for the resources of these third party contractors, laboratories, investigators and collaborators, and the initiation and completion of our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be delayed if we encounter difficulties in engaging these third parties or need to change service providers during a study or trial.

We control only certain aspects of the activities conducted for us by the third parties on which we currently rely and on which we will rely in the future for our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials and certain of our preclinical studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. With respect to clinical trials, we and these third parties are required to comply with cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable cGCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the cGCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state health care laws, including, among others, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, and physician payment transparency laws. Any third parties conducting our preclinical studies and clinical trials are not and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical development programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates or those of our partners would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines.

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

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies which could do harm to our business and affect our ability to be profitable. In particular, our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates. Additionally, we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other countries. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Any disclosure or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, eroding our competitive position in our market.

The patent position of biotechnology companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations in a legal framework that is constantly evolving. The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology patents. There is a substantial amount of prior art in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields, including scientific publications, patents and patent applications. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. We may be unaware of prior art that could be used to invalidate an issued patent or prevent our pending patent applications from issuing as patents. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

If patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us. Several patent applications covering our product candidates have been filed recently. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patents or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Any successful challenge to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidate that we may develop. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate.

For applications filed before March 16, 2013, or patents issuing from such applications, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party, or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the claims of our applications and patents. As of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. The change to “first-to-file” from “first-to-invent” is one of the changes to the patent laws of the United States resulting from the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011. Among some of the other significant changes to the patent laws are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. It is not yet clear, what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Patents granted by the European Patent Office may be opposed by any person within nine months from the publication of their grant and, in addition, may be challenged before national courts at any time. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. Furthermore, due to the patent laws of a country, or the decisions of a patent examiner in a country, or our own filing strategies, we may not obtain patent coverage for all our product candidates or methods involving these product candidates in the parent patent application.

In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. If we encounter delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic and biosimilar products.

Any loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. We may be unable to prevent competitors from entering the market with a product that is similar to or the same as our products.

As of December 31, 2019, we own ten (10) U.S. Patents, four (4) pending U.S. patent applications, fifty-two (52) issued non-U.S patents and twenty-two (22) pending non-U.S. patent applications relating to “Antifolate Agent Combinations in the Treatment Of Cancer,” “Humanized Endoglin Antibodies,” “Potentiation of Anti-Cancer Activity Through Combination Therapy with BER Pathway Inhibitors,” “Antibody Formulations and Uses Thereof,” and “Anti-Endoglin Antibodies and Uses Thereof”.

We depend on our licensors to prosecute and maintain patents and patent applications that are material to our business. Any failure by our licensors to effectively protect these intellectual property rights could adversely impact our business and operations.

As of December 31, 2019, we are the exclusive licensee of two (2) issued U.S. patents, two (2) pending U.S. patent applications, sixteen (16) issued non-U.S patents and two (2) pending non-U.S. patent applications relating to “Anti-Endoglin Monoclonal Antibodies and their use in Antiangiogenic Therapy,” “Method For Increasing the Efficacy of Anti-Tumor Agents by Anti-Endoglin Antibody,” and “Combination Therapy of Cancer with Anti-Endoglin Antibodies and Anti-VEGF Agents.” We are also the exclusive licensee of two (2) issued U.S. patents, forty-three (43) issued non-U.S. patents, one (1) pending U.S. patent application, and thirty-nine (39) pending non-U.S. applications related to TRC253. Specific to the development of TJ004309 in North America, we hold a non-exclusive license from I-Mab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical composition or preparation comprising or containing TJ004309. Specific to the development of envafoloimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in North America, we hold an exclusive license from 3D Medicines and Alphamab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering envafoloimab. We also hold a non-exclusive license for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union in support of the development of envafoloimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in North America.

As a licensee of third parties, we rely on these third parties to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the licensed intellectual property under some of our license agreements. We have not had and do not have primary control over these activities for certain of our patents or patent applications and other intellectual property rights. We cannot be certain that such activities by third parties have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreements with some of our licensors, the licensors may have the right to control enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we will require the cooperation of our licensors. We cannot be certain that our licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business.

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

Our commercial success depends in part on us and our partners not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation and other proceedings, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, reexamination and review proceedings before the USPTO and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we and our partners are developing and may develop our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates, that we failed to identify. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until issued as patents. Except for the preceding exceptions, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are generally published only after a waiting period of approximately 18 months after the earliest filing. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates or methods of use of our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use or manufacture of our product candidates.

The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Also, in proceedings before courts in Europe, the burden of proving invalidity of the patent usually rests on the party alleging invalidity. Third parties could bring claims against us that would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, if successful against us, could cause us to pay substantial damages. Further, if a patent infringement suit

were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit.

If any third party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, the holders of any such patents would be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate until such patent expired or unless we or our partner obtain a license. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if we or our partner were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we or our partner could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our partner are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms.

Parties making claims against us or our partner may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our or our partner’s ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Third parties may submit applications for patent term extensions in the United States and/or supplementary protection certificates in the European Union member states seeking to extend certain patent protection which, if approved, may interfere with or delay the launch of one or more of our products.

We may face a claim of misappropriation if a third party believes that we inappropriately obtained and used trade secrets of such third party. If we are found to have misappropriated a third party’s trade secrets, we may be prevented from further using such trade secrets, limiting our ability to develop our product candidates, and we may be required to pay damages.

During the course of any patent or other intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our product candidates or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our common stock may decline.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our inventions, patents or other intellectual property or the patent of our licensors, which could be expensive and time consuming.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including our patents or the patents of our licensors. In addition, one or more of our third party collaborators may have submitted, or may in the future submit, a patent application to the USPTO without naming a lawful inventor that developed the subject matter in whole or in part while under an obligation to execute an assignment of rights to us. As a result, we may be required to file infringement or inventorship claims to stop third party infringement, unauthorized use, or to correct inventorship. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. Any claims that we assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover its technology or that the factors necessary to grant an injunction against an infringer are not satisfied.

An adverse determination of any litigation or other proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

Interference, derivation or other proceedings brought at the USPTO or any foreign patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority or patentability of inventions with respect to our patent applications or those of our licensors or collaborators. Litigation or USPTO proceedings brought by us may fail. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceedings could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party, or could cause us to lose valuable intellectual property rights. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, if any license is offered at all. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our trade secrets, confidential information or proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

We have in-licensed a portion of our intellectual property, and, if we fail to comply with our obligations under these arrangements, we could lose such intellectual property rights or owe damages to the licensor of such intellectual property.

We are a party to a number of license agreements that are important to our business, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Carotuximab is protected, in part, by patents exclusively in-licensed from Roswell Park Cancer Institute. TRC102 is protected, in part, by patents exclusively licensed from Case Western University. TRC253 and associated intellectual property have been licensed from Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Envafolimab and associated intellectual property have been licensed from 3D Medicines and Alphamab, and TJ004309 and associated intellectual property have been licensed from I-Mab.

Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of non-performance between us and our licensing partners regarding our rights or obligations under the license agreements, including any such conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to satisfy payment or diligence obligations under any such agreement, we may owe damages, our licensor may have a right to terminate the affected license, and our and our partners’ ability to utilize the affected intellectual property in our drug development efforts, and our ability to enter into collaboration or marketing agreements for a product candidate, may be adversely affected.

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 and in some cases may even force us to grant a compulsory license to competitors or other third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, 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.

In addition, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in domestic and foreign intellectual property laws.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and applications. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or

complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to use our technologies and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our development processes that involve proprietary know-how or information that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, and outside scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific advisors might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information to competitors. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques.

Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States sometimes are less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, third party payors and others in the medical community.

Factors that will influence whether product candidates are accepted in the market include:

If, for any of these or other reasons, product candidates fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, third party payors or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

Off-label use of approved drugs could adversely impact a product candidate’s peak sales, including Keytruda’s off-label use in UPS if we are able to successfully commercialize envafolimab in the U.S.

While no PD-(L)1 treatments are currently approved in UPS or any other sarcoma subtype, Keytruda has a compendia listing in UPS and is reimbursed for off-label use in UPS. The off-label use of Keytruda in UPS may adversely affect the peak net sales of envafolimab in UPS and other sarcoma subtypes, if envafolimab is approved by the U.S. FDA and successfully commercialized in the U.S.

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

We face competition both in the United States and internationally, including from major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions.

Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we may develop, or achieve earlier patent protection, regulatory approval, product commercialization and market penetration than we do. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing product candidates against competitors.

Under the terms of our license agreement with Case Western, we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property controlled by Case Western related to TRC102. Despite our exclusive license, Case Western retained the right to grant non-exclusive licenses to third parties in the same field of use as our exclusive license as a means to settle any intellectual property disputes Case Western may have in the future with such third parties. While Case Western has not made us aware of any present intent to exercise this right, there can be no guarantee that Case Western will not do so in the future or that it would not grant such a non-exclusive license to a competitor of ours seeking to develop and commercialize a product that is identical to TRC102 in the same field of use that we are pursuing. If this were to occur, and we did not have other intellectual property outside of the Case Western license agreement to prevent competitive products for the same indications, we may face competition much earlier than we currently anticipate and the value of TRC102 may decline substantially.

Even if we are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate faster than our competitors, we may face competition from “biosimilars” due to the changing regulatory environment. In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar,” or “biosimilar,” to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product. This pathway could allow competitors to reference data from biological products already approved after 12 years from the time of approval. Future FDA standards or criteria for determining biosimilarity and interchangeability, and FDA discretion to determine the nature and extent of product characterization, non-clinical testing and clinical testing on a product-by-product basis, may further facilitate the approval of biosimilar products and their ability to compete with our product candidates or those of our partners. In addition, companies may be developing biosimilars in other countries that could compete with our products. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences. Any such event or further changes in the law could decrease the period for which we have exclusivity and consequently negatively impact our business and competitive position. Expiration or successful challenge of our applicable patent rights could also trigger competition from other products, assuming any relevant exclusivity period has expired.

Finally, as a result of the expiration or successful challenge of our patent rights, we could face litigation with respect to the validity and/or scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell product candidates profitably.

Successful sales of product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third party payors. In addition, because our product candidates and those of our partners represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from these product candidates.

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors are critical to new product acceptance.

Government authorities and other third party payors, such as commercial health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage and reimbursement by a third party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data to each payor separately for the use of our products, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of product candidates.

We intend to seek approval to market product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the European Union, the pricing of biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third party payors for product candidates.

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

Third party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively, the ACA, was enacted in the United States. There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, the current U.S. President has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Tax Act) includes a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. In addition, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. It is unclear how this decision, future decisions, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA. We continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative changes to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the former U.S. President signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation 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 products. At the federal level, the current U.S. President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2020 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to

eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Further, the current U.S. President’s administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. Although a number of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the current U.S. President’s administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

We cannot predict whether future healthcare initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business in the future, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us.

If we obtain approval to commercialize any approved products outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

If any product candidates are approved for commercialization, we expect that we or our partners will be subject to additional risks related to entering into international business relationships, including:

If we or our partners outside of the Unites States are unable to successfully manage these risks associated with international operations, the market potential for our product candidates or those of our partners outside the Unites States will be limited and our results of operations may be harmed.

If we fail to develop, acquire or in-license other product candidates or products, our business and prospects will be limited.

We do not have internal new drug discovery capabilities or a technology platform with which to develop novel product candidates. Unless we develop or acquire these capabilities or a technology platform, our only means of expanding our product pipeline will be to acquire or in-license product candidates that complement or augment our current targets, or that otherwise fit into our development or strategic plans on terms that are acceptable to us. In addition, part of our corporate strategy is to leverage our existing internal clinical development and regulatory capabilities by entering into collaborations where we conduct development activities related to third party product candidates in exchange for commercialization and payment rights, such as our collaboration with Janssen with respect to TRC253, our collaboration with 3D Medicines and Alphamab with respect to envafolimab, and our collaboration with I-Mab with respect to I-Mab’s proprietary CD73 antibody, TJ004309, and potential bispecific antibody candidates. Identifying, selecting and acquiring or licensing promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual development, acquisition or license of a particular product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. With respect to TRC253, Janssen has an option to reacquire the intellectual property rights to the program on pre-negotiated terms until a certain period of time following the completion of clinical proof of concept. If Janssen exercises this right, while we would be entitled to receive an up-front payment and would have the opportunity to receive future milestone and royalty payments from Janssen, we would have no further rights to develop, commercialize or realize value from TRC253. With respect to TJ004309, if I-Mab licenses rights to TJ004309 to a third party, while we would be entitled to receive varying portions of royalty and non-royalty payments from I-Mab, we would have no further rights to develop, commercialize or realize value from TJ004309. With respect to envafolimab, 3D Medicines and Alphamab retain certain rights to reacquire the rights for sarcoma in North America in connection with an arm’s length sale to a third party of the rights to develop and commercialize envafolimab in North America for all indications. While we and 3D Medicines and Alphamab must negotiate in good faith and agree to fair compensation be paid to us for the value of and opportunity represented by the reacquired rights, we cannot guarantee that any compensation paid to us would adequately cover our investments in the program, the present value of the rights to us or our opportunity costs as a result of having advanced the program prior to reacquisition. Also, in the event that envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and within three years of the commercial launch of envafolimab in North America for sarcoma 3D Medicines and Alphamab replace us as the party responsible for commercialization, and we do not co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, then 3D Medicine and Alphamab will be required to compensate us for our costs associated with preparing for and conducting commercial activities. However, we may not be able to agree with 3D Medicines and Alphamab on adequate compensation and cannot guarantee that any agreed-upon compensation would adequately cover our investments in commercializing envafolimab in North America or our lost opportunity costs in pursuing commercialization. If we are unable to retain existing product candidates and add additional product candidates to our pipeline, we may not be able to execute on an important part of our business strategy and our long-term business and prospects will be limited.

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key clinical operations and regulatory personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop product candidates and execute our business strategy.

We are highly dependent on members of our senior management, including Charles Theuer, M.D., Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer. Our clinical development strategy and ability to directly manage or oversee our on-going and planned clinical trials are also dependent on the members of our clinical operations and regulatory team. The loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the development of product candidates and our ability to execute our business strategy. We may be particularly impacted by the unexpected loss of employees due to our small employee base and limited ability to quickly shift responsibilities to other employees in our organization. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees for our business, including scientific, quality assurance and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. There is currently a shortage of skilled executives in our industry, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel is intense, particularly in the San Diego, California area, and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical companies for individuals with similar skill sets. The inability to recruit or loss of the services of any executive or key employee could impede the progress of our development and strategic objectives.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and commercial partners may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate:

Additionally, these parties may fail to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. 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. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws. 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance product candidates through clinical trials and commercialization, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities or contract with additional third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with partners, consultants, suppliers and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of our management, including having to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day operating activities to implement and manage future growth. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and clinical trials effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and, if necessary, sales and marketing personnel. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our company.

We are subject to extensive federal, state, and foreign regulation, and our failure to comply with these laws could harm our business.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, we are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

It is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened certain of these laws. For example, the ACA, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback and criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate them to have committed a violation. Moreover, the ACA 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.

We are also subject to laws and regulations governing data privacy and the protection of health-related and other personal information. These laws and regulations govern our processing of personal data, including the collection, access, use, analysis, modification, storage, transfer, security breach notification, destruction and disposal of personal data. There are foreign and state law versions of these laws and regulations to which we are currently and/or may in the future, be subject. For example, the collection and use of personal health data in the European Union is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR. The GDPR, which is wide-ranging in scope, imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third party processors in connection with the processing of personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States, provides an enforcement authority and imposes large monetary penalties for noncompliance. The GDPR requirements apply not only to third party transactions, but also to transfers of information within our company, including employee information. The GDPR and similar data privacy laws of other jurisdictions place significant responsibilities on us and create potential liability in relation to personal data that we or our third party vendors process, including in clinical trials conducted in the United States and European Union. In addition, we expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards relating to privacy and data protection in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions, and we cannot determine the impact such future laws, regulations and standards may have on our business.

Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, imprisonment, exclusion from governmental health care programs, 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, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

We face potential product liability, and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability.

The use of product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our product candidates or those of our partners. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical trials with limits we believe are customary for other companies in our field and stage of development. Our current product liability insurance coverage may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive and in the future we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

If our third party manufacturers use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Our development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials, by our third party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States and abroad governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability, including through obligations to indemnify our third party manufacturers, or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our development and production efforts or those of our third party manufacturers, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

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

As of December 31, 2019, we had federal and California net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, of approximately $137.1 million and $117.7 million, respectively, which expire in various years beginning in 2030, if not utilized. Under the Tax Act, federal NOLs generated after 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely and be available to offset up to 80% of future taxable income each year. As of December 31, 2019, we had federal and California research and development and Orphan Drug tax credit carryforwards of approximately $10.0 million and $2.3 million, respectively. The federal research and development and Orphan Drug tax credit carryforwards expire in various years beginning in 2031, if not utilized. The California research and development credit will carry forward indefinitely under current law. Under Sections 382 and 383 of Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its future post-change income and taxes may be limited. In general, an “ownership change” occurs if there is a cumulative change in our ownership by “5% shareholders” that exceeds 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. We believe we have experienced certain ownership changes in the past and have reduced our deferred tax assets related to NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards accordingly. In the event we experience one or more ownership changes as a result of future transactions in our stock, then we may be further limited in our ability to use our NOLs and other tax assets to reduce taxes owed on the net taxable income that we earn in the event that we attain profitability. Any such limitations on the ability to use our NOLs and other tax assets could adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results in the event that we attain profitability.

Our internal computer systems, or those used by our CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches.

We are dependent upon our own or third party information technology systems, infrastructure and data, including mobile technologies, to operate our business. The multitude and complexity of our computer systems may make them vulnerable to service interruption or destruction, malicious intrusion, or random attack. Likewise, data privacy or security breaches by employees or others may pose a risk that sensitive data, including our clinical trial data, intellectual property, trade secrets or personal information of our employees, patients, customers or other business partners may be exposed to unauthorized persons or to the public. Cyber-attacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, denial-of-service, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten data confidentiality, integrity and availability. Third party sites that take part in clinical trials we sponsor or third parties that are also sponsoring clinical trials involving our product

candidates or those of our partners, such as NCI and Case Western, face similar risks and any security breach of their systems could adversely affect us. A security breach or privacy violation that leads to disclosure or modification of, or prevents access to, patient information, including personally identifiable information or protected health information, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, require us to verify the correctness of database contents and otherwise subject us to litigation or other liability under laws and regulations that protect personal data, any of which could disrupt our business and/or result in increased costs or loss of revenue. Any of these events could be particularly harmful to our business due to our reliance on internal clinical development functions and systems to conduct our clinical trials. Moreover, the prevalent use of mobile devices that access confidential information increases the risk of data security breaches, which could lead to the loss of confidential information, trade secrets or other intellectual property. While we have invested, and continue to invest, in the protection of our data and information technology infrastructure, there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent service interruptions, or identify breaches in our systems, that could adversely affect our business and operations and/or result in the loss of critical or sensitive information, which could result in financial, legal, business or reputational harm to us. In addition, our liability insurance may not be sufficient in type or amount to cover us against claims related to security breaches, cyber-attacks and other related breaches.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our contractors, consultants and collaborators, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. For example, the ongoing coronavirus outbreak emanating from China at the beginning of 2020 has resulted in increased travel restrictions and the shutdown or delay of business activities in the region, including certain development activities of our collaborators in China. To the extent our collaborators are unable to comply with their obligations under our agreements with them or they are otherwise unable to complete or are delayed in completing development activities in China due to the coronavirus outbreak, our ability to advance development in the United States may become impaired. Travel restrictions and shutdowns in business operations in China as a result of the outbreak may also limit our ability to pursue our business development strategy with respect to China-based biopharmaceutical companies seeking U.S. drug development expertise. In addition, NCI may be affected by government shutdowns in the United States or withdrawn funding, which may lead to suspension or termination of ongoing NCI-sponsored clinical development of our product candidates. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. In addition, our ability and the ability of our partners to obtain clinical supplies of product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of our third party manufacturers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters are located in San Diego, California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile, and our stockholders may not be able to resell their shares at a desired market price and could lose all or part of their investment.

Even though our common stock trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market, we cannot assure you that an active, liquid trading market for our shares will develop or persist. Our stockholders may not be able to sell their shares quickly or at a recently reported market price if trading in our common stock is not active. The trading price of our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. Our stock price could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:

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

If we fail to continue to meet all applicable listing requirements, our common stock may be delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market, which could have an adverse impact on the liquidity and market price of our common stock.

Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market, which has qualitative and quantitative listing criteria. If we are unable to meet any of the Nasdaq listing requirements in the future, including, for example, if the closing bid price for our common stock falls below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive trading days, or if we are unable to maintain at least $2.5 million in stockholders’ equity, Nasdaq could determine to delist our common stock.

A delisting of our common stock could adversely affect the market liquidity of our common stock, decrease the market price of our common stock, adversely affect our ability to obtain financing for the continuation of our operations and result in the loss of confidence in our company.

In the event that our common stock is delisted from Nasdaq and is not eligible for quotation or listing on another market or exchange, trading of our common stock could be conducted only in the over-the-counter market or on an electronic bulletin board established for unlisted securities such as the Pink Sheets or the OTC Bulletin Board. In such event, it could become more difficult to dispose of, or obtain accurate price quotations for, our common stock, and there would likely also be a reduction in our coverage by securities analysts and the news media, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline further.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in this Quarterly Report and our other periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company” which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements including exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. As a result, changes in rules of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles or their interpretation, the adoption of new guidance or the application of existing guidance to changes in our business could significantly affect our financial position and results of operations.

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, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are 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. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or the subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common stock.

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

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

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 pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

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

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

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

Some provisions of our charter documents and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management. These provisions include:

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management. In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with an interested stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder, unless such transactions are approved by our board of directors. This provision could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control, whether or not it is desired by or beneficial to our stockholders. Further, other provisions of Delaware law may also discourage, delay or prevent someone from acquiring us or merging with us.

Our principal executive offices are located at 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800, San Diego, California 92122, in a facility we lease encompassing 10,458 square feet of office space. Our lease expires in April 2022 with an option for an additional five-year term.

We are not currently a party to any legal proceedings. From time to time, we may be involved in various claims and legal proceedings relating to claims arising out of our operations. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “TCON”.

On January 31, 2020, there were approximately 121 holders of record of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, pursuant to our credit and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank, we are prohibited from paying cash dividends without the prior consent of Silicon Valley Bank. Any future determination related to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon, among other factors, our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report.

The following selected financial data has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and should be read together with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The selected financial data in this section are not intended to replace our consolidated financial statements and the related notes. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected in the future and results of interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results for the entire year.

	Years Ended December 31,
	2019			2018			2017
	(in thousands, except share and per share data)
Statements of Operations Data:
Collaboration revenue	$	—		$	3,000		$	8,755
Operating expenses:
Research and development		14,530			30,460			19,355
General and administrative		7,766			7,280			7,610
Total operating expenses		22,296			37,740			26,965
Loss from operations		(22,296	)		(34,740	)		(18,210)
Other expense		(378	)		(219	)		(893)
Net loss	$	(22,674	)	$	(34,959	)	$	(19,103)
Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(7.47	)	$	(12.97	)	$	(11.37)
Weighted-average shares outstanding, basic and diluted		3,034,299			2,694,624			1,680,667

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with “Selected Financial Data” and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this Annual Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and future financial performance, includes forward-looking statements that are based upon current beliefs, plans and expectations and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. You should review the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report for a discussion of important factors that could cause our actual results and the timing of selected events to differ materially from those described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis. Please also see the section within Part I of this Annual Report entitled “Forward-Looking Statements.”

In December 2019, we entered into a collaboration and clinical trial agreement (the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement) with 3D Medicines Co., Ltd. (3D Medicines) and Jiangsu Alphamab Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Alphamab) for the development of envafolimab, also known as KN035, an investigational PD-L1 single-domain antibody (sdAb) administered by subcutaneous injection for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in North America. We intend to file an investigational new drug (IND) application and apply for orphan drug status in the first half of 2020, and initiate a registration-enabling study of envafolimab in the sarcoma subtype of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and other select soft tissue sarcoma (STS) subtypes in the second half of 2020. Subject to input from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we expect that the trial will include one cohort of approximately 80 patients who will receive single agent treatment with envafolimab and a second cohort of approximately 80 patients who will receive envafolimab in combination with Yervoy® (ipilimumab), a checkpoint inhibitor marketed by Bristol-Meyers Squib (BMS), with the primary endpoint in each of the cohorts being overall response rate (ORR), which could be the basis for accelerated approval of envafolimab by the FDA as a single agent and/or in combination with Yervoy. We estimate disclosing a summary of the independent data monitoring committee decisions following reviews of interim data in 2021, having a final response assessment in early 2022, and, assuming positive data, submitting a biologics license application (BLA) for accelerated approval in early 2023. Additionally, assuming positive data from the initial UPS trial, we plan to initiate a randomized trial for multiple soft tissue sarcoma subtypes, which could include biomarker directed enrollment, to expand the target patient population.

TRC102 is a small molecule in clinical development to reverse resistance to specific chemotherapeutics by inhibiting base excision repair, or BER. In initial clinical trials of more than 100 patients, TRC102 has shown good tolerability and promising anti-tumor activity in combination with alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients. TRC102 began Phase 2 testing in mesothelioma in combination with the approved chemotherapeutic Alimta in 2015. TRC102 is also being studied in three Phase 1 clinical trials: in combination with Alimta and cisplatin in solid tumor patients, in combination with chemoradiation in lung cancer patients, and in combination with Temodar in ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer patients. All current TRC102 trials are sponsored and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). We retain global rights to develop and commercialize TRC102 in all indications.

to currently approved treatments. In November 2019, following review of available Phase 2 data indicating a lower than expected initial response rate and prevalence of the F877L mutation, we agreed with Janssen that the more than 70 currently enrolled patients in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of TRC253 are sufficient to determine the risk-benefit profile of the drug in three cohorts of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer patients: those with a F877L mutation, those with another undisclosed androgen receptor point mutation, and those with another basis for resistance to Xtandi or Erleada. We expect to provide Phase 2 proof of concept data to Janssen in the first half of 2020. Until 90 days after receiving Phase 2 proof of concept data, Janssen has an exclusive option to reacquire full rights to TRC253 for an upfront payment of $45.0 million to us, and obligations to make regulatory and commercialization milestone payments totaling up to $137.5 million upon achievement of specified events and a low single-digit royalty. If Janssen does not exercise its exclusive option to reacquire the program, we would then have the ability to retain worldwide development and commercialization rights, in which case we would be obligated to pay Janssen a total of up to $45.0 million in development and regulatory milestones upon achievement of specified events, in addition to a low single digit royalty.

TJ004309, also known as TJD5, is a novel humanized antibody against CD73 expressed on stromal cells and tumors that converts extracellular adenosine monophosphate (AMP) to the immunosuppressive metabolite adenosine. We are developing TJ004309 in collaboration with I-Mab under a strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement that we entered into in November 2018 (the TJ004309 Agreement). In July 2019, we began enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical trial to assess safety and preliminary efficacy of TJ004309 as a single agent and when combined with the PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor Tecentriq® in patients with advanced solid tumors. We also entered into a separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement (the Bispecific Agreement) which allows for the development of up to five of I-Mab’s proprietary bispecific antibody product candidates to be nominated within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America, with the option to opt-in and acquire product rights outside of Greater China and Korea prior to completing the first pivotal clinical trial for any bispecific product candidate.

The following table summarizes key information regarding ongoing and planned development of clinical stage product candidates:

Since our inception in 2004, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development efforts relating to our product candidates, including conducting clinical trials and developing manufacturing capabilities, in-licensing related intellectual property, providing general and administrative support for these operations, and protecting our intellectual property. To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and instead, have funded our operations from the sales of equity securities, payments received in connection with our collaboration agreements, and commercial bank debt under our credit facilities with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). At December 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling $16.4 million.

We do not own or operate, nor do we expect to own or operate, facilitates for product manufacturing, storage, distribution or testing. We contract with third parties or our collaboration partners for the manufacture of our product candidates and we intend to continue to do so in the future.

We have incurred losses from operations in each year since our inception. Our net losses were $22.7 million and $35.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. At December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $162.3 million.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for at least the next several years. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We expect our expenses to decrease slightly due to the termination of carotuximab development in oncology as we expect to initiate a registration enabling study of envafolimab in UPS and as we:

We do not expect to generate any revenues from product sales until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for one or more product candidates, which we expect will take a number of years. If we obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Accordingly, we will need to raise substantial additional capital. The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including the pace and results of our preclinical and clinical development efforts and the timing and nature of the regulatory approval process for product candidates. We anticipate that we will seek to fund our operations through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants further restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. Further, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other arrangements when needed on favorable terms or at all. Our failure to raise capital or enter into such other arrangements when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

In December 2019, we, 3D Medicines, and Alphamab entered into the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement for the development of envafolimab, an investigational PD-L1 sdAb, or nanobody, administered by subcutaneous injection, for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in North America.

Pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we were granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America. We are responsible for conducting and will bear the costs of any Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, or post-approval clinical trial in North America for envafolimab in the indications of refractory and first line treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. 3D Medicines and Alphamab are responsible for conducting and will bear the costs of investigational new drug (IND)-enabling studies (other than those specific to the sarcoma indication) and the preparation of chemical, manufacturing and controls (CMC) activities sections of an IND application for envafolimab. 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, envafolimab to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use. 3D Medicines and Alphamab retained the right to develop envafolimab in all territories outside of North America as well as within North America for all indications other than soft tissue sarcoma.

revenue. If 3D Medicines and Alphamab become responsible for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we have the option to co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America. In the event that envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and within three years of the commercial launch of envafolimab in North America for sarcoma 3D Medicines and Alphamab replace us as the party responsible for commercialization, and we elect and 3D Medicines and Alphamab agree for us to not co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, then 3D Medicines and Alphamab will be required to compensate us for our costs associated with preparing for and conducting commercial activities.

Each party agreed that during the term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, it would not develop or license from any third party a monospecific inhibitor to PD-L1 or PD-1.

The term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continues until the later of the date the parties cease further development and commercialization of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America or the expiration of all payment obligations. The Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement may be terminated earlier by a party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to envafolimab. In the event we elect, or a joint steering committee (JSC) determines, to cease further development or commercialization of envafolimab, or if we fail to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop (including progress in clinical trials) and commercialize envafolimab and do not cure such failure within a specified time period, then our rights and obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement will revert to 3D Medicines and Alphamab.

Pursuant to the Bispecific Agreement, we and I-Mab may mutually select through a JSC up to five of I-Mab’s bispecific antibody product candidates within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America.

At any time prior to completing the first pivotal clinical study for a product candidate or if I-Mab ceases to support development costs or pay its portion of Phase 3 clinical trial costs for a product candidate or the JSC decides to cease development over our objections after initiating Phase 3 clinical trials, we will have an option to obtain an exclusive license to such product candidate in all territories except Greater China and Korea and any other territories in which I-Mab previously licensed rights to a third party subject to our right of first refusal for any licenses I-Mab may grant to third-parties.

If we exercise our licensing option, we would assume sole responsibility for developing and commercializing the product candidate in the licensed territory, and in lieu of profit or loss sharing with I-Mab with respect to such product candidate, we would owe I-Mab pre-specified upfront and milestone payments and royalties on net sales, with the payments and royalties escalating depending on the phase of development the product candidate reached at the time we obtained the exclusive license as follows: (i) if before IND-enabling studies and the preparation of the CMC activities of the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $10.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $90.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the mid-single digits on annual net sales; (ii) if after IND submission but before completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial of the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $25.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $125.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high single digits on annual net sales; (iii) if after completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial but before completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $50.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $250.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the low double digits on annual net sales; and (iv) if after completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial and before completion of a pivotal study for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $80.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $420.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high-teens on annual net sales.

collaborators, provided such sublicenses are consistent with the terms of our agreement. In the event Santen sublicenses any of its rights under the agreement relating to the Carotuximab Technology, Santen will be obligated to pay us a portion of any upfront and certain milestone payments received under such sublicense.

In consideration of the rights granted to Santen under the agreement, we received a one-time upfront fee of $10.0 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive up to a total of $155.0 million in milestone payments upon the achievement of certain milestones, of which $20.0 million relates to the initiation of certain development activities, $52.5 million relates to the submission of certain regulatory filings and receipt of certain regulatory approvals and $82.5 million relates to commercialization activities and the achievement of specified levels of product sales. If carotuximab products are successfully commercialized in the field of ophthalmology, Santen will be required to pay us tiered royalties on net sales ranging from high single digits to low teens, depending on the volume of sales, subject to adjustments in certain circumstances. In addition, Santen will reimburse us for all royalties due by us under certain third party agreements with respect to the use, manufacture or commercialization of carotuximab products in the field of ophthalmology by Santen and its affiliates and sublicensees. Royalties will continue on a country-by-country basis through the later of the expiration of our patent rights applicable to the carotuximab products in a given country or 12 years after the first commercial sale of the first carotuximab product commercially launched in such country. As of December 31, 2019, $10.0 million of the development milestones have been achieved and received in accordance with the agreement.

As further described in the “Contractual Obligations and Commitments” section below, certain of our other license agreements have payment obligations that are contingent upon future events such as our achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones, and we may be required to make milestone payments and royalty payments in connection with the sale of products developed under these agreements. We do not currently have any significant ongoing annual payment obligations under these agreements.

Our revenue to date has been derived from our March 2014 collaboration with Santen and our December 2017 collaboration with Ambrx. In February 2019, Ambrx notified us that it had elected to terminate the agreement, which became effective 90 days after the notice. The terms of these arrangements contain multiple promised goods and services. The license agreements provide for the receipt of multiple types of payments, including a non-refundable upfront payment, payment for various technical and regulatory support, payments for delivery of drug substance and drug product, reimbursement of certain development costs, milestone payments, and royalties on net product sales. In accordance with our revenue recognition policy, we have identified one performance obligation for all the promised goods or services under the agreements and recognized revenue for the fixed or determinable collaboration consideration on a straight-line basis over the estimated development period for the Santen license, and at a point in time for the Ambrx license.

We expect that any revenue we generate will fluctuate from quarter to quarter as a result of the timing of any future achievement of milestones, the timing of any additional collaboration agreements and recognition of associated upfront and milestone payments, such as from our license with Santen, whether and when Janssen reacquires rights to the AR Mutant Program, and the extent to which any of our products are approved and successfully commercialized by us or our partners. If we or our partners fail to develop product candidates in a timely manner or obtain regulatory approval for them, our ability to generate future revenues, our results of operations and our financial position could be adversely affected.

Research and development expenses consist of costs associated with the preclinical and clinical development of product candidates. These costs consist primarily of:

Research and development costs, including third party costs reimbursed by Santen and I-Mab as part of such collaborations, are expensed as incurred. We account for nonrefundable advance payments for goods and services that will be used in future research and development activities as expenses when the service has been performed or when the goods have been received.

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses by product candidate for the periods indicated:

	Years Ended December 31,
	2019		2018		2017
	(in thousands)
Third-party research and development expenses:
TRC105	$	4,596	$	18,732	$	10,684
TRC253		3,752		3,573		1,494
TRC102		161		164		87
TRC694		115		1,401		355
TRC205		—		—		16
TJ004309		517		21		—
Envafolimab		4		—		—
Total third-party research and development expenses		9,145		23,891		12,636
Unallocated expenses		5,385		6,569		6,719
Total research and development expenses	$	14,530	$	30,460	$	19,355

Unallocated expenses consist primarily of our internal personnel related and facility costs.

We expect our current level of research and development expenses to decrease slightly due to the termination of carotuximab development in oncology as we expect to initiate a registration enabling study of envafolimab in UPS.

We cannot determine with certainty the timing of initiation, the duration or the completion costs of current or future preclinical studies and clinical trials of product candidates due to the inherently unpredictable nature of preclinical and clinical development. Clinical and preclinical development timelines, the probability of success and development costs can differ materially from expectations. We anticipate that we will make determinations as to which product candidates to pursue and how much funding to direct to each product candidate on an ongoing basis in response to the results of ongoing and future preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory developments and our ongoing assessments as to each product candidate’s commercial potential. We will need to raise substantial additional capital in the future. In addition, we cannot forecast which product candidates may be subject to future collaborations, when such arrangements will be secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements.

The costs of clinical trials to us may vary significantly based on factors such as:

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs for employees in executive, finance and administration, corporate development and administrative support functions, including stock-based compensation expenses and benefits. Other significant general and administrative expenses include legal services, including those associated with obtaining and maintaining patents, insurance, occupancy costs, accounting services, and the cost of various consultants.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will remain relatively constant in the near term.

Other income (expense) primarily consists of interest related to our loan agreement with SVB offset in part by interest income from our short-term investments and cash equivalents.

Our management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, as well as the reported revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. These items are monitored and analyzed by us for changes in facts and circumstances, and material changes in these estimates could occur in the future. We base our estimates on our historical experience and on various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Changes in estimates are reflected in reported results for the period in which they become known. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in the notes to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report, we believe that the following accounting policies related to revenue recognition, expense accruals, and stock-based compensation are most critical to understanding and evaluating our reported financial results.

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which supersedes all existing revenue recognition requirements, which we adopted January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective approach. This new standard requires a company to recognize revenues when it transfers goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration that the company expects to receive for those goods or services. We did not identify any accounting changes that impacted the amount of historically reported retained earnings, therefore no adjustment to retained earnings was required upon adoption.

To date, substantially all of our revenue has been derived from our license agreements with Santen and Ambrx as described in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements. The terms of these arrangements include payments to us for the following: non-refundable, up-front license fees; development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments; payments for manufacturing supply services we may provide through our contract manufacturers; and royalties on net sales of licensed products. In accordance with ASU 2014-09, we perform the following five steps in determining the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized as we fulfill our obligations under each of these agreements: (i) identification of the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) determination of whether the promised goods or services are performance obligations including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) measurement of the transaction price, including any constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations; and (v) recognition of revenue when, or as, we satisfy each performance obligation. We only apply the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that we will collect the consideration we are entitled to in exchange for the goods or services transferred to the customer. Once a contract is determined to be within the scope of Accounting Standards Codification 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, at contract inception, we assess the goods or services promised within the contract to determine those that are performance obligations and assess whether each promised good is distinct. We then recognize as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when, or as, the performance obligation is satisfied.

As part of the accounting for these arrangements, we develop assumptions that require judgment to determine the stand-alone selling price for each performance obligation identified in the contract. We use key assumptions to determine the stand-alone selling price, which may include development timelines, reimbursement rates for personnel costs, discount rates, and probabilities of technical and regulatory success.

Licenses of intellectual property: If the license to our intellectual property is determined to be distinct from the other performance obligations identified in the arrangement, we recognize revenues allocated to the license when the license is transferred to the customer and the customer is able to use and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promises, we utilize judgment to assess the nature of the combined performance obligation to determine whether the combined performance obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time and, if over time, the appropriate method of measuring progress for purposes of recognizing revenue from non-refundable, up-front fees. We evaluate the measure of progress each reporting period and, if necessary, adjusts the measure of performance and related revenue recognition.

Milestone Payments: At the inception of each arrangement that includes development, commercialization, and regulatory milestone payments, we evaluate whether the achievement of the milestones is considered probable and estimate the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. Performance milestone payments represent a form of variable consideration. If it is probable that a significant revenue reversal would not occur, the associated milestone payment is included in the transaction price. Achievement of milestones that are not within our control or the licensee, such as regulatory approvals, are not considered probable until the approvals are achieved. The transaction price is then allocated to each performance obligation on a relative stand-alone selling price basis, for which we recognize revenue as or when the performance obligations under the contract are satisfied. At the end of each subsequent reporting period, we re-evaluate the probability of achieving such development milestones and any related constraint, and if necessary, adjust our estimate of the overall transaction price. Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect revenues and earnings in the period of adjustment.

Manufacturing Supply Services: Arrangements that include a promise for future supply of drug substance or drug product for either clinical development or commercial supply at the customer’s discretion are generally considered options. We assess if these options provide a material right to the licensee and if so, they are accounted for as separate performance obligations at the outset of the arrangement.

Royalties: For arrangements that include sales-based royalties, including milestone payments based on the level of sales, and the license is deemed to be the predominant item to which the royalties relate, we recognize revenue at the later of (i) when the related sales occur, or (ii) when the performance obligation to which some or all of the royalty has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied). To date, we have not recognized any royalty revenue resulting from any of our out-licensing arrangements.

We receive payments from our collaborators based on billing schedules established in each contract. Up-front payments and fees may require deferral of revenue recognition to a future period until we perform our obligations under the collaboration arrangements. Amounts are recorded as accounts receivable when our right to consideration is unconditional. We do not assess whether a contract has a significant financing component if the expectation at contract inception is such that the period between payment by the customer and the transfer of the promised goods or services to the customer will be one year or less.

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate expenses resulting from our obligations under contracts with vendors, contract research organizations, or CROs, and consultants and under clinical site agreements in

connection with conducting clinical trials. The financial terms of these contracts vary and may result in payment flows that do not match the periods over which materials or services are provided under such contracts.

Our objective is to reflect the appropriate trial expenses in our financial statements by recording those expenses in the period in which services are performed and efforts are expended. We account for these expenses according to the progress of the trial as measured by patient progression and the timing of various aspects of the trial. We determine accrual estimates through financial models taking into account discussion with applicable personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or state of consummation of trials. During the course of a clinical trial, we adjust the clinical expense recognition if actual results differ from our estimates. We make estimates of accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date based on the facts and circumstances known at that time. Our clinical accruals are dependent upon accurate reporting by CROs or other third-party vendors. Although we do not expect our estimates to differ materially from amounts actually incurred, our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in reporting amounts that are too high or too low for any particular period. For the three years in the period ended December 31, 2019, there were no material adjustments to our prior period estimates of accrued expenses for clinical trials.

Stock-based compensation expense represents the grant date fair value of employee stock option and award grants recognized as expense over the requisite service period of the awards (usually the vesting period) on a straight-line basis, net of actual forfeitures. We estimate the fair value of stock option grants using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes option pricing model requires the input of subjective assumptions, including the risk-free interest rate, the expected dividend yield of our common stock, the expected volatility of the price of our common stock and the expected term of the option. These estimates involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management’s judgment. If factors change and different assumptions are used, our stock-based compensation expense could be materially different in the future. See Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report for information concerning certain of the specific assumptions we used in applying the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the estimated fair value of our employee stock options granted for all periods presented.

The following table summarizes the stock-based compensation expense recognized in our consolidated financial statements:

As of December 31, 2019, the unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to outstanding time-based stock options was $1.6 million and is expected to be recognized as expense over a weighted-average period of approximately 2.6 years.

At December 31, 2019, we had federal and California net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards, of approximately $137.1 million and $117.7 million, respectively. The federal and California NOL carryforwards will begin expiring in 2030, unless previously utilized. The federal NOL generated after 2017 of $53.9 million will carryforward indefinitely and be available to offset up to 80% of future taxable income each year. At December 31, 2019, we had federal and California research and development and Orphan Drug credit carryforwards of approximately $10.0 million and $2.3 million, respectively. The federal research and development and Orphan Drug credit carryforwards will begin expiring in 2031, unless previously utilized. The California research and development credit carryforwards do not expire.

Pursuant to Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), our annual use of our NOL and research and development credit carryforwards may be limited in the event that a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% occurs within a three-year period. We completed a Section 382/383 analysis regarding the limitation of our NOL and research and development credit carryforwards as of December 31, 2018 and did not identify a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% within the proceeding three-year period. Future ownership changes, including changes during the year ended December 31, 2019, may limit our ability to utilize our remaining NOL and research and development tax credit carryforwards. As of December 31, 2019, we had a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets.

On April 5, 2012, the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act of 2012 (JOBS Act) was enacted. Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company” can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. In other words, an “emerging growth company” can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this extended transition period and, as a result, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for other public companies.

We are relying on other exemptions and reduced reporting requirements provided by the JOBS Act. Subject to certain conditions set forth in the JOBS Act, as an “emerging growth company,” we intend to rely on certain of these exemptions, including without limitation, (i) providing an auditor’s attestation report on our system of internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and (ii) complying with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, known as the auditor discussion and analysis. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering (which is fiscal year 2020), (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which outlines a comprehensive lease accounting model and supersedes the then current lease guidance. The new accounting standard requires lessees to recognize lease liabilities and corresponding right-of-use (ROU) assets for all leases with lease terms of greater than twelve months. It also changes the definition of a lease and expands the disclosure requirements of lease arrangements. We adopted ASU 2016-02 on January 1, 2019, using the modified retrospective method. Under this approach, financial information and the disclosures required under the new standard will not be provided for dates and periods before January 1, 2019. We elected the “package of practical expedients” upon adoption, which permits it to not reassess under the new standard prior conclusions about lease identification, lease classification and initial direct costs. We did not elect the use of hindsight or the practical expedient pertaining to land easements, the latter of which not being applicable. Upon adoption, we (i) recognized a ROU asset and lease liability on our balance sheet for our corporate office operating lease and (ii) derecognized the deferred rent balance as of December 31, 2018 under the superseded lease guidance. The ROU asset has been recorded in other assets and the short-term and long-term lease liability has been recorded in accounts payable and accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities, respectively, within the consolidated balance sheet. There was no impact on retained earnings or other components of equity, nor was there any impact on the statement of operations, upon adoption.

In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-07, Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which expands the scope of Accounting Standards Codification 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation, to include all share-based payment arrangements related to the acquisition of goods and services from both nonemployees and employees. We adopted ASU 2018-07 on January 1, 2019, which did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

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

Collaboration revenue. Collaboration revenue was $0 and $3.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The decrease of $3.0 million was due to revenue recognized under the Ambrx license agreement in the year ended December 31, 2018 with no corresponding revenue in the comparable period in 2019.

Research and development expenses. Research and development expenses were $14.5 million and $30.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The decrease of $15.9 million was primarily due to lower drug manufacturing expenses and direct clinical trial expenses following the termination of further enrollment in company sponsored clinical trials of carotuximab.

General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses were $7.8 million and $7.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

Other expense, net. Other expense, net was $0.4 million and $0.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017:

Collaboration revenue. Collaboration revenue was $3.0 million and $8.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The decrease of $5.8 million was due to the $3.0 million non-refundable upfront payment received in connection with the Ambrx agreement recorded as revenue in the year ended December 31, 2018, compared to $8.8 million recognized under the Santen license agreement in the year ended December 31, 2017.

Research and development expenses. Research and development expenses were $30.5 million and $19.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The increase of $11.1 million was primarily due to increased drug manufacturing expenses and direct clinical trial expenses for TRC105 and TRC253.

General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses were $7.3 million and $7.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Other expense, net. Other expense, net was $0.2 million and $0.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The decrease in other expense was primarily due to additional interest income earned related to a higher short-term investments balances.

We have incurred losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $162.3 million, and we expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future. We expect our current level of research and development expenses to decrease slightly due to the termination of carotuximab development in oncology as we expect to initiate a registration enabling study of envafolimab in UPS. Given we do not anticipate any revenues from product sales in the foreseeable future, we will need additional capital to fund our operations, which we may seek to obtain through one or more equity offerings, debt financings, government or other third party funding, and licensing or collaboration arrangements.

On February 4, 2015, we completed our initial public offering and a concurrent private placement of our common stock, which resulted in net proceeds to us of approximately $35.0 million. In September 2016, we sold shares of our common stock in a private placement for net proceeds of approximately $5.0 million and in November 2016, we completed an underwritten public offering which resulted in net proceeds of approximately $16.1 million. In March 2017, we sold shares of our common stock to Aspire Capital for net proceeds of approximately $0.9 million, and throughout 2017, we sold shares through our previous At-the-market (ATM) facility with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (Stifel) for net proceeds of approximately $3.4 million. In March and April 2018, we sold shares of our common stock and common warrants in a private placement for net proceeds of approximately $36.5 million. In December 2019 and January 2020, we sold shares of our common stock for gross proceeds of approximately $2.4 million and $2.9 million, respectively, through our Capital on Demand agreement with JonesTrading. Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested in accordance with our investment policy, primarily with a view to capital preservation. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements into early 2021, presuming our payment

obligations under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan continue to follow the contractual maturity schedule. Based on our current business plan, we believe that there is substantial doubt as to whether our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our obligations as they become due within one year from the date the financial statements are issued.

In May 2018, we entered into a third amendment to our Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement with SVB (the 2018 Amended SVB Loan) under which we borrowed $7.0 million, all of which was used to refinance previously outstanding amounts under the loan and security agreement. In connection with the 2018 Amended SVB Loan, we issued warrants to purchase up to 5,363 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $26.10 per share. The warrants are fully exercisable and expire on May 3, 2025.

The 2018 Amended SVB Loan provides for interest to be paid at a rate of 9.0% per annum, with interest-only payments due monthly through June 30, 2019. Thereafter, in addition to interest accrued during such period, the monthly payments will include an amount equal to the outstanding principal at June 30, 2019 divided by 30 months. At maturity (or earlier prepayment), we are also required to make a final payment equal to 4.0% of the original principal amount of the amounts borrowed. The 2018 Amended SVB Loan provides for prepayment fees of 2.0% of the amount prepaid if the prepayment occurs after May 3, 2019 but prior to May 3, 2020 and 1.0% of the amount prepaid if the prepayment occurs thereafter.

The 2018 Amended SVB Loan is collateralized by substantially all of our assets, other than our intellectual property, and contains customary conditions of borrowing, events of default and covenants, including covenants that restrict our ability to dispose of assets, merge with or acquire other entities, incur indebtedness and make distributions to holders of our capital stock. Should an event of default occur, including the occurrence of a material adverse change, we could be required to immediately repay all obligations under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan. As of December 31, 2019, we were in compliance with all covenants and conditions of the 2018 Amended SVB Loan.

In March 2018, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with new and certain existing investors for the purchase of $38.7 million of our common stock and warrants. We sold approximately 1.2 million shares of common stock at a purchase price of $27.00 per share, pre-funded warrants to purchase approximately 0.2 million shares of common stock at a purchase price of $26.90 per share and an exercise price of $0.10 per share, and warrants to purchase approximately 1.4 million shares of common stock at a purchase price of $1.25 per share and an exercise price of $27.00 per share. We received total gross proceeds of $38.7 million.

In October 2019, we entered into the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of our common stock at our request from time to time during the 30 month term of the 2019 Purchase Agreement and at prices based on the market price of our common stock at the time of each sale. In consideration for entering into the 2019 Purchase Agreement and concurrently with the execution of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, we issued to Aspire Capital 142,658 shares of our common stock. As of December 31, 2019, we had not sold any shares of common stock to Aspire Capital under the 2019 Purchase Agreement. As of the date of this report, we have sold 0.2 million shares of common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital for gross proceeds of $0.8 million.

In March 2017, we entered into a common stock purchase agreement (the 2017 Purchase Agreement) with Aspire Capital which provided that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations of the 2017 Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital was committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $21.0 million of shares of common stock. Upon execution of the 2017 Purchase Agreement, we sold to Aspire Capital 22,222 shares of common stock at $45.00 per share for proceeds of $1.0 million and Aspire Capital was committed to purchase up to $20.0 million of additional shares of our common stock at our request from time to time during a 30 month period that began on May 1, 2017 and at prices based on the market price of our common stock at the time of each sale, subject to certain conditions. In consideration for entering into the 2017 Purchase Agreement and concurrently with the execution of the 2017 Purchase Agreement, we issued to Aspire Capital 19,573 shares of our common stock. As of December 31, 2019, we had issued 41,795 shares of common stock to Aspire Capital under the 2017 Purchase Agreement for net proceeds of approximately $0.9 million after offering expenses. Upon execution of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the 2017 Purchase Agreement was terminated in its entirety and no further sales of our common stock will occur under the 2017 Purchase Agreement.

In September 2018, as amended in February 2019, we entered into a Sales Agreement with JonesTrading pursuant to which we may sell from time to time, at our option, up to an aggregate of $11.6 million of shares of our common stock through JonesTrading, as sales agent, subject to limitations on the amount of securities we may sell under our effective registration statement on Form S-3 within any 12 month period. Sales of our common stock made pursuant to the Sales Agreement, if any, will be made on the Nasdaq Capital Market under our effective registration statement on Form S-3, by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions at market prices. Additionally, under the terms of the Sales Agreement, we may also sell shares of our common stock through JonesTrading, on the Nasdaq Capital Market or otherwise, at negotiated prices or at prices related to the prevailing market price. JonesTrading will use its commercially reasonable efforts to sell our common stock from time to time, based upon our instructions (including any price, time or size limits or other customary parameters or conditions we may impose). We are required to pay JonesTrading 2.5% of gross proceeds from the common stock sold through the Sales Agreement. As of December 31, 2019, we had sold 0.9 million shares of common stock through the Sales Agreement with JonesTrading for gross proceeds of $2.4 million and $9.2 million of common stock remained available for sale under the Sales Agreement as of December 31, 2019. As of the date of this report, we have sold 2.1 million shares of common stock through the Sales Agreement with JonesTrading for gross proceeds of $5.3 million.

In September 2018, we terminated a similar at-the-market sales agreement we had entered into with Stifel. We had sold approximately 103,700 shares of common stock for aggregate proceeds of approximately $3.5 million under the Stifel agreement prior to it being terminated.

The following table summarizes our net cash flow activity for each of the periods set forth below:

Operating activities. Net cash used in operating activities was $23.7 million, $30.8 million, and $13.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively, and was primarily due to our net loss for the respective year, adjusted for noncash items and offset by changes in our working capital.

Investing activities. Net cash provided by investing activities was $14.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 and was due to maturities of short-term investments partially offset by purchases of these investments. Net cash used in investing activities was $8.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and was related to purchases of short-term investments, partially offset by proceeds from investments. Net cash provided by investing activities was $3.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 and was related to proceeds from the maturities of short-term investments, offset by the purchases of investments.

Financing activities. Net cash provided by financing activities was $0.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 and primarily resulted from $2.3 million in net proceeds received from the issuance of common stock through our ATM facility with JonesTrading, offset by $1.4 million in net repayments on borrowings under our SVB loan agreement. Net cash provided by financing activities was $35.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and primarily resulted from $36.5 million in net proceeds received from the issuance of common stock and warrants, offset by $1.3 million in net repayments on borrowings under our SVB loan agreement. Net cash provided by financing activities was $3.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 and resulted from net proceeds received totaling $4.1 million from sales of shares of common stock to Aspire Capital and through our ATM facility, partially offset by repayments of our loan under our credit facility with SVB.

At December 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling $16.4 million. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements into early 2021, presuming our payment obligations under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan continue to follow the contractual maturity schedule. We will need additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates or those of our partners. In addition, we may evaluate in-licensing and acquisition opportunities to gain access to new product candidates that fit with our strategy. Any such transaction will likely increase

our future funding requirements. These uncertainties raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern for a period of one year following the date that the accompanying financial statements were issued.

Our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement that involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially. Our future capital requirements are difficult to forecast and will depend on many factors, including:

Until we can generate substantial product revenues, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, and licensing arrangements. There can be no assurance that additional funds will be available when needed from any source or, if available, will be available on terms that are acceptable to us. Even if we raise additional capital, we may also be required to modify, delay or abandon some of our plans or programs which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition and our ability to achieve our intended business objectives. Any of these actions could materially harm our business, results of operations and future prospects.

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations at December 31, 2019:

			Payments Due by Period
			Less than		1-3		3-5		More than
	Total		1 Year		Years		Years		5 Years
	(in thousands)
Long-term debt obligations, including interest and final payment (1)	$	6,413	$	3,195	$	3,218	$	—	$	—
Operating lease obligations (2)		1,059		442		617		—		—
Total	$	7,472	$	3,637	$	3,835	$	—	$	—

Under each of our license agreements we may have payment obligations that are contingent upon future events such as our achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones and are required to make development milestone payments and royalty payments in connection with the sale of products developed under these agreements. We do not have any

significant ongoing annual payment obligations under these license agreements. As of December 31, 2019, we were unable to estimate the timing or likelihood of achieving the milestones or making future product sales and, therefore, any related payments are not included in the table above. These commitments include the following:

We enter into contracts in the normal course of business with clinical trial sites and clinical supply manufacturing organizations and with vendors for preclinical safety and research studies, research supplies and other services and products for operating purposes. These contracts generally provide for termination on notice, and therefore are cancelable contracts and not included in the table of contractual obligations and commitments.

During the periods presented, we did not have, nor do we currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined under the applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

At December 31, 2019, our cash and cash equivalents consist of cash and money market funds. As a result, the fair value of our portfolio is relatively insensitive to interest rate changes. Our long-term debt bears interest at a fixed rate.

We incur expenses for patients enrolled in our clinical studies and for the manufacture of clinical trial materials outside the United States based on contractual obligations denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, primarily Pounds Sterling and Euros. At the end of each reporting period, these liabilities are converted to U.S. dollars at the then-applicable foreign exchange rate. As a result, our business is affected by fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies. We do not enter into foreign currency hedging transactions to mitigate our exposure to foreign currency exchange risks. Exchange rate fluctuations may adversely affect our expenses, results of operations, financial position and cash flows. However, to date, these fluctuations have not been significant. Based on our purchase commitments for our 2019 fiscal year, a movement of 1% in the U.S. dollar to Pounds Sterling exchange rate would not have a material effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Inflation generally affects us by increasing our cost of labor and clinical trial costs. We do not believe that inflation has had a material effect on our results of operations or financial condition during the periods presented.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2019, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 2019 and 2018, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2019, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has stated that substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management's evaluation of the events and conditions and management’s plans regarding these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

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

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

	December 31,
	2019		2018
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	16,412	$	25,136
Short-term investments		-		13,968
Prepaid and other assets		848		1,499
Total current assets		17,260		40,603
Property and equipment, net		23		45
Other assets		838		—
Total assets	$	18,121	$	40,648
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses	$	7,875	$	10,947
Accrued compensation and related expenses		1,355		1,464
Long-term debt, current portion		2,604		1,084
Total current liabilities		11,834		13,495
Other long-term liabilities		850		368
Long-term debt, less current portion		2,739		5,343
Commitments and contingencies (Note 5)
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value, authorized shares — 10,000,000 at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018; issued and outstanding shares — none		—		—
Common stock, $0.001 par value; authorized shares — 20,000,000 at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018; issued and outstanding shares — 4,051,187 and 2,987,182 at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively		4		3
Additional paid-in capital		165,028		161,099
Accumulated deficit		(162,334)		(139,660)
Total stockholders’ equity		2,698		21,442
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	18,121	$	40,648

	Years Ended December 31,
	2019		2018		2017
Collaboration revenue	$	—	$	3,000	$	8,755
Operating expenses:
Research and development		14,530		30,460		19,355
General and administrative		7,766		7,280		7,610
Total operating expenses		22,296		37,740		26,965
Loss from operations		(22,296)		(34,740)		(18,210)
Other income (expense):
Interest expense, net		(386)		(231)		(886)
Other income (expense), net		8		12		(7)
Total other income (expense)		(378)		(219)		(893)
Net loss	$	(22,674)	$	(34,959)	$	(19,103)

Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(7.47)	$	(12.97)	$	(11.37)
Weighted-average shares outstanding, basic and diluted		3,034,299		2,694,624		1,680,667


					Additional				Total
	Common Stock				Paid-in		Accumulated		Stockholders’
	Shares		Amount		Capital		Deficit		Equity
Balance at December 31, 2016		1,608,515	$	2	$	113,932	$	(85,598)	$	28,336
Issuance of common stock under equity plans		17,218		—		35		—		35
Stock-based compensation expense		—		—		3,194		—		3,194
Vested shares related to repurchase liability		—		—		14		—		14
Issuances of common stock, net of offering costs		145,509		—		4,308		—		4,308
Issuance of common stock in exchange for services		—		—		29		—		29
Issuance of common stock warrants in connection with debt financing		—		—		174		—		174
Net loss		—		—		—		(19,103)		(19,103)
Balance at December 31, 2017		1,771,242		2		121,686		(104,701)		16,987
Issuance of common stock under equity plans		22,881		—		185		—		185
Stock-based compensation expense		—		—		2,667		—		2,667
Vested shares related to repurchase liability		—		—		8		—		8
Issuances of common stock and warrants, net of offering costs		1,193,059		1		36,455		—		36,456
Issuance of common stock warrants in connection with debt financing		—		—		98		—		98
Net loss		—		—		—		(34,959)		(34,959)
Balance at December 31, 2018		2,987,182		3		161,099		(139,660)		21,442
Issuance of common stock under equity plans		9,270		—		12		—		12
Stock-based compensation expense		—		—		1,624		—		1,624
Issuances of common stock, net of offering costs		1,054,735		1		2,293		—		2,294
Net loss		—		—		—		(22,674)		(22,674)
Balance at December 31, 2019		4,051,187	$	4	$	165,028	$	(162,334)	$	2,698


	Years Ended December 31,
	2019			2018			2017
Cash flows from operating activities
Net loss	$	(22,674	)	$	(34,959	)	$	(19,103)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Stock-based compensation		1,624			2,667			3,194
Common stock issued for services		—			—			29
Depreciation and amortization		22			28			48
Noncash interest		234			272			354
Amortization of debt discount		81			94			117
Amortization of premium/discount on short-term investments		(52	)		(100	)		(9)
Lease asset amortization and liability accretion, net		(6	)		—			—
Deferred rent		—			11			60
Deferred revenue		—			(3,000	)		1,741
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Prepaid expenses and other assets		651			92			(356)
Accounts payable and accrued expenses		(3,421	)		4,142			776
Accrued compensation and related expenses		(109	)		(30	)		(94)
Net cash used in operating activities		(23,650	)		(30,783	)		(13,243)
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchase of property and equipment		—			—			(39)
Purchases of available-for-sale short-term investments		(4,980	)		(32,869	)		(13,992)
Proceeds from the maturity of available-for-sale short-term investments		19,000			24,000			17,705
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		14,020			(8,869	)		3,674
Cash flows from financing activities
Proceeds from long-term debt		—			7,000			8,000
Repayment of long-term debt		(1,400	)		(8,320	)		(8,850)
Proceeds from sale of common stock and warrants, net of offering costs		2,294			36,456			4,141
Proceeds from issuance of common stock under equity plans		32			263			172
Payment of tax withholdings related to net share settlements of vested restricted stock awards		(20	)		(78	)		(137)
Net cash provided by financing activities		906			35,321			3,326
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents		(8,724	)		(4,331	)		(6,243)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		25,136			29,467			35,710
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	16,412		$	25,136		$	29,467
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
Interest paid	$	612		$	642		$	664
Supplemental schedule of noncash investing and financing activities
Issuance of common stock warrants in connection with long-term debt	$	—		$	98		$	174
Issuance of common stock in connection with common stock purchase agreement	$	450		$	—		$	793

TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly Lexington Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (TRACON or the Company) was incorporated in the state of Delaware on October 28, 2004. TRACON is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel targeted therapeutics for cancer and, through its license to Santen Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Santen), wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD. The Company’s product development platform, which emphasizes capital efficiency, also provides to ex-U.S. companies a rapid and capital-efficient U.S. drug development solution that includes U.S. and European Union (EU) clinical development expertise and U.S. commercialization expertise.

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, TRACON Pharma Limited and TRACON Pharma International Limited, which were formed in September 2015 and January 2019, respectively, and are currently inactive. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company has devoted substantially all of its efforts to product development, raising capital, and building infrastructure and has not realized revenues from its planned principal operations. The Company has incurred operating losses since inception. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $162.3 million. The Company anticipates that it will continue to incur net losses into the foreseeable future as it continues the development and commercialization of its product candidates and works to develop additional product candidates through research and development programs. At December 31, 2019, the Company had cash and cash equivalents of $16.4 million. Based on the Company’s current business plan, management believes that there is substantial doubt as to whether existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet its obligations as they become due within one year from the date the financial statements are issued. The Company’s ability to execute its operating plan into early 2021 and beyond depends on its ability to obtain additional funding through equity offerings, debt financings, or potential licensing and collaboration arrangements. The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities in the normal course of business. However, the Company’s current working capital, anticipated operating expenses and net losses, and the uncertainties surrounding its ability to raise additional capital as needed, as discussed below, raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern for a period of one year following the date that these financial statements are issued. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments for the recovery and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

The Company plans to continue to fund its losses from operations through cash, cash equivalents, and investments on hand, as well as through future equity offerings, debt financings, other third party funding, and potential licensing or collaboration arrangements, including equity financing through the common stock purchase agreement (the 2019 Purchase Agreement) the Company entered into with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (Aspire Capital) in October 2019 for the purchase of up to $15.0 million of the Company’s common stock over a 30 month period, all of which remains available for sale as of December 31, 2019, and/or the Capital on Demand^TM Sales Agreement (the Sales Agreement) the Company entered into with JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC (JonesTrading) in September 2018, as amended in February 2019, pursuant to which the Company could sell, at its option, up to an aggregate of $11.6 million of the Company’s common stock, $9.2 million of which remains available for sale as of December 31, 2019. There can be no assurance that additional funds will be available when needed from any source or, if available, will be available on terms that are acceptable to the Company. Even if the Company raises additional capital, it may also be required to modify, delay or abandon some of its plans which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results and financial condition, and the Company’s ability to achieve its intended business objectives. Any of these actions could materially harm the Company’s business, results of operations, and future prospects.

On November 7, 2019, the Company filed an amendment to the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation to effect a 1-for-10 reverse stock split of its common stock (the reverse stock split). The reverse stock split applied to all of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock and therefore did not affect any stockholder’s relative ownership percentage. In connection with the reverse stock split, the number of authorized shares of common stock was reduced from 200,000,000 shares to 20,000,000 shares. The number of authorized shares of preferred stock remained (and remains) unchanged at 10,000,000 shares. The par value of the common stock was not adjusted as a result of the reverse stock split. All of the Company’s stock options, warrants and restricted stock units outstanding immediately prior to the reverse stock split were proportionately adjusted. All share and price per

share data for all periods presented in these consolidated financial statements and notes thereto have been adjusted to give effect to the reverse stock split, including retrospectively where applicable.

The Company’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). The preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements requires it to make estimates and assumptions that impact the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses. The most significant estimates in the Company’s financial statements relate to revenue recognition and expenses incurred for clinical trials. Although these estimates are based on the Company’s knowledge of current events and actions it may undertake in the future, actual results may ultimately materially differ from these estimates and assumptions.

Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash and highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase. The carrying amounts approximate fair value due to the short maturities of these investments. Cash and cash equivalents include cash in readily available checking and money market funds.

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to significant concentration of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents. The Company maintains deposits in federally insured financial institutions in excess of federally insured limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts and management believes that the Company is not exposed to significant credit risk due to the financial position of the depository institutions in which those deposits are held.

Property and equipment is stated at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the related assets, which is generally five years. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the lease term or estimated useful life of the related assets. Repairs and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred.

The Company determines if an arrangement contains a lease at inception. For arrangements where the Company is the lessee, operating leases are recorded as other assets, accounts payable and accrued expenses, and other long-term liabilities within the consolidated balance sheet. The Company currently does not have any finance leases.

Operating lease right-of-use (ROU) assets and operating lease liabilities are recognized based on the present value of the future minimum lease payments over the lease term at commencement date. ROU assets also include any initial direct costs incurred and any lease payments made at or before the lease commencement date, less lease incentives received. The Company uses its incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at the commencement date in determining the lease liabilities as the Company’s leases generally do not provide an implicit rate. Lease terms may include options to extend or terminate when the Company is reasonably certain that the option will be exercised. Lease expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

To date, substantially all of the Company’s revenue has been derived from its license agreements with Santen and Ambrx, Inc. (Ambrx) as described in Note 7. The terms of these arrangements include payments to the Company for the following: non-refundable, up-front license fees; development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments; payments for manufacturing supply services the Company provides through its contract manufacturers; and royalties on net sales of licensed products. In accordance with ASU 2014-09, the Company performs the following five steps in determining the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized as it fulfills its obligations under each of these agreements: (i) identification of the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) determination of whether the promised goods or services are performance obligations including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) measurement of the transaction price, including any constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations; and (v) recognition of revenue when, or as, the Company satisfies each performance obligation. The Company only applies the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that the Company will collect the consideration it is entitled to in exchange for the goods or services transferred to the customer. Once a contract is determined to be within the scope of Accounting Standards Codification 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, at contract inception, the Company assesses the goods or services promised within the contract to determine those that are performance obligations and assesses whether each promised good is distinct. The Company then recognizes as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when, or as, the performance obligation is satisfied.

As part of the accounting for these arrangements, the Company develops assumptions that require judgment to determine the stand-alone selling price for each performance obligation identified in the contract. The Company uses key assumptions to determine the stand-alone selling price, which may include development timelines, reimbursement rates for personnel costs, discount rates, and probabilities of technical and regulatory success.

Licenses of intellectual property: If the license to the Company’s intellectual property is determined to be distinct from the other performance obligations identified in the arrangement, the Company recognizes revenues allocated to the license when the license is transferred to the customer and the customer is able to use and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promised goods or services, the Company utilizes judgment to assess the nature of the combined performance obligation to determine whether the combined performance obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time and, if over time, the appropriate method of measuring progress for purposes of recognizing revenue. The Company evaluates the measure of progress each reporting period and, if necessary, adjusts the measure of performance and related revenue recognition.

Milestone Payments: At the inception of each arrangement that includes development, commercialization, and regulatory milestone payments, the Company evaluates whether the achievement of the milestones is considered probable and estimates the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. Performance milestone payments represent a form of variable consideration. If it is probable that a significant revenue reversal would not occur, the associated milestone value is included in the transaction price. Achievement of milestones that are not within the control of the Company or the licensee, such as regulatory approvals, are not considered probable until the approvals are achieved. The transaction price is then allocated to each performance obligation on a relative stand-alone selling price basis and the Company recognizes revenue as or when the performance obligations under the contract are satisfied. At the end of each subsequent reporting period, the Company re-evaluates the probability of achieving such milestones and any related constraint, and if necessary, adjusts its estimate of the overall transaction price. Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect revenues and earnings in the period of adjustment.

Manufacturing Supply Services: Arrangements that include a promise for future supply of drug substance or drug product for either clinical development or commercial supply at the customer’s discretion are generally considered options. The Company assesses if these options provide a material right to the licensee and if so, they are accounted for as separate performance obligations at the outset of the arrangement.

Royalties: For arrangements that include sales-based royalties, including milestone payments based on the level of sales, and the license is deemed to be the predominant item to which the royalties relate, the Company recognizes revenue at the later of (i) when the related sales occur or (ii) when the performance obligation to which some or all of the royalty has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied). To date, the Company has not recognized any royalty revenue resulting from any of its out-licensing arrangements.

The Company receives payments from its collaborators based on billing schedules established in each contract. Up-front and other payments may require deferral of revenue recognition to a future period until the Company performs its obligations under its collaboration arrangements. Amounts are recorded as accounts receivable when the Company’s right to consideration is unconditional. The Company does not assess whether a contract has a significant financing component if the expectation at contract inception is such that the period between payment by the customer and the transfer of the promised goods or services to the customer will be one year or less.

As part of the process of preparing the Company’s financial statements, the Company is required to estimate expenses resulting from its obligations under contracts with vendors, clinical sites, contract research organizations (CROs), and consultants in connection with conducting clinical trials. The financial terms of these contracts vary and may result in payment flows that do not match the periods over which materials or services are provided under such contracts.

The Company’s objective is to reflect the appropriate trial expenses in its financial statements by recording those expenses in the period in which services are performed and efforts are expended. The Company accounts for these expenses according to the progress of the clinical trial as measured by patient progression and the timing of various aspects of the trial. The Company determines accrual estimates through discussion with the clinical sites and applicable personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or state of consummation of trials. During the course of a clinical trial, the Company adjusts the clinical expense recognition if actual results differ from its estimates. The Company makes estimates of accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date based on the facts and circumstances known at that time. The Company’s clinical trial accruals are dependent upon accurate reporting by clinical sites, CROs, and other third-party vendors. Although the Company does not expect its estimates to differ materially from amounts actually incurred, its understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in reporting amounts that are too high or too low for any particular period. For each of the three years ended December 31, 2019, there were no material adjustments to the Company’s prior period estimates of accrued expenses for clinical trials.

Research and development costs, including license fees, are expensed as incurred.

Costs related to filing and pursuing patent applications are recorded as general and administrative expense and expensed as incurred since recoverability of such expenditures is uncertain.

Stock-based compensation expense represents the grant date fair value of employee stock option grants, employee restricted stock unit grants (RSUs), and employee stock purchase plan (ESPP) rights recognized as expense over the requisite service period of the awards (usually the vesting period) on a straight-line basis. The Company estimates the fair value of stock option grants and ESPP rights using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The fair value of RSUs is based on the closing sales price for such stock on the date of grant. Equity award forfeitures are recorded as they occur.

The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method, which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the financial statements. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined on the basis of the differences between the financial statements and tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. The effect of a change in tax rates on deferred tax assets and liabilities is recognized as income in the period that includes the enactment date.

The Company recognizes net deferred tax assets to the extent that the Company believes these assets are more likely than not to be realized. In making such a determination, management considers all available positive and negative evidence, including future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, projected future taxable income, tax-planning strategies, and results of recent operations. If management determines that the Company would be able to realize its deferred tax assets in the future in excess of their net recorded amount, management would make an adjustment to the deferred tax asset valuation allowance, which would reduce the provision for income taxes.

The Company records uncertain tax positions on the basis of a two-step process whereby (1) management determines whether it is more likely than not that the tax positions will be sustained on the basis of the technical merits of the position and (2) for those tax positions that meet the more-likely-than‑not recognition threshold, management recognizes the largest amount of tax benefit that is more than 50% likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement with the related tax authority. The Company recognizes interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits within income tax expense. Any accrued interest and penalties are included within the related tax liability.

Comprehensive loss is defined as a change in equity during a period from transactions and other events and circumstances from non-owner sources. Net loss and comprehensive loss were the same for all periods presented.

Basic net loss per share is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding for the period, without consideration for common stock equivalents and adjusted for the weighted‑average number of common shares outstanding that are subject to repurchase. Diluted net loss per share is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average number of common stock equivalents outstanding for the period determined using the treasury-stock method. For all periods presented, there is no difference in the number of shares used to calculate basic and diluted shares outstanding due to the Company’s net loss position.

Potentially dilutive securities not included in the calculation of diluted net loss per share because to do so would be anti-dilutive are as follows (in common stock equivalent shares):

Operating segments are identified as components of an enterprise about which separate discrete financial information is available for evaluation by the chief operating decision-maker in making decisions regarding resource allocation and assessing performance. The Company views its operations and manages its business in one operating segment.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which outlines a comprehensive lease accounting model and supersedes the then current lease guidance. The new accounting standard requires lessees to recognize lease liabilities and corresponding ROU assets for all leases with lease terms of greater than twelve months. It also changes the definition of a lease and expands the disclosure requirements of lease arrangements. The Company adopted ASU 2016-02 on January 1, 2019 using the modified retrospective method. Under this approach, financial information and the disclosures required under the new standard will not be provided for dates and periods before January 1, 2019. The Company elected the “package of practical expedients” upon adoption, which permits it to not reassess under the new standard prior conclusions about lease identification, lease classification and initial direct costs. The Company did not elect the use of hindsight or the practical expedient pertaining to land easements, the latter of which not being applicable. Upon adoption, the Company (i) recognized a ROU asset and lease liability on its balance sheet for its corporate office operating lease and (ii) derecognized the deferred rent balance as of December 31, 2018 under the superseded lease guidance. The ROU asset in the amount of $1.1 million has been recorded in other assets and the short-term and long-term lease liability in the amount of $0.3 million and $0.9 million, respectively, have been recorded in accounts payable and accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities, respectively, within the consolidated balance sheet. There was no impact on retained earnings or other components of equity, nor was there any impact on the statement of operations, upon adoption.

In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-07, Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which expands the scope of Accounting Standards Codification 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation, to include all share-based payment arrangements related to the acquisition of goods and services from both nonemployees and employees. The Company adopted ASU 2018-07 on January 1, 2019, which did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

At December 31, 2019, the Company had no short-term investments and at December 31, 2018, short-term investments consisted of U.S. treasury securities. The Company classifies all investments as available-for-sale securities, as the sale of such investments may be required prior to maturity to implement management strategies. These investments are carried at amortized cost which approximates fair value. A decline in the market value of any short-term investment below cost that is determined to be other-than-temporary will result in a revaluation of its carrying amount to fair value. The impairment is charged to earnings and a new cost basis for the security is established. No such impairment charges were recorded for any period presented.

Realized gains and losses from the sale of short-term investments, if any, are determined on a specific identification basis. Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be other-than-temporary, if any, on available-for-sale securities are included in other income or expense on the consolidated statements of operations. Realized and unrealized gains and losses during the periods presented were immaterial. Premiums and discounts are amortized or accreted over the life of the related security as an adjustment to yield using the straight-line method and are included in interest income on the consolidated statements of operations. Interest and dividends on securities classified as available-for-sale are included in interest income on the consolidated statements of operations.

The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, prepaid and other assets, accounts payable and accrued liabilities are considered to be representative of their respective fair values because of the short-term nature of those instruments. Based on the borrowing rates currently available to the Company for loans with similar terms, which is considered a Level 2 input, the Company believes that the fair value of long-term debt approximates its carrying value.

The accounting guidance defines fair value, establishes a consistent framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure for each major asset and liability category measured at fair value on either a recurring or nonrecurring basis. Fair value is defined as an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, the accounting guidance establishes a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows:

Assets and liabilities are classified based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurements.

None of the Company’s non-financial assets or liabilities are recorded at fair value on a non-recurring basis. No transfers between levels have occurred during the periods presented.

Cash equivalents, which are classified as equity securities, and short-term investments, which are classified as available-for-sale securities, consisted of the following (in thousands):

	December 31, 2018
	Cost		Unrealized Gain		Unrealized (Loss)		Estimated Fair Value
Money market funds	$	5,832	$	—	$	—	$	5,832
U.S. treasury securities		13,968		—		—		13,968
	$	19,800	$	—	$	—	$	19,800
Classified as:
Cash equivalents							$	5,832
Short-term investments								13,968
Total cash equivalents and short-term investments							$	19,800

The fair values of the Company’s assets and liabilities, which are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, were determined using the following inputs (in thousands):

Fair Value Measurements at

Reporting Date Using

Quoted Prices in

Significant

Active Markets

Other

Significant

for Identical

Observable

Unobservable

Assets

Inputs

Total

(Level 1)

(Level 2)

(Level 3)

At December 31, 2018

Money market funds and U.S. treasury securities, included

in cash equivalents and short-term investments

19,800

—

19,800

—

Depreciation expense related to property and equipment totaled approximately $22,000, $28,000 and $48,000 for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Long-term debt and unamortized debt discount balances were as follows (in thousands):

In May 2018, the Company entered into a third amendment to its Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the 2018 Amended SVB Loan) with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) under which the Company borrowed $7.0 million, all of which was immediately used to repay the Company’s existing loan with SVB (the 2017 Amended SVB Loan). In accordance with the terms of the 2017 Amended SVB Loan, the Company paid a final payment of $0.3 million associated with the payoff of the 2017 Amended SVB Loan. The transaction was accounted for as a debt modification.

The 2018 Amended SVB Loan provides for interest to be paid at a rate of 9.0% per annum. Interest-only payments were due monthly through June 30, 2019. Thereafter, in addition to interest accrued during such period, the monthly payments will include an amount equal to the outstanding principal at June 30, 2019 divided by 30 months. At maturity (or earlier prepayment), the Company is also required to make a final payment equal to 4.0% of the original principal amount borrowed.

The 2018 Amended SVB Loan provides for prepayment fees of 2.0% of the amount prepaid if the prepayment occurs after May 3, 2019 but prior to May 3, 2020 and 1.0% of the amount prepaid if the prepayment occurs thereafter.

The 2018 Amended SVB Loan is collateralized by substantially all of the Company’s assets, other than the Company’s intellectual property, and contains customary conditions of borrowing, events of default and covenants, including covenants that restrict the Company’s ability to dispose of assets, merge with or acquire other entities, incur indebtedness and make distributions to holders of the Company’s capital stock. Should an event of default occur, including the occurrence of a material adverse change, the Company could be liable for immediate repayment of all obligations under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan. As of December 31, 2019, the Company was in compliance with all covenants and conditions of the 2018 Amended SVB Loan.

In connection with the 2018 Amended SVB Loan, the Company issued SVB a warrant to purchase 5,363 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $26.10 per share. The warrant is fully exercisable and expires on May 3, 2025. The fair value of the warrant and the final payment related to the 2018 Amended SVB Loan were recorded as debt discounts and are being amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the term of the debt, in addition to the remaining unamortized discounts related to the 2017 Amended SVB Loan.

At December 31, 2019, the Company had the following exercisable outstanding warrants for the purchase of common stock issued in connection with the Company’s loan agreements with SVB:

Future minimum principal and interest payments under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan, including the final payment, as of December 31, 2019 are as follows (in thousands):

On February 22, 2017, the Company entered into a long-term manufacturing agreement (Manufacturing Agreement) with Lonza for the long term manufacture and supply of registration and commercial batches of TRC105. Under the Manufacturing Agreement, Lonza agreed to manufacture TRC105 pursuant to purchase orders and in accordance with the manufacturing specifications agreed upon between the Company and Lonza. Following the announcement of the TAPPAS interim unblinded safety and efficacy data in April 2019, the Company exercised its right to terminate the Manufacturing Agreement as a result of its decision to terminate further TRC105 development in oncology.

The Company has entered into various license agreements pursuant to which the Company acquired licenses to certain intellectual property. The agreements generally required an upfront license fee and, in some cases, reimbursement of patent costs. Additionally, under each agreement, the Company may be required to pay annual maintenance fees, royalties, milestone payments and sublicensing fees. Each of the license agreements is generally cancelable by the Company, given appropriate prior written notice. At December 31, 2019, potential future milestone payments under these agreements, including future milestone payments associated with TRC253 acquired from Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. (Janssen) should they not exercise their option to regain their rights to certain assets as discussed in Note 7, totaled an aggregate of approximately $66.0 million.

In October 2019, the Company entered into the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in the 2019 Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock solely at the Company’s request from time to time during a 30 month period and at prices based on the market price at the time of each sale. In consideration for entering into the 2019 Purchase Agreement and concurrently with the execution of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the Company issued 142,658 shares of its common stock to Aspire Capital. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had not sold any shares of common stock to Aspire Capital under the 2019 Purchase Agreement. As of the date of this report, the Company has sold 0.2 million shares of common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital for gross proceeds of $0.8 million.

In March 2017, the Company entered into a common stock purchase agreement (the 2017 Purchase Agreement) with Aspire Capital which provided that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations of the 2017 Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital was committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $21.0 million of shares of its common stock. As of December 31, 2019, the

Company had issued 41,795 shares of common stock to Aspire Capital under the 2017 Purchase Agreement for net proceeds of approximately $0.9 million. Upon execution of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the 2017 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital was terminated in its entirety and no further sales of the Company’s common stock will occur under the 2017 Purchase Agreement.

In March and April 2018, the Company sold 1,193,059 shares of its common stock at a purchase price of $27.00 per share, warrants to purchase 176,554 shares of its common stock at a purchase price of $26.90 per share and an exercise price of $0.10 per share (the Pre-Funded Warrants) and warrants to purchase 1,369,602 shares of its common stock at a purchase price of $1.25 per share and an exercise price of $27.00 per share (the Common Warrants) for net proceeds of approximately $36.5 million in a private placement to new and certain existing accredited investors. In accordance with their terms, the Pre-Funded Warrants and the Common Warrants may not be exercised if the holder’s ownership of the Company’s common stock would exceed 9.99% or 19.99% of the Company’s total shares outstanding following such exercise, depending on the investor. Both the Pre-Funded Warrants and the Common Warrants were recorded as a component of stockholders’ equity within additional paid-in capital. In April 2018, in connection with this transaction, the Company paid Angel Pond Capital, an affiliate of a holder of more than 5% of the Company’s common stock and an affiliate of a member of the Company’s Board of the Directors at that time, a fee totaling approximately $1.9 million as consideration for acting as a nonexclusive placement agent for this financing.

In September 2018, as amended February 2019, the Company entered into the Sales Agreement with JonesTrading, pursuant to which it could sell from time to time, at its option, up to an aggregate of $11.6 million of the Company’s shares of its common stock through JonesTrading, as sales agent, subject to limitations on the amount of securities the Company may sell pursuant to its effective registration statement on Form S-3 within any 12 month period. The Company is required to pay JonesTrading 2.5% of gross proceeds for the common stock sold through the Sales Agreement. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company sold 0.9 million shares of common stock through the Sales Agreement with JonesTrading for gross proceeds of $2.4 million and $9.2 million remains available for sale under the Sales Agreement as of December 31, 2019. As of the date of this report, the Company has sold 2.1 million shares of common stock through the Sales Agreement with JonesTrading for gross proceeds of $5.3 million.

In September 2018, the Company terminated its At-the-Market Equity Offering Sales Agreement (Stifel Sales Agreement) with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (Stifel). The Company had sold an aggregate of approximately $3.5 million of common stock through Stifel pursuant to the Stifel Sales Agreement prior to termination.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company had the following outstanding warrants for the purchase of common stock:

The Company granted awards under the TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the 2011 Plan) until January 2015. The 2011 Plan provides for the grant of incentive stock options, non-statutory stock options, stock appreciation rights (SARs), restricted stock grants and restricted stock units to eligible recipients. Recipients of incentive stock options are eligible to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to no less than the estimated fair market value of such stock on the date of grant. The maximum term of options granted under the 2011 Plan is no more than ten years. Grants made under the 2011 Plan generally vest on the last day of each month over 48 months from the vesting commencement date subject to continuous service. In connection with the adoption of the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the 2015 Plan), the Company terminated the 2011 Plan and no additional awards will be or have been granted under the 2011 Plan.

Effective January 1, 2015, the Company’s board of directors adopted the 2015 Plan. Under the 2015 Plan, the Company may grant stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units and other awards to individuals who are then employees, officers, non-employee directors or consultants of the Company or its subsidiaries. Initially, a total of 80,103 shares of common stock were reserved for issuance under the 2015 Plan. In addition, the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the 2015 Plan will be annually increased on the first day of each fiscal year during the term of the 2015 Plan, beginning with the 2016 fiscal year, by an amount equal to 4% of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding on December 31st of the preceding calendar year or such other amount as the Company’s board of directors may determine. The maximum term of the options granted under the 2015 Plan is no more than ten years. Grants generally vest at 25% one year from the vesting commencement date and ratably each month thereafter for a period of 36 months, subject to continuous service. In December 2015, the 2015 Plan was amended to allow an additional 50,000 shares of common stock to be used exclusively for the grant of equity awards as a material inducement for individuals to commence employment at the Company in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4).

In 2016, the Company issued RSUs to employees and members of the Company’s board of directors under the 2015 Plan. The total grant-date fair value of RSUs that vested during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 was $0.4 million and $0.5 million, respectively. The aggregate intrinsic value of outstanding RSUs at December 31, 2019 was $8,000 and is based on the Company’s closing market price per share on December 31, 2019 of $2.34. As of December 31, 2019, there was approximately $16,000 of unrecognized compensation costs related to outstanding RSUs, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average remaining period of 0.05 years.

Information about the Company’s outstanding stock options as of December 31, 2019 is as follows:

					Weighted-
					Average
			Weighted-		Remaining
			Average		Contractual		Aggregate
	Number of		Exercise		Term		Intrinsic
	Shares		Price		(in years)		Value

Options outstanding		366,871	$	36.62		7.25	$	—
Options vested and expected to vest		366,871	$	36.62		7.25	$	—
Options exercisable		185,629	$	58.61		5.73	$	—

The weighted-average grant date fair value per share of employee option grants during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $5.55, $16.69 and $34.68, respectively. The aggregate intrinsic value used in the above table of options at December 31, 2019 is based on the Company’s closing market price per common share on December 31, 2019 of $2.34. The Company received approximately $0.2 million and $44,900 in proceeds from the exercise of stock options during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The total intrinsic value of options exercised was approximately $0.2 million and $0.2 million during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. No stock options were exercised during the year ended December 31, 2019. The total grant-date fair value of options that vested during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $1.5 million, $2.6 million and $1.9 million, respectively.

On January 1, 2015, the Company’s board of directors adopted the ESPP, which became effective upon the pricing of the Company’s initial public offering on January 29, 2015. The ESPP permits participants to purchase common stock through payroll deductions of up to 15% of their eligible compensation. Initially, a total of 18,346 shares of common stock was reserved for issuance under the ESPP. In addition, the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the ESPP will be annually increased on the first day of each fiscal year during the term of the ESPP, beginning with the 2016 fiscal year, by an amount equal to the lessor of: (i) 36,692 shares; (ii) 1% of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding on December 31st of the preceding calendar year; or (iii) such other amount as the Company’s board of directors may determine. Stock compensation expense for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 related to the ESPP was immaterial.

The weighted-average assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the fair value of the employee stock option grants were as follows:

Risk-free interest rate. The Company bases the risk‑free interest rate assumption on the U.S. Treasury’s rates for U.S. Treasury zero-coupon bonds with maturities similar to those of the expected term of the award being valued.

Expected volatility. The expected volatility assumption is based on volatilities of a peer group of similar companies whose share prices are publicly available. The peer group was developed based on companies in the biotechnology industry.

Expected term. The expected term represents the period of time that options are expected to be outstanding. Because the Company does not have historical exercise behavior, it determines the expected life assumption using the simplified method, which is an average of the contractual term of the option and its vesting period.

Expected dividend yield. The Company bases the expected dividend yield assumption on the fact that it has never paid cash dividends and has no present intention to pay cash dividends.

The allocation of stock-based compensation expense was as follows (in thousands):

As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the unrecognized compensation cost related to outstanding time-based options was $1.6 million and $2.6 million, respectively, and is expected to be recognized as expense over approximately 2.6 years and 2.6 years, respectively.

In December 2019, the Company, 3D Medicines Co., Ltd. (3D Medicines), and Jiangsu Alphamab Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Alphamab) entered into the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement for the development of envafolimab, also known as KN035, an investigational PD-L1 sdAb, or nanobody, administered by subcutaneous injection, for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma in North America. No consideration was exchanged in the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement. Given no consideration was exchanged, no value was assigned to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

Pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, the Company was granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America. The Company is responsible for conducting, and will bear the costs of Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, or post-approval clinical trials in North America for envafolimab in the indications of refractory and first line treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. 3D Medicines and Alphamab are responsible for conducting, and will bear the costs of, investigational new drug (IND)-enabling studies (other than those specific to the sarcoma indication) and the preparation of chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) activities sections of an IND application for envafolimab. 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, envafolimab to the Company at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use. 3D Medicines and Alphamab retained the right to develop envafolimab in all territories outside of North America as well as within North America for all indications other than soft tissue sarcoma.

The Company will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue, unless (a) envafolimab is first approved in North America for an indication other than soft tissue sarcoma and launched in North America, or (b) envafolimab is first approved in North America for soft tissue sarcoma and subsequently approved in North America for an additional non-orphan indication and sold commercially by 3D Medicines and/or Alphamab, in which case 3D Medicines and Alphamab will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for soft tissue sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue. If 3D Medicines and Alphamab become responsible for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, the Company has the option to co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America. In the event that envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and within three years of the commercial launch of envafolimab in North America for sarcoma 3D Medicines and Alphamab replace the Company as the party responsible for commercialization, and the Company elects and 3D Medicines and Alphamab agree for the Company to not co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, then 3D Medicine and Alphamab will be required to compensate the Company for its costs associated with preparing for and conducting commercial activities.

If the Company has the responsibility for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, the Company will owe 3D Medicines and Alphamab tiered double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits. If 3D Medicines and Alphamab have responsibility for commercialization under the Collaboration Agreement, the Company will be entitled to (a) escalating double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits if the Company has chosen to not co-market envafolimab in sarcoma or (b) a 50% royalty on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America if the Company has chosen to co-market envafolimab in sarcoma. Payment obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continue on a country-by-country basis until the last to expire licensed patent covering envafolimab expires.

3D Medicines and Alphamab retain the right to reacquire the rights to envafolimab for sarcoma in North America in connection with an arm’s length sale to a third party, provided that the sale may not occur prior to completion of a pivotal trial of envafolimab in sarcoma without the Company’s written consent and the parties must negotiate in good faith and agree to fair compensation to be paid to the Company for the value of and opportunity represented by the required rights.

Each party agreed that during the term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, it would not develop or license from any third party a monospecific inhibitor to PD-L1 or PD-1.

Collaboration Agreement may be terminated earlier by a party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to envafolimab. In the event the Company elects, or a joint steering committee determines, to cease further development or commercialization of envafolimab, or if the Company fails to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop (including progress in clinical trials) and commercialize envafolimab and does not cure such failure within a specified time period, then the Company’s rights and obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement will revert to 3D Medicines and Alphamab.

In November 2018, the Company and I-Mab Biopharma (I-Mab) entered into separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreements (the Collaboration Agreements) for the development of programs for multiple immuno-oncology product candidates, including I-Mab’s proprietary CD73 antibody TJ004309 (the TJ004309 Agreement) as well as up to five proprietary bispecific antibodies currently under development by I-Mab (the Bispecific Agreement).

No consideration was exchanged in the Collaboration Agreements. Given the early preclinical stage of development of these assets as of the agreement date, no value was assigned to the Collaboration Agreements in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

Pursuant to the TJ004309 Agreement, the Company and I-Mab are collaborating on developing the TJ004309 antibody, with the Company bearing the costs of filing an IND and for Phase 1 clinical trials, with the parties sharing costs equally for Phase 2 clinical trials, and with the Company and I-Mab bearing 40% and 60%, respectively, of the costs for pivotal clinical trials. I-Mab will be responsible for the cost of certain non-clinical activities, the drug supply of TJ004309, and any reference drugs used in the clinical trials. Each of the parties also agreed for a specified period of time to not develop or license to or from a third party any monoclonal antibody targeting CD73 or any other biologic for certain indications that a joint steering committee (JSC), as set up under the TJ004309 Agreement, selects for TJ004309 development.

In the event that I-Mab out-licenses the rights to TJ004309 to a third party, the Company would be entitled to receive escalating portions of royalty and non-royalty consideration received by I-Mab with respect to certain territories outside of Greater China. In the event that I-Mab commercializes TJ004309, the Company would be entitled to receive a royalty percentage on net sales by I-Mab in North America ranging from the mid-single digits to low double digits, and in the EU and Japan in the mid-single digits. The portions of certain third party royalty and non-royalty consideration and the royalty from net sales by I-Mab to which the Company would be entitled will escalate based on the phase of development and relevant clinical trial obligations the Company completes under the TJ004309 Agreement, ranging from a high-single digit to a mid-teen percentage of non-royalty consideration as well as a double digit percentage of royalty consideration.

The TJ004309 Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party, bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to TJ004309. I-Mab may also terminate the TJ004309Agreement if the Company causes certain delays in completing a Phase 1 clinical trial. In addition, I-Mab may terminate the TJ004309 Agreement for any reason within 90 days following the completion of the first Phase 1 clinical trial, in which case the Company would be entitled to a minimum termination fee of $9.0 million, or following the completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial, in which case the Company would be entitled to a pre-specified termination fee of $15.0 million and either a low double-digit percentage of non-royalty consideration up to $35.0 million that I-Mab may receive as part of a license to a third party, or an additional payment of $35.0 million if TJ004309 is approved for marketing outside Greater China before a third party license is executed, in addition to a double digit percentage of royalty consideration.

Pursuant to the Bispecific Agreement, the Company and I-Mab may mutually select through a joint steering committee (JSC) up to five of I-Mab’s bispecific antibody product candidates within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America.

For each product candidate selected by the JSC for development under the Bispecific Agreement, I-Mab will be responsible and bear the costs for IND-enabling studies and establishing manufacturing for the product candidate, while the Company will be responsible for and bear the costs of filing an IND and conducting Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, and the Company will be responsible for and will share equally with I-Mab in the costs of conducting Phase 3 or pivotal clinical trials, in each case within North America. Subject to I-Mab’s right to co-promote an approved product candidate, the Company will be responsible for commercializing any approved product candidates in North America and will share profits and losses equally with I-Mab in North

America. The Company would also be entitled to tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of product candidates in the EU and Japan.

At any time prior to completing the first pivotal clinical study for a product candidate or if I-Mab ceases to support development costs or pay its portion of Phase 3 clinical trial costs for a product candidate or the JSC decides to cease development over the Company’s objections after initiating Phase 3 clinical trials, the Company will have an option to obtain an exclusive license to such product candidate in all territories except Greater China and Korea, and any other territories in which I-Mab previously licensed rights to a third party subject to the Company’s right of first refusal for any licenses I-Mab may grant to third-parties.

If the Company exercises the option, it would assume sole responsibility for developing and commercializing the product candidate in the licensed territory, and in lieu of profit or loss sharing with I-Mab with respect to such product candidate, the Company would owe I-Mab pre-specified upfront and milestone payments and royalties on net sales, with the payments and royalties escalating depending on the phase of development the product candidate reached at the time the Company obtained the exclusive license: (i) if before IND-enabling studies and the preparation of the CMC activities of the collaborative product, the Company would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $10.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $90.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the mid-single digits on annual net sales; (ii) if after IND submission but before completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial of the collaborative product, the Company would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $25.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $125.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high single digits on annual net sales; (iii) if after completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial but before completion of Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial for the collaborative product, the Company would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $50.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $250.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the low double digits on annual net sales; and (iv) if after completion of Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial and before completion of pivotal study for the collaborative product, the Company would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $80.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $420.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal study, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high-teen double digits on annual net sales.

If development of any selected product candidates is terminated by a decision of the JSC, all rights to the product candidate will revert to I-Mab, subject to the Company’s right to obtain an exclusive license in certain circumstances. If development is terminated after submission of an IND and prior to initiating Phase 3 clinical trials or after initiating Phase 3 clinical trials and with the Company’s concurrence, the Company would be entitled to tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of the product candidate in North America, the EU, and Japan.

The Bispecific Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party, bankruptcy of the other party, or with respect to any selected product candidate, for safety reasons related to that product candidate.

In March 2014, the Company entered into a license agreement with Santen, under which the Company granted Santen an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents, information and know-how related to TRC105. Under the agreement, Santen is permitted to use, develop, manufacture and commercialize TRC105 products for ophthalmology indications, excluding systemic treatment of ocular tumors. Santen also has the right to grant sublicenses to affiliates and third party collaborators. In the event Santen sublicenses any of its rights under the agreement, Santen will be obligated to pay the Company a portion of any upfront and certain milestone payments received under such sublicense.

Santen has sole responsibility for funding, developing, seeking regulatory approval for and commercializing TRC105 products in the field of ophthalmology. In the event that Santen fails to meet certain commercial diligence obligations, the Company will have the option to co-promote TRC105 products in the field of ophthalmology in the United States with Santen. If the Company exercises this option, the Company will pay Santen a percentage of certain development expenses, and the Company will receive a percentage of profits from sales of the licensed products in the ophthalmology field in the United States, but will not also receive royalties on such sales.

In consideration of the rights granted to Santen under the agreement, the Company received a one-time upfront fee of $10.0 million. In addition, the Company is eligible to receive up to a total of $155.0 million in milestone payments upon the achievement of certain milestones, of which $20.0 million relates to the initiation of certain development activities, $52.5 million

relates to the submission of certain regulatory filings and receipt of certain regulatory approvals and $82.5 million relates to commercialization activities and the achievement of specified levels of product sales. As of December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, two development milestones had been received totaling $10.0 million. If TRC105 products are successfully commercialized in the field of ophthalmology, Santen will be required to pay the Company tiered royalties on net sales ranging from high single digits to low teens, depending on the volume of sales, subject to adjustments in certain circumstances. In addition, Santen will reimburse the Company for all royalties due by the Company under certain third party agreements with respect to the use, manufacture or commercialization of TRC105 products in the field of ophthalmology by Santen and its affiliates and sublicensees. Royalties will continue on a country-by-country basis through the later of the expiration of the Company’s patent rights applicable to the TRC105 products in a given country or 12 years after the first commercial sale of the first TRC105 product commercially launched in such country.

Santen may unilaterally terminate this agreement in its entirety, or on a country-by-country basis, upon written notice to the Company. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or dissolution or for the other party’s material breach of the agreement that remains uncured 90 days (or 30 days with respect to a payment breach) after receiving notice from the non-breaching party. Unless earlier terminated, the agreement continues in effect until the termination of Santen’s payment obligations.

Upon the adoption of ASU 2014-09, the Company assessed this agreement and identified multiple promised goods and services, which include at inception: (1) a license to patents, information and know-how related to TRC105, (2) a technology transfer, and (3) a collaboration, including technical and regulatory support provided by the Company. In addition, customer options were identified that include manufacturing and supply obligations and shared CMC development activities. All performance obligations were satisfied by the year ended December 31, 2017, which completed the Company’s obligations.

Upon the adoption of ASC 2014-09 and as of December 31, 2019, the transaction price includes the $10.0 million upfront payment and the two development milestones received totaling $10.0 million, all of which had been fully recognized as revenue as of December 31, 2017. The remaining $52.5 million of potential development and regulatory milestone payments are not considered probable at December 31, 2019, and therefore no amounts have been included in the transaction price for these remaining milestones. In addition, in accordance with ASU 2014-09, any consideration related to the commercialization and sales-based milestones (including royalties) will be recognized when the related sales occur and have also been excluded from the transaction price. The Company will re-evaluate the transaction price in each reporting period and as uncertain events are resolved or other changes in circumstances occur.

The Company assessed this agreement upon the adoption of ASU 2014-09 and determined it had satisfied all of its performance obligations and recognized the full transaction price as of December 31, 2018, and accordingly, no adjustment was required to retained earnings under the modified retrospective approach used upon the adoption of ASC 2014-09. Revenue recognized related to this agreement totaled $0, $0, and $8.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively.

In September 2016, the Company entered into a license and option agreement with Janssen (the License and Option Agreement) under which Janssen granted the Company a license to technology and intellectual property to develop, manufacture and commercialize two compounds: a small molecule inhibitor of androgen receptor and androgen receptor mutations (the AR Mutant Program or TRC253), which is intended for the treatment of men with prostate cancer, and an inhibitor of NF-kB inducing kinase (the NIK Program or TRC694). Following completion of the pre-clinical development of TRC694, the Company determined the compound did not warrant further development and, in February 2019, issued written notice to terminate the License and Option Agreement with respect to the NIK Program and returned TRC694 and all rights thereto to Janssen.

With respect to the AR Mutant Program, the License and Option Agreement, as amended, provides Janssen with an option, which is exercisable until 90 days after the Company demonstrates clinical proof of concept of TRC253, to regain the rights to the licensed intellectual property and to obtain an exclusive license to commercialize the compounds and certain other specified intellectual property developed under the AR Mutant Program. If Janssen exercises the option, Janssen will be obligated to pay the Company (i) a one-time option exercise fee of $45.0 million; (ii) regulatory and commercial based milestone payments totaling up to $137.5 million upon achievement of specified events; and (iii) royalties in the low single digits on annual net sales of AR Mutant Program products. If Janssen does not exercise the option, the Company would then have the right to retain worldwide development and commercialization rights to the AR Mutant Program, in which case, the Company would be obligated to pay to Janssen (x) development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $45.0 million upon achievement of specified events, and (y) royalties in the low single digits based on annual net sales of AR Mutant Program products, subject to certain specified reductions.

No consideration was exchanged for these assets on the acquisition date. Given the early preclinical stage of development of these assets and the low likelihood of success of development through regulatory approval on the acquisition date, no value was assigned to these assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

The Company is obligated to use diligent efforts to develop the AR Mutant Program according to agreed upon development plans, timelines and budgets. The Company is further obligated as it relates to the AR Mutant Program to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain marketing approval for, and commercialize licensed products. Until the expiration or earlier termination of the development term of the AR Mutant Program, under the License and Option Agreement, subject to specified exceptions, the Company has agreed not to research, develop or commercialize any compounds or products related to the AR Mutant Program, other than pursuant to the collaboration with Janssen.

The License and Option Agreement may be terminated for uncured breach, bankruptcy, or the failure or inability to demonstrate clinical proof of concept with respect to a particular program during specified timeframes. In addition, the License and Option Agreement will automatically terminate with respect to the AR Mutant Program upon Janssen exercising its option in respect of the AR Mutant Program and making payment of the option exercise fee to the Company or, if Janssen does not exercise the option, upon the expiration of all payment obligations of the Company to Janssen with respect of the AR Mutant Program. The Company may also terminate a program or the License and Option Agreement in its entirety without cause, subject to specified conditions.

In December 2017, the Company entered into a license agreement with Ambrx for the development and commercialization of the Company’s endoglin antibodies, including TRC105, in Greater China. The license granted Ambrx the exclusive rights to use, develop, manufacture and commercialize the Company’s endoglin antibodies in all indications (excluding ophthalmology which are held by Santen) in Greater China.

In February 2019, following discussions between the Company and Ambrx regarding Ambrx’s progress towards initiating a Phase 1 clinical trial of TRC105 in China, Ambrx notified the Company that it had elected to terminate the license agreement, resulting in all rights to TRC105 in Greater China reverting to the Company.

In consideration of the rights granted to Ambrx under the agreement, the Company received a one-time upfront fee of $3.0 million, which was recorded as deferred revenue upon receipt and recognized as revenue in the first quarter of 2018 when the license and know-how related to TRC105 was delivered to Ambrx. No further revenue will be recognized associated with this agreement given Ambrx’s decision to terminate the license agreement, resulting in all rights to TRC105 in Greater China reverting to the Company.

The Company leases its office space under a non-cancelable operating lease that expires in April 2022 and may be extended for an additional term of 60 months. The option to extend this lease has been excluded from the lease term as the Company is not reasonably certain that the option will be exercised. The lease is subject to base lease payments and additional charges for common area maintenance and other costs and includes certain lease incentives and tenant improvement allowances. Operating lease expense was $0.4 million, $0.4 million and $0.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, the Company does not have any finance leases, nor any other operating leases.

Supplemental cash flow information, as of December 31, 2019, related to operating leases was as follows (in thousands):

Supplemental balance sheet information, as of December 31, 2019, related to operating leases was as follows (in thousands, except lease term and discount rate):

As of December 31, 2019, the maturities of the Company’s operating lease liabilities are as follows (in thousands):

Under the terms of the lease agreement, the Company provided the lessor with an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $175,000. The lessor is entitled to draw on the letter of credit in the event of any default by the Company under the terms of the lease.

The Company elected the alternative modified transition method and previously disclosed the following:

Future minimum payments under the non‑cancelable operating lease as of December 31, 2018 were as follows (in thousands):

A reconciliation of the Company’s effective tax rate and federal statutory tax rate is summarized as follows (in thousands):

	Years Ended December 31,
	2019			2018			2017
Federal income taxes	$	(4,761	)	$	(7,341	)	$	(6,686	)
State income taxes, net of federal benefit		(1,381	)		(2,340	)		(1,404	)
Permanent items		149			439			1,170
Uncertain tax positions		1,828			672			(1,158	)
Research and development credits		(1,253	)		(2,545	)		(2,719	)
California Net Operating Loss carryforwards		—			—			(2,208	)
Rate change		—			629			—
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act		—			—			11,478
Other, net		(75	)		—			(126	)
Stock compensation		395			66			123
Change in valuation allowance		5,098			10,420			1,530
Provision for income taxes	$	—		$	—		$	—

Significant components of the Company’s deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities are summarized as follows (in thousands):

	December 31,
	2019			2018
Deferred tax assets:
Net operating loss carryforwards	$	36,850		$	32,182
Research and development credits and Orphan Drug Credit		8,944			8,280
Depreciation and amortization		269			281
Right-of-use liability		194			—
Other, net		1,369			1,609
Total deferred tax assets		47,626			42,352
Right-of-use asset		(176	)		—
Total deferred tax liabilities		(176	)		—
Total net deferred		47,450			42,352
Valuation allowance		(47,450	)		(42,352	)
Net deferred tax assets	$	—		$	—

The Company has net deferred tax assets relating primarily to net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards, research and development and Orphan Drug tax credit carryforwards. Subject to certain limitations, the Company may use these deferred tax assets to offset taxable income in future periods. Due to the Company’s history of losses and uncertainty regarding future earnings, a full valuation allowance has been recorded against the Company’s deferred tax assets, as it is more likely than not that such assets will not be realized. The net change in the total valuation allowance for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $5.1 million, $10.4 million and $1.5 million, respectively.

At December 31, 2019, the Company had federal and California NOL carryforwards of approximately $137.1 million and $117.7 million, respectively. The federal and California NOL carryforwards will begin to expire in 2030, unless previously utilized. The federal NOL generated after 2017 of $53.9 million will carryforward indefinitely and be available to offset up to 80% of future taxable income each year. At December 31, 2019, the Company also had federal and California research and development and Orphan Drug credit carryforwards of approximately $10.0 million and $2.3 million, respectively. The federal research and development and Orphan Drug credit carryforwards will begin expiring in 2031 unless previously utilized. The California research credit will carry forward indefinitely under current law.

Pursuant to Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), the annual use of the Company’s NOL and research and development credit carryforwards may be limited in the event that a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% occurs within a three-year period. The Company previously completed a Section 382/383 analysis regarding the limitation of NOL and research and development credit carryforwards as of December 31, 2018 and did not identify any change in ownership of more than 50% within the preceding three-year period since an ownership change was determined to have occurred at the time of the Company’s initial public offering in January 2015. The Company has not completed a study to assess whether an ownership change has occurred or whether there have been multiple ownership changes since December 31, 2018. If the Company has experienced an ownership change at any time since December 31, 2018, utilization of the NOL or R&D credit carryforwards would be subject to an annual limitation under Section 382 of the Code. Any limitation may result in expiration of a portion of the NOL or R&D credit carryforwards before utilization. Any carryforwards that will expire prior to utilization as a result of such limitations will be removed from deferred tax assets with a corresponding reduction of the valuation allowance with no net effect on income tax expense or the effective tax rate.

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was enacted into law. The TCJA made significant changes to U.S. tax laws, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) reducing the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, effective January 1, 2018; (b) eliminating the federal corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) and changing how existing AMT credits can be realized; and (c) eliminating several business deductions and credits, including deductions for certain executive compensation in excess of $1 million.

As a result of the rate reduction, as of December 31, 2017, the Company reduced the deferred tax asset balance by $11.5 million. Due to the Company's full valuation allowance position, the Company has also reduced the valuation allowance by the same amount.

The changes in the Company’s unrecognized tax benefits are summarized as follows (in thousands):

The Company’s policy is to include interest and penalties related to unrecognized income tax benefits as a component of income tax expense. The Company has no accruals for interest or penalties in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 and has not recognized interest or penalties in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2019.

Due to the valuation allowance recorded against the Company’s deferred tax assets, future changes in unrecognized tax benefits will not impact the Company’s effective tax rate. The Company does not expect its unrecognized tax benefits to change significantly in the next 12 months.

The Company is subject to taxation in the United States and California. Due to the net operating loss carryforwards, the U.S. federal and California returns are open to examination for all years since inception. The Company has not been, nor is it currently, under examination by the federal or any state tax authority.

The Company maintains a defined contribution 401(k) plan available to eligible employees. Employee contributions are voluntary and are determined on an individual basis, limited to the maximum amount allowable under federal tax regulations. The Company, at its discretion, may make certain matching contributions to the 401(k) plan. Matching contributions for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 totaled approximately $173,000, $187,000 and $181,000, respectively.

The following financial information reflects all normal recurring adjustments, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair statement of the results of the interim periods. Summarized quarterly data for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 are as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

	First			Second			Third			Fourth
	Quarter			Quarter			Quarter			Quarter
2019
Revenue	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Total operating expenses	$	7,163		$	6,240		$	5,081		$	3,812
Consolidated net loss	$	(7,213	)	$	(6,326	)	$	(5,199	)	$	(3,936	)
Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(2.41	)	$	(2.11	)	$	(1.74	)	$	(1.25	)

2018
Revenue	$	3,000		$	—		$	—		$	—
Total operating expenses	$	11,189		$	9,737		$	9,083		$	7,731
Consolidated net loss	$	(8,364	)	$	(9,754	)	$	(9,085	)	$	(7,756	)
Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(4.59	)	$	(3.28	)	$	(3.04	)	$	(2.60	)

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving the objective that information in our Exchange Act reports is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified and pursuant to the requirements of the SEC’s rules and forms and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosures. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.

As required by SEC Rule 13a-15(b), we carried out an evaluation, with the participation of our Management, including our Chief Executive Officer, of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2019, the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon the foregoing, our Chief Executive Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2019.

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

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

Our Management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2019. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in its 2013 Internal Control — Integrated Framework.

Based on our assessment, our Management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2019, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria.

Pursuant to Regulation S-K Item 308(b), this Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation report of our company’s registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting.

We regularly review our system of internal control over financial reporting and make changes to our processes and systems to improve controls and increase efficiency, while ensuring that we maintain an effective internal control environment. Changes may include such activities as implementing new, more efficient systems, consolidating activities, and migrating processes. During the quarter ended December 31, 2019, there were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our current executive officers and key employees, including their ages as of February 14, 2020:

The name, age and certain other information of each member of the Board, as of February 14, 2020, is set forth below.

The following is a brief biography of each of our current executive officers, key employees and non-employee directors:

Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Theuer has served as our President, Chief Executive Officer and a member of our Board since July 2006. From 2004 to 2006, Dr. Theuer was the Chief Medical Officer and Vice President of Clinical Development at TargeGen, Inc., a biotechnology company. Prior to joining TargeGen, Inc., Dr. Theuer was Director of Clinical Oncology at Pfizer, Inc., a pharmaceutical corporation, from 2003 to 2004. Dr. Theuer has also held senior positions at IDEC Pharmaceuticals Corp. from 2002 to 2003 and at the National Cancer Institute from 1991 to 1993. In addition, he has held academic positions at the University of California, Irvine, where he was Assistant Professor in the Division of Surgical Oncology and Department of Medicine. Dr. Theuer received a B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.D. from the University of California, San Francisco, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine. He completed a general surgery residency program at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and was board certified in general surgery in 1997. Dr. Theuer currently serves as a director at 4D Molecular Therapeutics, a position he has held since January 2016, and also serves as a director at Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a position he has held since 2018.

Our Board believes that Dr. Theuer’s experience in the biotechnology industry, his medical training and his experience with our company provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our Board.

Mark C. Wiggins, M.B.A. Mr. Wiggins joined us as our Chief Business Officer in May 2018. Prior to joining us, Mr. Wiggins served as Chief Executive Officer at selectION Therapeutics, Inc., from 2017 to 2018, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Business Development at Elcelyx Therapeutics from 2012 to 2015, and Chief Business Officer at Mpex Pharmaceuticals from 2009 to 2011. Prior to this, he served as Executive Vice President of Corporate and Business Development at Biogen Idec, Inc. from 2003 to 2009 and Vice President of Marketing and Business Development at IDEC Pharmaceuticals from 1998 to 2003. Mr. Wiggins also previously served as Head of U.S. Business Development at Schering-Plough (now Merck), in addition to roles at Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Wiggins currently serves on the board of directors of Zogenix and SelectION. He received a B.S. in finance from Syracuse University and an M.B.A. from the University of Arizona.

Scott B. Brown, CPA, M.S. Mr. Brown joined us as Director, Finance and Controller in August 2015, was promoted to Sr. Director, Finance and Controller in January 2017, was promoted to Vice President, Finance in January 2019, and Chief Accounting Officer in September 2019. Prior to joining us, Mr. Brown was Associate Director, Finance at Ardea Biosciences (acquired by

AstraZeneca) where he led finance and accounting for Ardea Biosciences as a subsidiary of AstraZeneca from 2013 to 2015. Before that, from 2011 to 2013 Mr. Brown was Finance Manager at SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Finance Manager at Exelixis, Inc. from 2009 to 2011. Prior to Exelixis, Mr. Brown held accounting positions of increasing responsibility at AcelRx, Inc., Spinal Elements, Inc., Stewart Title, and as an audit associate for KPMG, LLP. Mr. Brown received a B.S. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, a M.S. in Accountancy from San Diego State University, and is a Certified Public Accountant licensed in the state of California.

Bonne Adams, M.B.A. Ms. Adams joined us as our Vice President of Clinical Operations in August 2006, was promoted to Senior Vice President of Clinical Operations in July 2014, and to Executive Vice President of Clinical Operations in January 2019. Prior to joining us, Ms. Adams was a Manager of Clinical Operations at Pfizer, Inc., a pharmaceutical corporation, from 2004 to 2006 and at Biogen Idec, Inc., a biotechnology company, from 2002 to 2004. Ms. Adams has managed both early and late-stage oncology studies of small molecules as well as biologics in the areas of lymphoma, lung, colorectal, ovarian, kidney, sarcoma and breast cancers. From 2000 to 2002, she managed non-oncology programs at Quintiles Inc., a service provider for biopharmaceutical and health sciences companies, including studies in the areas of allergy and pulmonary disease. Ms. Adams received a B.A. in Kinesiology and Biology from the University of Colorado and an M.B.A. in Technology Management from The University of Phoenix.

Suzy Benedict, M.S. Ms. Benedict joined us as our Director of Regulatory Affairs in 2007, was promoted to Vice President of Regulatory Affairs in January 2014, was promoted to Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs in January 2019, and to Executive Vice President of Regulatory Affairs in January 2020. Ms. Benedict previously held positions in Regulatory Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) at Pfizer, Inc. and Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. At Pfizer, she led the Regulatory CMC activities for the approval of Viracept® Tablets, 625 mg and played a key role in the global approvals for Macugen®. She began her pharmaceutical career at Agouron Pharmaceuticals in Medicinal Chemistry synthesizing VEGF inhibitors. Ms. Benedict has led the Regulatory CMC activities on chemical and pharmaceutical development teams from compound identification through commercialization and has experience with small molecule, peptide, oligonucleotide and protein products spanning a wide range of therapeutic areas and has led the regulatory strategy for all phases of clinical development in oncology. Ms. Benedict received a B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a M.S. in Chemistry from San Diego State University.

Mr. LaRue has served as a member of our Board since July 2014. He served as the Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer at Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from June 2006 until its acquisition by Mallinckrodt plc in March 2014, and from April 2007 to March 2014, he served as the Assistant Secretary at Cadence. Prior to joining Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mr. LaRue was the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Micromet, Inc. (formerly CancerVax Corporation), a biotechnology company, from 2001 to 2006. From 2000 to 2001, Mr. LaRue served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of eHelp Corporation, a provider of user assistance software. Previously, he was the Vice President and Treasurer of Safeskin Corporation, a medical device company, from 1997 to 2000 and the Treasurer of GDE Systems, Inc., a high technology electronic systems company from 1993 to 1997. Mr. LaRue currently serves on the board of directors of Conatus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a position he has held since February 2017. In addition, since December 2017 Mr. LaRue has served on the board of directors of Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a cancer therapeutics company that entered into a reverse merger agreement with GTx, Inc. in March 2019, and also serves on the board of directors of Alastin Skincare, Inc., a private innovative skincare company. Mr. LaRue received a B.S. in business administration and an M.B.A. from the University of Southern California.

Our Board believes that Mr. LaRue’s extensive experience in finance, his experience as an executive officer of a public company in our industry and his educational background provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our Board.

Dr. Mattingly has served as a member of our Board since December 2014. Previously, Dr. Mattingly served as the Chief Executive Officer of Trimeris, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from November 2007 until January 2012 following its merger with Synageva BioPharma Corp in November 2011. He also served on the board of directors of Trimeris, Inc. from November 2007 until November 2011. He has been a director of OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, since June 2010 and currently serves on the board of directors of Achieve Life Sciences, Inc. From 2005 to 2007, Dr. Mattingly served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Ambrx, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company. From 2003 to 2005, Dr. Mattingly served as Executive Vice President of CancerVax, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, and as Chief Operating Officer from June 2005 to September 2005. From 1996 to 2003, Dr. Mattingly provided senior leadership in various management positions at Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and

Pfizer, Inc., a pharmaceutical company. From 1983 to 1996, Dr. Mattingly held various positions in oncology marketing and sales management at Eli Lilly and Company, a biopharmaceutical company. Dr. Mattingly received a Doctor of Pharmacy degree from the University of Kentucky.

Our Board believes that Dr. Mattingly’s experience in the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals industries, his educational background and his experience as a public company director provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our Board.

Dr. Twiford has served as a member of our Board since September 2008. Dr. Twiford has been President of Brookline Investments, Inc. (formerly Capital Strategies Advisors, Inc.), an investment advisory company he founded in 1994, since 1999. Dr. Twiford has been a member of the board of directors of Integrated Photonics, Inc., an optical device company, since November 1999. Prior to founding Brookline Partners, Dr. Twiford was a partner of Trammell Crow Company, a real estate development and investment company, from 1987 to 1991. From June 2007 to July 2013, Dr. Twiford was a member of the board of directors of Care Investment Trust Inc. (now Tiptree Financial Inc.), a real estate investment company. He also served as the Chairman of the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee of Care Investment Trust Inc. from September 2011 to July 2013. In addition, Dr. Twiford previously served on the board of a children’s behavioral health company. Dr. Twiford received a B.A. and a Ph.D. from the University of Mississippi, an M.A. from the University of Akron and a J.D. from the University of Virginia.

Our Board believes that Dr. Twiford’s extensive experience in finance, his experience as a public company director and his educational background provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our Board.

Mr. Walker has served on our Board since September 2014. Mr. Walker has been a partner of New Enterprise Associates, an investment firm focused on venture capital and growth equity investments, since April 2008, where Mr. Walker focuses on later-stage biotechnology and life sciences investments. From January 2001 to March 2008, Mr. Walker worked at MPM Capital, a life sciences venture capital firm, where he specialized in public, PIPE and mezzanine-stage life sciences investing as a general partner with the MPM BioEquities Fund. From July 1996 to December 2000, Mr. Walker served as a portfolio manager at Franklin Resources, Inc., a global investment management organization known as Franklin Templeton Investments. Mr. Walker was a member of the board of directors of TESARO, Inc., an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company, from May 2010 to May 2014, and is a board observer of Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and manages a number of NEA’s other late-stage and public investments. In addition, Mr. Walker is a member of the board of directors of Allakos, Inc., a privately held company focused on the development of drugs to treat eosinophil and mast-cell driven diseases. Mr. Walker received a B.S. in biochemistry and cell biology from the University of California at San Diego and holds the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

Our Board believes that Mr. Walker’s experience in the life sciences and venture capital industries, his educational background and his experience as a public company director provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our Board.

Dr. Worland has served as a member of our Board since February 2015. Since May 2012, Dr. Worland has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc., a company focused on new treatments for cancer. Dr. Worland was President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company which discovered and developed treatments for Hepatitis C and cancer, from August 2007 until the company’s acquisition by Roche in November 2011. Dr. Worland joined Anadys in 2001 and served in a number of executive roles prior to being named Chief Executive Officer, including President, Pharmaceuticals, and Chief Scientific Officer. Dr. Worland began his healthcare industry career in 1988 at Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and remained with the company through its successful commercialization of an HIV protease inhibitor and successive acquisitions by Warner-Lambert and Pfizer. During this period, Dr. Worland held a number of positions, including Vice President, Antiviral Research and Director, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry. Dr. Worland was a National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral Fellow in Molecular Biology at Harvard University from 1985 to 1988. Dr. Worland currently serves on the board of directors of Forge Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company discovering first-in-class antibiotics using a breakthrough drug discovery platform, a position he has held since April 2017. Dr. Worland received his B.S. with highest honors in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan and his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley.

Our Board believes that Dr. Worland’s experience as an executive officer of a public company in the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals industries, his educational background and his experience as a public company director provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our Board.

Our business and affairs are organized under the direction of our Board, which currently consists of six members. The primary responsibilities of our Board are to provide oversight, strategic guidance, counseling and direction to our management. Our Board meets on a regular basis and additionally as required.

Two of our six current directors were originally elected to serve on our Board pursuant to an amended and restated voting agreement, dated September 19, 2014, by and among us and certain of our stockholders. Pursuant to the voting agreement, Mr. LaRue and Mr. Walker were selected to serve on our Board as representatives of our preferred stockholders, as designated by the holders of a majority of our outstanding preferred stock with respect to Mr. LaRue, and by New Enterprise Associates 14, L.P. with respect to Mr. Walker. The amended and restated voting agreement terminated in connection with the closing of our initial public offering, and each director previously elected to our Board pursuant to the amended and restated voting agreement will continue to serve as a director until his successor is duly elected and qualified. Dr. Theuer was selected to serve on our Board as the director then serving as our Chief Executive Officer.

At each annual meeting of stockholders, the successors to directors whose terms then expire will serve until the third annual meeting following their election and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. The authorized size of our Board is currently seven members and currently consists of six members. The authorized number of directors may be changed only by resolution by a majority of the Board. This classification of the Board may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in our control or management. Our directors may be removed for cause by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 662/3% of our voting stock.

One of the key functions of our Board is informed oversight of our risk management process. Our Board does not have a standing risk management committee, but rather administers this oversight function directly through the Board as a whole, as well as through various standing committees of our Board that address risks inherent in their respective areas of oversight. In particular, our Board is responsible for monitoring and assessing strategic risk exposure and our audit committee has the responsibility to consider and discuss our major financial risk exposures and the steps our management has taken to monitor and control these exposures, including guidelines and policies to govern the process by which risk assessment and management is undertaken. The audit committee also monitors compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Our nominating and corporate governance committee monitors the effectiveness of our corporate governance practices, including whether they are successful in preventing illegal or improper liability-creating conduct. Our compensation committee assesses and monitors whether any of our compensation policies and programs has the potential to encourage excessive risk-taking.

Our Board has established three standing committees: an audit committee, a compensation committee and a nominating and corporate governance committee. Below is a description of each standing committee of the Board.

Our audit committee consists of Mr. LaRue, Mr. Walker and Dr. Worland. Our Board has determined that each of the members of this committee satisfies the Nasdaq independence requirements. Each member of our audit committee can read and understand fundamental financial statements in accordance with Nasdaq audit committee requirements. In arriving at this determination, the board has examined each audit committee member’s scope of experience and the nature of their prior and/or current employment.

Mr. LaRue serves as the chair of our audit committee. Our Board has determined that Mr. LaRue qualifies as an audit committee financial expert within the meaning of SEC regulations and meets the financial sophistication requirements of the pertinent listing standards of Nasdaq, as in effect from time to time. In making this determination, our board has considered Mr. LaRue’s formal

education and previous and current experience in financial roles. Both our independent registered public accounting firm and management periodically meet privately with our audit committee.

The audit committee has adopted a written charter that is available to stockholders on the Company’s website at www.traconpharma.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report.

Our compensation committee consists of Dr. Mattingly, Dr. Twiford, and Mr. LaRue. Dr. Mattingly serves as the chair of our compensation committee. Our Board has determined that each of the members of our compensation committee is a non-employee director, as defined in Rule 16b-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act, is an outside director, as defined pursuant to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and satisfies the Nasdaq independence requirements. The functions of this committee include, among other things:

Typically, our compensation committee meets multiple times per year and with greater frequency if necessary. The agenda for each meeting is usually developed by the Chair of the compensation committee, in consultation with our Chief Executive Officer. Our compensation committee meets regularly in executive session. However, from time to time, various members of management and other employees as well as outside advisors or consultants may be invited by the compensation committee to make presentations, to provide financial or other background information or advice or to otherwise participate in compensation committee meetings. Our Chief Executive Officer may not participate in, or be present during, any deliberations or determinations of the compensation committee regarding his compensation. The charter of our compensation committee grants the compensation committee full access to all of our books, records, facilities and personnel, as well as authority to obtain, at our expense, advice and assistance from internal and external legal, accounting or other advisors and consultants and other external resources that the compensation committee considers necessary or appropriate in the performance of its duties. In particular, the compensation committee has the sole authority to retain compensation consultants to assist in its evaluation of executive and director compensation, including the authority to approve the consultant’s reasonable fees and other retention terms.

Under its charter, our compensation committee may form, and delegate authority to, subcommittees as appropriate. In 2015, the compensation committee approved the formation of a CEO stock option sub-committee of the compensation committee, currently composed of Dr. Theuer, our Chief Executive Officer, to which authority has been delegated to grant, without any further action required by the compensation committee, stock options and restricted stock units, or RSUs, to employees who are not our officers. The

purpose of this delegation of authority is to enhance the flexibility of equity award administration and to facilitate the timely grant of equity awards to non-management employees, particularly new employees, within specified limits approved by our compensation committee. In particular, the subcommittee may grant options or RSUs only within pre-approved guidelines. Typically, as part of its oversight function, our compensation committee will review on a regular basis the list of grants made by the subcommittee. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the subcommittee did not exercise its authority to grant equity awards to purchase shares of our common stock to non-officer employees.

Historically, our compensation committee has made most of the significant adjustments to annual compensation, determined bonus and equity awards and established new performance objectives at one or more meetings held toward the end of the year or the beginning of the following year. However, the compensation committee also considers matters related to individual compensation, such as compensation for new executive hires, as well as high-level strategic issues, such as the efficacy of our compensation strategy, potential modifications to that strategy and new trends, plans or approaches to compensation, at various meetings throughout the year. Generally, our compensation committee’s process comprises two related elements: the determination of compensation levels (including bonus amounts based upon performance objectives for the prior year) and the establishment of performance objectives for the current year. For executives other than the Chief Executive Officer, the compensation committee solicits and considers evaluations and recommendations submitted to it by the Chief Executive Officer. In the case of our Chief Executive Officer, the evaluation of his performance is conducted by the compensation committee, which determines any adjustments to his compensation as well as awards to be granted. For all executives and directors as part of its deliberations, the compensation committee may review and consider, as appropriate, materials such as financial reports and projections, operational data, tax and accounting information, tally sheets that set forth the total compensation that may become payable to executives in various hypothetical scenarios, executive and director stock ownership information, company stock performance data, analyses of historical executive compensation levels and current Company-wide compensation levels and analyses of executive and director compensation paid at other companies.

The compensation committee has adopted a written charter that is available to stockholders on the Company’s website at www.traconpharma.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report.

The specific determinations of the compensation committee with respect to executive compensation for fiscal 2019 are described in greater detail below under the heading “Executive Compensation.”

None of the members of our Compensation Committee has ever been an executive officer or employee of ours. None of our executive officers currently serves, or has served during the last completed fiscal year, on the compensation committee or board of directors of any other entity that has one or more executive officers serving as a member of our Board or compensation committee.

Our nominating and corporate governance committee consists of Mr. Walker, Dr. Mattingly and Dr. Worland. Our Board has determined that each of the members of this committee satisfies the Nasdaq independence requirements. Mr. Walker serves as the chair of our nominating and corporate governance committee. The functions of this committee include, among other things:

Our nominating and corporate governance committee believes that candidates for director, both individually and collectively, can and do provide the integrity, experience, judgment, commitment (including having sufficient time to devote to us and level of participation), skills, diversity and expertise appropriate for us. In assessing the directors, both individually and collectively, the nominating and corporate governance committee may consider the current needs of the Board and of us to maintain a balance of knowledge, experience and capability in various areas. However, the nominating and corporate governance committee retains the right to modify these qualifications from time to time. Candidates for director nominees are reviewed in the context of the current composition of the Board, our operating requirements and the long-term interests of stockholders. In conducting this assessment, the nominating and corporate governance committee typically considers diversity, age, skills and such other factors as it deems appropriate given the current needs of the Board and us, to maintain a balance of knowledge, experience and capability. In the case of incumbent directors whose terms of office are set to expire, the nominating and corporate governance committee reviews these directors’ overall service to us during their terms, including the number of meetings attended, level of participation, quality of performance and any other relationships and transactions that might impair the directors’ independence. In the case of new director candidates, the nominating and corporate governance committee also determines whether the nominee is independent for Nasdaq purposes, which determination is based upon applicable Nasdaq listing standards, applicable SEC rules and regulations and the advice of counsel, if necessary. The nominating and corporate governance committee then uses its network of contacts to compile a list of potential candidates, but may also engage, if it deems appropriate, a professional search firm. The nominating and corporate governance committee conducts any appropriate and necessary inquiries into the backgrounds and qualifications of possible candidates after considering the function and needs of the Board. The nominating and corporate governance committee meets to discuss and consider the candidates’ qualifications and then selects a nominee for recommendation to the Board by majority vote.

The Board has adopted a written nominating and corporate governance committee charter that is available to stockholders on the Company’s website at www.traconpharma.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report.

The nominating and corporate governance committee will consider director candidates recommended by stockholders. The nominating and corporate governance committee does not intend to alter the manner in which it evaluates candidates based on whether or not the candidate was recommended by a stockholder. Stockholders who wish to recommend individuals for consideration by the nominating and corporate governance committee to become nominees for election to the Board may do so by delivering a written recommendation to the nominating and corporate governance committee at the following address: 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800, San Diego, CA, 92122, Attn: Secretary, no later than the close of business on the 90th day and no earlier than the close of business on the 120th day prior to the one year anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting. Submissions must include (1) the name and address of the Company stockholder on whose behalf the submission is made; (2) number of Company shares that are owned beneficially by such stockholder as of the date of the submission; (3) the full name of the proposed candidate; (4) description of the proposed candidate’s business experience for at least the previous five years; (5) complete biographical information for the proposed candidate; (6) a description of the proposed candidate’s qualifications as a director and (7) any other information required by the Company’s Bylaws. The Company may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information as it may reasonably require to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as an independent director of the Company or that could be material to a reasonable stockholder’s understanding of the independence, or lack thereof, of such proposed nominee.

During fiscal 2019, our Board met ten times, the audit committee met four times, the compensation committee met three times and the nominating and corporate governance committee met one time. Each member of our board attended 75% or more of the board meetings during the year ended December 31, 2019 that were held during the period for which he or she was a director (if any). Each member of the board who served on the audit, compensation or nominating and corporate committees attended at least 75% of the respective committee meetings during the year ended December 31, 2019 that were held during the period for which he or she was a committee member, with the exception of Dr. Twiford who attended 33% of the compensation committee meetings held during the year ended December 31, 2019.

We do not have a formal policy regarding director attendance at our annual meetings; however, we encourage directors to attend. All of our directors attended the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders held in 2019.

None of our directors or executive officers has been involved in any of the legal proceedings specified in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K in the past 10 years.

We maintain a written code of business conduct and ethics that applies to our directors, officers and employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. A current copy of the code is available on the Corporate Governance section of our website, www.traconpharma.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report. We intend to disclose on our website any amendments to, or waivers from, our code of business conduct and ethics that are required to be disclosed pursuant to SEC rules.

Our named executive officers for the year ended December 31, 2019, which consist of our principal executive officer and two other executive officers as of December 31, 2019, were:

						Non-equity
				Option		incentive plan		All other
		Salary		awards		compensation		compensation		Total
Name and principal position	Year	($)		($)(1)		($)(2)		($)		($)
Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.	2019		552,921		258,566		262,637		11,200		1,085,324
President and Chief Executive Officer	2018		542,079		341,505		216,832		11,200		1,111,616
Mark C. Wiggins, M.B.A.	2019		354,164		101,178		136,474		11,200		603,016
Chief Business Officer	2018		208,205		545,580		71,556		8,328		833,669
Scott B. Brown, CPA, M.S. (3)	2019		240,000		56,210		193,843		11,200		401,253
Chief Accounting Officer	2018		191,982		30,356		36,710		9,308		268,356

(1) In accordance with SEC rules, this column reflects the aggregate grant date fair value of the option awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 for stock-based compensation transactions (ASC 718). Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are included in Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included within Part IV of this Annual Report. These amounts do not reflect the actual economic value that will be realized by the named executive officer upon the vesting of the stock options, the exercise of the stock options, or the sale of the common stock underlying the stock options.

(2) Amounts shown represent annual performance-based bonuses earned for the respective fiscal year, including a $100,000 retention bonus paid to Mr. Brown in 2019. For more information, see below under “—Annual Performance-Based Bonus Opportunity.”

The compensation of our named executive officers is generally determined and approved by our Board, based on the recommendation of the compensation committee of our Board. The table below shows the annual base salaries for our named executive officers in 2019:

In addition to base salaries, our named executive officers are eligible to receive annual performance-based cash bonuses, which are designed to provide appropriate incentives to our executives to achieve defined annual corporate goals and to reward our executives for individual achievement towards these goals. The annual performance-based bonus each named executive officer is eligible to receive is generally based on the extent to which we achieve the corporate goals that our Board establishes each year. At the end of the year, our Board reviews our performance against each corporate goal and determines the extent to which we achieved each of our corporate goals.

For 2019, Dr. Theuer was eligible to receive a target bonus of up to 50% of his base salary, Mr. Wiggins was eligible to receive a target bonus of up to 40% of his base salary, and Mr. Brown was eligible to receive a target bonus of up to 40% of his base salary each pursuant to the terms of their employment agreement that was in effect during 2019, as described below under “—Agreements with our Named Executive Officers.” Our Board will also consider each named executive officer’s individual contributions towards reaching our annual corporate goals. There is no minimum bonus percentage or amount established for the named executive officers and, as a result, the bonus amounts vary from year to year based on corporate and individual performance. In June 2019, our Board approved our corporate goals for 2019, with finance goals assigned a 40% weight, project-based goals assigned a 30% weight and business development goals assigned a 30% weight.

On January 28, 2020, the compensation committee determined that we had achieved 95% of the 2019 corporate goals for purposes of 2019 annual performance-based bonuses. Based on the determination of 95% corporate goal achievement, Dr. Theuer was awarded a 2019 annual performance-based cash bonus in the amount of $262,637. Additionally, based on the committee’s and Dr. Theuer’s assessment, Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Brown were awarded a 2019 annual performance-based cash bonus in the amount of $136,474 and $93,843, respectively.

Our equity-based incentive awards are designed to align our interests with those of our employees and consultants, including our named executive officers. In the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019, stock option awards were the only form of equity awards we granted to our named executive officers. Vesting of the stock option awards is tied to continuous service with us and serves as an additional retention measure. Our executives generally are awarded an initial new hire grant of option awards upon commencement of employment. Additional grants may occur periodically in order to specifically incentivize executives with respect to achieving certain corporate goals or to reward executives for exceptional performance.

With the exception of stock option awards granted to Dr. Theuer, described below under “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control,” all of our outstanding stock option awards to executives as of December 31, 2019 contain a double trigger acceleration feature. Pursuant to such double trigger acceleration feature, in the event of the holder’s cessation of continuous service without cause, and not due to a death or disability, in connection with or within either 12 or 18 months following consummation of a change in control, the vesting and exercisability of the option will be accelerated in full.

Below are descriptions of our employment agreements with our named executive officers. For a discussion of the severance pay and other benefits to be provided in connection with a termination of employment and/or a change in control under the arrangements with our named executive officers, please see “—Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” below.

Agreement with Dr. Theuer. On February 5, 2019, we entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Charles P. Theuer, our President and Chief Executive Officer, which amended, restated and superseded in its entirety Dr. Theuer’s employment agreement entered into in February 2017. Pursuant to the amended employment agreement, Dr. Theuer is entitled to an initial annual base salary of $552,921 and is eligible to receive an annual performance bonus of up to 50% of his base salary, as determined by our Board. Dr. Theuer is additionally entitled to certain severance benefits pursuant to his agreement, the terms of which are described below under “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control.”

Agreement with Mr. Wiggins. On May 29, 2018, we entered into an Employment Agreement with Mark C. Wiggins, our Chief Business Officer, which governs the terms of his employment with us. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Wiggins is entitled to an initial base salary of $350,000, is eligible to receive an annual target performance bonus of up to 40% of his base salary, as determined by our Board, and was granted an option to purchase an aggregate of 280,000 shares of our common stock. Mr. Wiggins is additionally entitled to certain severance benefits pursuant to a severance agreement that we entered into with Mr. Wiggins on May 29, 2018, the terms of which are described below under “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control.”

Agreement with Mr. Brown. On January 28, 2020, we entered into an Employment Agreement with Scott B. Brown, our Chief Accounting Officer, which governs the terms of his employment with us. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Brown is entitled to an initial base salary of $254,400 and is eligible to receive an annual target performance bonus of up to 40% of his base salary, as determined by our Board. Mr. Brown is additionally entitled to certain severance benefits pursuant to a severance agreement that we entered into with Mr. Brown on December 4, 2019, the terms of which are described below under “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control.”

Regardless of the manner in which a named executive officer’s service terminates, the named executive officer is entitled to receive amounts earned during his or her term of service, including salary and unused vacation pay. In addition, each of our named executive officers is eligible to receive certain benefits pursuant to his agreement with us described above under “—Agreements with our Named Executive Officers.”

Dr. Theuer. If Dr. Theuer’s employment is terminated without cause or he resigns for good reason, in each case, other than in connection with a change in control, he would be entitled to receive severance payments equal to continued payment of his base salary for 12 months, employee benefit coverage for up to 12 months and 100% automatic vesting of any unvested time-based stock option awards. If Dr. Theuer’s employment is terminated without cause or he resigns for good reason within 12 months following a change in control, he would be entitled to receive severance payments equal to continued payment of his base salary for 18 months, 150% of his annual performance bonus, employee benefit coverage for up to 18 months and 100% automatic vesting of any unvested time-based stock option awards. In addition, if Dr. Theuer’s employment is terminated as a result of his death, his estate would be entitled to a one-time lump-sum payment equal to his base salary for 12 months and his stock option awards would vest on an accelerated basis as if his termination occurred six months later. If Dr. Theuer’s employment is terminated as a result of disability, his stock option awards would vest on an accelerated basis as if his termination occurred six months later. If Dr. Theuer’s employment is terminated for cause or if he resigns without good reason, he would be entitled to his base salary owed to him, any expense reimbursement owed to him, and any other benefits accrued, in each case, as of the date of his termination.

Mr. Wiggins. On May 29, 2018, we entered into a severance agreement with Mr. Wiggins. Pursuant to the severance agreement, Mr. Wiggins is entitled to certain severance benefits and other payments upon the occurrence of certain events. If Mr. Wiggins’ employment is terminated without cause or he resigns for good reason, in each case, other than in connection with a change in control, he would be entitled to receive severance payments equal to continued payment of his base salary for nine months, employee benefit coverage for up to nine months and accelerated vesting on any unvested time-based stock option awards as if Mr. Wiggins had completed an additional nine months of employment following the termination date. If Mr. Wiggins’ employment is terminated without cause or he resigns for good reason within 12 months following a change in control, he would be entitled to receive severance payments equal to continued payment of his base salary for 12 months, 100% of his annual performance bonus, employee benefit coverage for up to 12 months and 100% automatic vesting of any unvested time-based stock option awards.

Mr. Brown. On December 4, 2019, we entered into a severance agreement with Mr. Brown. Pursuant to the severance agreement, Mr. Brown is entitled to certain severance benefits and other payments upon the occurrence of certain events. If Mr. Browns’ employment is terminated without cause or he resigns for good reason, in each case, other than in connection with a change in control, he would be entitled to receive severance payments equal to continued payment of his base salary for nine months, employee benefit coverage for up to nine months and accelerated vesting on any unvested time-based stock option awards as if Mr. Brown had completed an additional nine months of employment following the termination date. If Mr. Browns’ employment is terminated without cause or he resigns for good reason within 12 months following a change in control, he would be entitled to receive severance payments equal to continued payment of his base salary for 12 months, 100% of his annual performance bonus, employee benefit coverage for up to 12 months and 100% automatic vesting of any unvested time-based stock option awards.

The following table sets forth certain information regarding equity awards held by our named executive officers that remain outstanding as of December 31, 2019.

			Option Awards(1)								Stock Awards
	Grant date	Vesting commencement date	Number of securities underlying unexercised options (#) exercisable			Number of securities underlying unexercised options (#) unexercisable		Option exercise price per share ($)(2)		Option expiration date	Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#)		Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)
Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.	9/20/2011	3/31/2011		17,733			—	$	7.01	9/19/2021
	3/14/2013	7/13/2012		2,583			—	$	13.35	3/13/2023
	5/23/2013	5/15/2013		6,801			—	$	13.35	5/22/2023
	10/3/2014	10/3/2014		8,257			—	$	70.43	10/2/2024
	10/3/2014	10/3/2014		5,137	(3)		—	$	70.43	10/2/2024
	3/26/2015	3/26/2015		14,721			—	$	143.40	3/25/2025
	1/21/2016	1/21/2016										2,272	$	5,316
	1/20/2017	1/20/2017		13,852			5,147	$	51.50	1/19/2027
	2/21/2018	2/21/2018		10,307			12,192	$	21.50	2/20/2028
	1/29/2019	1/29/2019		—			45,999	$	7.90	1/28/2029
Mark Wiggins, M.B.A.	5/29/2018	5/29/2018		11,083			16,917	$	27.50	5/28/2028
	1/29/2019	1/29/2019		—			18,000	$	7.90	1/28/2029
Scott B. Brown, CPA, M.S.	8/31/2015	8/31/2015		2,352			—	$	104.90	8/20/2025
	1/21/2016	1/21/2016										43	$	101
	1/20/2017	1/20/2017		968			364	$	51.50	1/19/2027
	2/21/2018	2/21/2018		916			1,084	$	21.50	2/20/2028
	1/29/2019	1/29/2019		—			10,000	$	7.90	1/28/2029

We did not engage in any repricings or other modifications or cancellations to any of our named executive officers’ outstanding equity awards during the year ended December 31, 2019.

All of our named executive officers are eligible to participate in our employee benefit plans, including our medical, dental, and life and disability insurance plans, in each case on the same basis as all of our other employees. We provide a 401(k) plan to our employees, including our named executive officers, as discussed in the section below entitled “—401(k) Plan.”

We maintain a defined contribution employee retirement plan, or 401(k) plan, for our employees. Our named executive officers are also eligible to participate in the 401(k) plan on the same basis as our other employees. The 401(k) plan is intended to qualify as a tax-qualified plan under Section 401(k) of the Code, and is also intended to qualify as a safe harbor plan. During 2019, we made matching contributions of 100% of the amount of each participant’s contributions, up to 4% of each participant’s compensation. The 401(k) plan currently does not offer the ability to invest in our securities.

None of our named executive officers participate in or have account balances in nonqualified defined contribution plans or other nonqualified deferred compensation plans maintained by us. Our Board may elect to provide our officers and other employees with nonqualified defined contribution or other nonqualified deferred compensation benefits in the future if it determines that doing so is in our best interests.

On January 28, 2020, the compensation committee of our Board adopted a revised written bonus plan, which sets forth the terms of the annual incentive bonus opportunity for eligible employees of our company. Under the bonus plan, our executive officers are eligible to receive bonus awards that are determined based on the achievement of our corporate goals for the applicable plan year. Bonuses, if any, under the bonus plan will be payable in cash or equity, or a combination of both, after the end of the applicable plan year and no later than December 31 of the following year.

Our Board adopted the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2015 Plan, in January 2015 and our stockholders approved the 2015 Plan in January 2015, which became effective on January 29, 2015, and since that date, no further grants have been made under the 2011 plan.

Stock Awards. The 2015 Plan provides for the grant of incentive stock options, or ISOs, nonstatutory stock options, or NSOs, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards, restricted stock unit awards, performance-based stock awards, and other forms of equity compensation, or collectively, stock awards, all of which may be granted to employees, including officers, non-employee directors and consultants of us and our affiliates. Additionally, the 2015 Plan provides for the grant of performance cash awards. ISOs may be granted only to employees. All other awards may be granted to employees, including officers, and to non-employee directors and consultants.

Share Reserve. Initially, the aggregate number of shares of our common stock that may be issued pursuant to stock awards under the 2015 Plan was the sum of (1) 80,103 shares, plus (2) the number of shares (not to exceed 106,258 shares) (a) reserved for issuance under our 2011 plan at the time our 2015 Plan became effective, and (b) any shares subject to outstanding stock options or other stock awards that were granted under our 2011 plan that are forfeited, terminate, expire or are otherwise not issued. Additionally, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under our 2015 Plan will automatically increase on January 1^st of each year, beginning on January 1, 2016 and continuing through and including January 1, 2025, by 4% of the total number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31^st of the preceding calendar year, or a lesser number of shares determined by our Board. The maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of ISOs under our 2015 Plan is 361,757 shares.

No person may be granted stock awards covering more than 25,839 shares of our common stock under our 2015 Plan during any calendar year pursuant to stock options, stock appreciation rights and other stock awards whose value is determined by reference to an increase over an exercise or strike price of at least 100% of the fair market value on the date the stock award is granted. Additionally, no person may be granted in a calendar year a performance stock award covering more than 25,839 shares of our common stock or a performance cash award having a maximum value in excess of $1,000,000.

If a stock award granted under the 2015 Plan expires or otherwise terminates without being exercised in full, or is settled in cash, the shares of our common stock not acquired pursuant to the stock award again will become available for subsequent issuance under the 2015 Plan. In addition, the following types of shares of our common stock under the 2015 Plan may become available for the grant of new stock awards under the 2015 Plan: (1) shares that are forfeited to or repurchased by us prior to becoming fully vested; (2) shares withheld to satisfy income or employment withholding taxes; or (3) shares used to pay the exercise or purchase price of a stock award. Shares issued under the 2015 Plan may be previously unissued shares or reacquired shares bought by us on the open market.

In December 2015, the 2015 Plan was amended to allow an additional 50,000 shares of common stock to be used exclusively for the grant of awards as a material inducement for individuals to commence employment in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4). As of February 14, 2020, 548,182 shares of common stock were subject to outstanding awards under the 2015 Plan and 55,468 shares remained available for grant.

Administration. Our Board, or a duly authorized committee thereof, has the authority to administer the 2015 Plan. Our Board may also delegate to one or more of our officers the authority to (1) designate employees (other than other officers) to be recipients of

certain stock awards, and (2) determine the number of shares of common stock to be subject to such stock awards. Subject to the terms of the 2015 Plan, our Board or the authorized committee, referred to herein as the plan administrator, determines recipients, dates of grant, the numbers and types of stock awards to be granted and the terms and conditions of the stock awards, including the period of their exercisability and vesting schedule applicable to a stock award. Subject to the limitations set forth below, the plan administrator will also determine the exercise price, strike price or purchase price of awards granted and the types of consideration to be paid for the award.

The plan administrator has the authority to modify outstanding awards under our 2015 Plan. Subject to the terms of our 2015 Plan, the plan administrator has the authority to reduce the exercise, purchase or strike price of any outstanding stock award, cancel any outstanding stock award in exchange for new stock awards, cash or other consideration, or take any other action that is treated as a repricing under generally accepted accounting principles, with the consent of any adversely affected participant.

Stock Options. ISOs and NSOs are granted pursuant to stock option agreements adopted by the plan administrator. The plan administrator determines the exercise price for a stock option, within the terms and conditions of the 2015 Plan, provided that the exercise price of a stock option generally cannot be less than 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Options granted under the 2015 Plan vest at the rate specified by the plan administrator.

The plan administrator determines the term of stock options granted under the 2015 Plan, up to a maximum of ten years. Unless the terms of an optionholder’s stock option agreement provide otherwise, if an optionholder’s service relationship with us, or any of our affiliates, ceases for any reason other than disability, death or cause, the optionholder may generally exercise any vested options for a period of three months following the cessation of service. The option term may be extended in the event that exercise of the option following such a termination of service is prohibited by applicable securities laws or our insider trading policy. If an optionholder’s service relationship with us or any of our affiliates ceases due to disability or death, or an optionholder dies within a certain period following cessation of service, the optionholder or a beneficiary may generally exercise any vested options for a period of 12 months in the event of disability and 18 months in the event of death. In the event of a termination for cause, options generally terminate immediately upon the termination of the individual for cause. In no event may an option be exercised beyond the expiration of its term.

Acceptable consideration for the purchase of common stock issued upon the exercise of a stock option will be determined by the plan administrator and may include (1) cash, check, bank draft or money order, (2) a broker-assisted cashless exercise, (3) the tender of shares of our common stock previously owned by the optionholder, (4) a net exercise of the option if it is an NSO, and (5) other legal consideration approved by the plan administrator.

Unless the plan administrator provides otherwise, options generally are not transferable except by will, the laws of descent and distribution, or pursuant to a domestic relations order. An optionholder may designate a beneficiary, however, who may exercise the option following the optionholder’s death.

Tax Limitations on Incentive Stock Options. The aggregate fair market value, determined at the time of grant, of our common stock with respect to ISOs that are exercisable for the first time by an optionholder during any calendar year under all of our stock plans may not exceed $100,000. Options or portions thereof that exceed such limit will generally be treated as NSOs. No ISO may be granted to any person who, at the time of the grant, owns or is deemed to own stock possessing more than 10% of our total combined voting power or that of any of our affiliates unless (1) the option exercise price is at least 110% of the fair market value of the stock subject to the option on the date of grant, and (2) the term of the ISO does not exceed five years from the date of grant.

Restricted Stock Awards. Restricted stock awards are granted pursuant to restricted stock award agreements adopted by the plan administrator. Restricted stock awards may be granted in consideration for (1) cash, check, bank draft or money order, (2) services rendered to us or our affiliates, or (3) any other form of legal consideration. Common stock acquired under a restricted stock award may, but need not, be subject to a share repurchase option in our favor in accordance with a vesting schedule to be determined by the plan administrator. A restricted stock award may be transferred only upon such terms and conditions as set by the plan administrator. Except as otherwise provided in the applicable award agreement, restricted stock awards that have not vested may be forfeited or repurchased by us upon the participant’s cessation of continuous service for any reason.

Restricted Stock Unit Awards. Restricted stock unit awards are granted pursuant to restricted stock unit award agreements adopted by the plan administrator. Restricted stock unit awards may be granted in consideration for any form of legal consideration. A restricted stock unit award may be settled by cash, delivery of stock, a combination of cash and stock as deemed appropriate by the plan administrator, or in any other form of consideration set forth in the restricted stock unit award agreement. Additionally, dividend equivalents may be credited in respect of shares covered by a restricted stock unit award. Except as otherwise provided in the applicable award agreement, restricted stock units that have not vested will be forfeited upon the participant’s cessation of continuous service for any reason.

Stock Appreciation Rights. Stock appreciation rights are granted pursuant to stock appreciation grant agreements adopted by the plan administrator. The plan administrator determines the strike price for a stock appreciation right, which generally cannot be less than 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Upon the exercise of a stock appreciation right, we will pay the participant an amount equal to the product of (1) the excess of the per share fair market value of our common stock on the date of exercise over the strike price, multiplied by (2) the number of shares of common stock with respect to which the stock appreciation right is exercised. A stock appreciation right granted under the 2015 Plan vests at the rate specified in the stock appreciation right agreement as determined by the plan administrator.

The plan administrator determines the term of stock appreciation rights granted under the 2015 Plan, up to a maximum of ten years. Unless the terms of a participant’s stock appreciation right agreement provides otherwise, if a participant’s service relationship with us or any of our affiliates ceases for any reason other than cause, disability or death, the participant may generally exercise any vested stock appreciation right for a period of three months following the cessation of service. The stock appreciation right term may be further extended in the event that exercise of the stock appreciation right following such a termination of service is prohibited by applicable securities laws. If a participant’s service relationship with us, or any of our affiliates, ceases due to disability or death, or a participant dies within a certain period following cessation of service, the participant or a beneficiary may generally exercise any vested stock appreciation right for a period of 12 months in the event of disability and 18 months in the event of death. In the event of a termination for cause, stock appreciation rights generally terminate immediately upon the occurrence of the event giving rise to the termination of the individual for cause. In no event may a stock appreciation right be exercised beyond the expiration of its term.

Performance Awards. The 2015 Plan permits the grant of performance-based stock and cash awards that may qualify as performance-based compensation. Our compensation committee can structure such awards so that stock or cash will be issued or paid pursuant to such award only after the achievement of certain pre-established performance goals during a designated performance period.

The performance goals that may be selected include one or more of the following: (1) earnings (including earnings per share and net earnings); (2) earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation; (3) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization; (4) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and legal settlements; (5) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, legal settlements and other income (expense); (6) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, legal settlements, other income (expense) and stock-based compensation; (7) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, legal settlements, other income (expense), stock-based compensation and changes in deferred revenue; (8) total stockholder return; (9) return on equity or average stockholder’s equity; (10) return on assets, investment, or capital employed; (11) stock price; (12) margin (including gross margin); (13) income (before or after taxes); (14) operating income; (15) operating income after taxes; (16) pre-tax profit; (17) operating cash flow; (18) sales or revenue targets; (19) increases in revenue or product revenue; (20) expenses and cost reduction goals; (21) improvement in or attainment of working capital levels; (22) economic value added (or an equivalent metric); (23) market share; (24) cash flow; (25) cash flow per share; (26) share price performance; (27) debt reduction; (28) implementation or completion of projects or processes (including, without limitation, clinical trial initiation, clinical trial enrollment, clinical trial results, new and supplemental indications for existing products, regulatory filing submissions, regulatory filing acceptances, regulatory or advisory committee interactions, regulatory approvals, and product supply); (29) stockholders’ equity; (30) capital expenditures; (31) debt levels; (32) operating profit or net operating profit; (33) workforce diversity; (34) growth of net income or operating income; (35) billings; (36) bookings; (37) employee retention; (38) initiation of phases of clinical trials and/or studies by specific dates; (39) patient enrollment rates; (40) budget management; (41) submission to, or approval by, a regulatory body (including, but not limited to the FDA) of an applicable filing or a product candidate; (42) regulatory milestones; (43) progress of internal research or clinical programs; (44) progress of partnered programs; (45) partner satisfaction; (46) timely completion of clinical trials; (47) submission of INDs and NDAs and other regulatory achievements; (48) research progress, including the development of programs; (49) strategic partnerships or transactions (including in-licensing and out-licensing of intellectual property; and (50) other measures of performance selected by our Board.

The performance goals may be based on a company-wide basis, with respect to one or more business units, divisions, affiliates, or business segments, and in either absolute terms or relative to the performance of one or more comparable companies or the performance of one or more relevant indices. Unless specified otherwise (1) in the award agreement at the time the award is granted or (2) in such other document setting forth the performance goals at the time the goals are established, we will appropriately make adjustments in the method of calculating the attainment of performance goals as follows: (a) to exclude restructuring and/or other nonrecurring charges; (b) to exclude exchange rate effects; (c) to exclude the effects of changes to generally accepted accounting principles; (d) to exclude the effects of any statutory adjustments to corporate tax rates; (e) to exclude the effects of any “extraordinary items” as determined under generally accepted accounting principles; (f) to exclude the dilutive effects of acquisitions or joint ventures; (g) to assume that any business divested by us achieved performance objectives at targeted levels during the balance of a performance period following such divestiture; (h) to exclude the effect of any change in the outstanding shares of our common stock by reason of any stock dividend or split, stock repurchase, reorganization, recapitalization, merger, consolidation, spin-off, combination or exchange of shares or other similar corporate change, or any distributions to common stockholders other than regular cash dividends; (i) to exclude the effects of stock-based compensation and the award of bonuses under our bonus plans; (j) to exclude costs incurred in connection with potential acquisitions or divestitures that are required to be expensed under generally accepted

accounting principles; (k) to exclude the goodwill and intangible asset impairment charges that are required to be recorded under generally accepted accounting principles; (l) to exclude the effect of any other unusual, non-recurring gain or loss or other extraordinary item; and (m) to exclude the effects of the timing of acceptance for review and/or approval of submissions to the FDA or any other regulatory body. In addition, we retain the discretion to reduce or eliminate the compensation or economic benefit due upon attainment of the performance goals and to define the manner of calculating the performance criteria we select to use for such performance period. The performance goals may differ from participant to participant and from award to award.

Other Stock Awards. The plan administrator may grant other awards based in whole or in part by reference to our common stock. The plan administrator will set the number of shares under the stock award and all other terms and conditions of such awards.

Changes to Capital Structure. In the event that there is a specified type of change in our capital structure, such as a stock split or recapitalization, appropriate adjustments will be made to (1) the class and maximum number of shares reserved for issuance under the 2015 Plan, (2) the class and maximum number of shares by which the share reserve may increase automatically each year, (3) the class and maximum number of shares that may be issued upon the exercise of ISOs, (4) the class and maximum number of shares subject to stock awards that can be granted in a calendar year (as established under the 2015 Plan) and (5) the class and number of shares and exercise price, strike price, or purchase price, if applicable, of all outstanding stock awards.

Corporate Transactions. In the event of certain specified significant corporate transactions, the plan administrator has the discretion to take any of the following actions with respect to stock awards:

Our plan administrator is not obligated to treat all stock awards, even those that are of the same type, in the same manner.

Under the 2015 Plan, a corporate transaction is generally the consummation of (1) a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of our consolidated assets, (2) a sale or other disposition of at least 90% of our outstanding securities, (3) a merger, consolidation or similar transaction following which we are not the surviving corporation, or (4) a merger, consolidation or similar transaction following which we are the surviving corporation but the shares of our common stock outstanding immediately prior to such transaction are converted or exchanged into other property by virtue of the transaction.

Change of Control. The plan administrator may provide, in an individual award agreement or in any other written agreement between a participant and us that the stock award will be subject to additional acceleration of vesting and exercisability in the event of a change of control. For example, certain of our employees may receive an award agreement that provides for vesting acceleration upon the individual’s termination without cause or resignation for good reason (including a material reduction in the individual’s base salary, duties, responsibilities or authority, or a material relocation of the individual’s principal place of employment with us) in connection with a change of control. Under the 2015 Plan, a change of control is generally (1) the acquisition by a person or entity of more than 50% of our combined voting power other than by merger, consolidation or similar transaction; (2) a consummated merger, consolidation or similar transaction immediately after which our stockholders cease to own more than 50% of the combined voting power of the surviving entity; or (3) a consummated sale, lease or exclusive license or other disposition of all or substantially of our consolidated assets.

Amendment and Termination. Our Board has the authority to amend, suspend, or terminate our 2015 Plan, provided that such action does not materially impair the existing rights of any participant without such participant’s written consent. No ISOs may be granted after the tenth anniversary of the date our Board adopted our 2015 Plan.

Our Board initially adopted, and our stockholders approved the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2011 plan, in August 2011. The 2011 plan provides for the grant of stock options (ISOs and NSOs), stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards and RSU awards to our employees, directors, and consultants. No additional awards will be granted under the 2011 plan, and all awards granted under the 2011 plan that are repurchased, forfeited, expired, cancelled or otherwise not issued will become available for grant under the 2015 Plan in accordance with its terms.

Administration. Our Board, or a duly authorized committee thereof, has the authority to administer the 2011 plan. Awards under the 2011 plan were granted pursuant to award agreements adopted by the plan administrator.

Share Reserve. The initial number of shares we reserved for issuance pursuant to the 2011 plan was 84,358 shares, which was increased in September 2014 to 107,097 shares in connection with our issuance of shares of our Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock. As of February 14, 2020, 27,621 shares of common stock were issued and outstanding pursuant to options under the plan that had been exercised and 55,299 shares of common stock were subject to outstanding awards. No additional awards will be granted under the 2011 plan, and all awards granted under the 2011 plan that are repurchased, forfeited, expired, are cancelled or otherwise not issued will become available for grant under the 2015 Plan in accordance with its terms.

Corporate Transactions. In the event of certain specified significant corporate transactions, each outstanding award will be subject to the terms of the applicable transaction agreement. Such transaction agreement may provide, without limitation, for the assumption or substitution of awards, for their continuation, for accelerated vesting or for cancellation with or without consideration, in all cases without the consent of the award holder.

Amendment and Termination. Our Board has the authority to amend, suspend or terminate our 2011 plan, provided that such action does not materially impair the existing rights of any participant without such participant’s written consent. As of January 29, 2015, no additional awards will be granted under the 2011 plan. However, any outstanding awards already granted under the 2011 plan will remain outstanding, subject to the terms of such plan and the applicable award agreements, until such outstanding awards are exercised or until they terminate or expire by their terms.

Our Board adopted the 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or the ESPP, in January 2015 and our stockholders approved the ESPP in January 2015. The ESPP became effective on January 29, 2015. The purpose of the ESPP is to retain the services of new employees and secure the services of new and existing employees while providing incentives for such individuals to exert maximum efforts toward our success and that of our affiliates.

Share Reserve. The ESPP initially authorized the issuance of 18,346 shares of our common stock pursuant to purchase rights granted to our employees or to employees of any of our designated affiliates. The number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance will automatically increase on January 1^st of each calendar year, from January 1, 2016 through January 1, 2025 by the least of (1) 1% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on December 31^st of the preceding calendar year, (2) 36,692 shares, or (3) a number determined by our Board that is less than (1) and (2). The ESPP is intended to qualify as an “employee stock purchase plan” within the meaning of Section 423 of the Code. As of February 14, 2020, 20,715 shares of our common stock had been purchased under the ESPP and 110,164 shares remained available for issuance.

Administration. Our Board has delegated its authority to administer the ESPP to our compensation committee. The ESPP is implemented through a series of offerings of purchase rights to eligible employees. Under the ESPP, we may specify offerings with durations of not more than 27 months, and may specify shorter purchase periods within each offering. Each offering will have one or more purchase dates on which shares of our common stock will be purchased for employees participating in the offering. An offering may be terminated under certain circumstances.

Payroll Deductions. Generally, all regular employees, including executive officers, employed by us or by any of our designated affiliates, may participate in the ESPP and may contribute, normally through payroll deductions, up to 15% of their earnings for the purchase of our common stock under the ESPP. Unless otherwise determined by our Board, common stock will be purchased for accounts of employees participating in the ESPP at a price per share equal to the lower of (1) 85% of the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the first date of an offering or (2) 85% of the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the date of purchase.

Limitations. Employees may have to satisfy one or more of the following service requirements before participating in the ESPP, as determined by our Board: (1) customarily employed for more than 20 hours per week, (2) customarily employed for more

than five months per calendar year or (3) continuous employment with us or one of our affiliates for a period of time (not to exceed two years). No employee may purchase shares under the ESPP at a rate in excess of $25,000 worth of our common stock based on the fair market value per share of our common stock at the beginning of an offering for each year such a purchase right is outstanding. Finally, no employee will be eligible for the grant of any purchase rights under the ESPP if immediately after such rights are granted, such employee has voting power over 5% or more of our outstanding capital stock measured by vote or value pursuant to Section 424(d) of the Code.

Changes to Capital Structure. In the event that there occurs a change in our capital structure through such actions as a stock split, merger, consolidation, reorganization, recapitalization, reincorporation, stock dividend, dividend in property other than cash, large nonrecurring cash dividend, liquidating dividend, combination of shares, exchange of shares, change in corporate structure or similar transaction, the Board will make appropriate adjustments to (1) the number of shares reserved under the ESPP, (2) the maximum number of shares by which the share reserve may increase automatically each year and (3) the number of shares and purchase price of all outstanding purchase rights.

Corporate Transactions. In the event of certain significant corporate transactions, including the consummation of: (1) a sale of all our assets, (2) the sale or disposition of 90% of our outstanding securities, (3) a merger or consolidation where we do not survive the transaction and (4) a merger or consolidation where we do survive the transaction but the shares of our common stock outstanding immediately prior to such transaction are converted or exchanged into other property by virtue of the transaction, any then- outstanding rights to purchase our stock under the ESPP may be assumed, continued or substituted for by any surviving or acquiring entity (or its parent company). If the surviving or acquiring entity (or its parent company) elects not to assume, continue or substitute for such purchase rights, then the participants’ accumulated payroll contributions will be used to purchase shares of our common stock within ten business days prior to such corporate transaction, and such purchase rights will terminate immediately.

Amendment and Termination. Our Board has the authority to amend or terminate our ESPP, provided that except in certain circumstances any such amendment or termination may not materially impair any outstanding purchase rights without the holder’s consent. We will obtain stockholder approval of any amendment to our ESPP as required by applicable law or listing requirements.

Our Board adopted a new compensation policy in January 2020, and is applicable to all of our non-employee directors. This compensation policy provides that each non-employee director will receive the following compensation for service on our Board:

Each of the option grants described above will vest and become exercisable subject to the director’s continuous service with us, provided that each option will vest in full upon a change of control, as defined under our 2015 plan. The options will be granted under our 2015 plan, the terms of which are described in more detail above under “Equity Benefit Plans—2015 Equity Incentive Plan.”

The following table summarizes director compensation for the year ended December 31, 2019:

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2019, with respect to shares of the Company’s common stock that may be issued under its existing equity compensation plans:

	(a)		(b)		(c)
Plan Category	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights		Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights		Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders(1):
2011 Equity Incentive Plan(2)		55,299	$	31.97		—
2015 Equity Incentive Plan(4)		279,068	$	38.16		111,093
2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan(5)		—	$	—		110,164
Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders:
Inducement awards(6)		32,504	$	31.35		17,496

The following table sets forth information regarding ownership of our common stock as of February 14, 2020 based on information available to us and filings with the SEC by (a) each person known to us to own more than 5% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, (b) each of our directors, (c) each of our named executive officers, and (d) all of our directors and named executive officers as a group. Each stockholder’s percentage ownership is based on 5,397,938 shares of our common stock being outstanding as of February 14, 2020.


Name and address of beneficial owner	Number of shares beneficially owned		Percentage of shares beneficially owned
5% or greater stockholders:

Puissance Capital Management(1)		536,224		9.15	%
950 3rd Ave. 25th Floor
New York, NY 10022

New Enterprise Associates 14, L.P.(2)		417,514		7.63	%
1954 Greenspring Drive, Suite 600
Timonium, MD 21093

Linden Capital L.P.(3)		567,748		9.99	%
Victoria Place, 31 Victoria St
Hamilton D0 HM10, Bermuda

Directors and Named Executive Officers:

Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.(4)		112,176		2.04	%
Mark C. Wiggins(5)		23,083	*
Scott B. Brown(6)		8,789	*
William R. LaRue(7)		7,499	*
Martin A. Mattingly, Pharm.D.(8)		7,749	*
J. Rainer Twiford, J.D., Ph.D.(9)		22,389	*
Paul Walker(10)		5,250	*
Stephen T. Worland, Ph.D.(11)		7,749	*
All executive officers and directors as a group (8 persons)(12)		194,684		3.51	%

The following includes a summary of transactions since January 1, 2018 to which we have been a party, in which the amount involved in the transaction exceeded the lesser of $120,000 or one percent of the average of our total assets at year-end for the last two completed fiscal years, and in which any of our directors, executive officers or, to our knowledge, beneficial owners of more than 5% of our capital stock or any member of the immediate family of any of the foregoing persons had or will have a direct or indirect material interest, other than equity and other compensation, termination, change in control and other arrangements, which are described under “Executive Compensation.”

In March and April 2018, we entered into a private placement with certain purchasers to sell approximately 1.2 million shares of our common stock at a price of $27.00 per share, along with approximately 0.2 million pre-funded warrants to purchase common stock at a price of $26.90 per warrant with an exercise price of $0.10 per share, and approximately 1.4 million warrants to purchase common stock at a price of $1.25 per warrant with an exercise price of $27.00 per share. The transaction resulted in gross proceeds to us of $38.7 million and the final closing occurred on April 4, 2018. Each warrant provides that the holder may not exercise the warrant if the exercise would result in the holder beneficially owning more than either 9.99% or 19.99% of our outstanding common stock. The following table sets forth the number of shares of common stock purchased by holders of more than 5% of our common stock or entities affiliated with them (including those holders who became a greater than 5% holder as a result of the transaction):

In connection with the private placement, we engaged Angel Pond Capital LLC as a placement agent and paid Angel Pond a placement agent fee in the amount of $1.9 million. Angel Pond is affiliated through common control with Puissance which, as a result of the private placement, holds more than 5% of our common stock. Following the completion of the private placement, Theodore T. Wang, Ph.D., the sole member of Angel Pond, was appointed to our Board and served on our Board through June 13, 2019.

We have adopted a written related-person transactions policy that sets forth our policies and procedures regarding the identification, review, consideration and oversight of “related-person transactions.” For purposes of our policy only, a “related-person transaction” is a transaction, arrangement or relationship (or any series of similar transactions, arrangements or relationships) in which we and any “related person” are participants involving an amount that exceeds the lesser of $120,000 or one percent of the average of our total assets at year-end for the last two completed fiscal years.

Transactions involving compensation for services provided to us as an employee, consultant or director are not considered related-person transactions under this policy. A related person is any executive officer, director or a holder of more than 5% of our common stock, including any of their immediate family members and any entity owned or controlled by such persons.

Under the policy, where a transaction has been identified as a related-person transaction, management must present information regarding the proposed related-person transaction to our audit committee (or, where review by our audit committee would be inappropriate, to another independent body of our Board) for review. The presentation must include a description of, among other things, the material facts, the direct and indirect interests of the related persons, the benefits of the transaction to us and whether any alternative transactions are available. To identify related-person transactions in advance, we rely on information supplied by our executive officers, directors and certain significant stockholders. In considering related-person transactions, our audit committee or other independent body of our Board takes into account the relevant available facts and circumstances including, but not limited to:

In the event a director has an interest in the proposed transaction, the director must recuse himself or herself from the deliberations and approval.

We have entered into, and intend to continue to enter into, separate indemnification agreements with our directors and executive officers, in addition to the indemnification provided for in our Bylaws. These agreements, among other things, require us to indemnify our directors and executive officers for certain expenses, including attorneys’ fees, judgments, fines and settlement amounts incurred by a director or executive officer in any action or proceeding arising out of their services as one of our directors or executive officers or any other company or enterprise to which the person provides services at our request. We believe that these bylaw provisions and indemnification agreements are necessary to attract and retain qualified persons as directors and officers.

The limitation of liability and indemnification provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may discourage stockholders from bringing a lawsuit against directors for breach of their fiduciary duties. They may also reduce the likelihood of derivative litigation against directors and officers, even though an action, if successful, might benefit us and our stockholders. A stockholder’s investment may be harmed to the extent we pay the costs of settlement and damage awards against directors and officers pursuant to these indemnification provisions.

As required under the pertinent listing standards of the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”), a majority of the members of a listed company’s board of directors must qualify as “independent,” as affirmatively determined by its board of directors. Our Board consults with the Company’s counsel to ensure that the board of directors’ determinations are consistent with relevant securities and other laws and regulations regarding the definition of “independent,” including those set forth in pertinent listing standards of Nasdaq, as in effect from time to time. Consistent with these considerations, after review of all relevant identified transactions or relationships between each director, or any of his or her family members, and the Company, its senior management and its independent auditors, our Board has determined that all of our directors, with the exception of Dr. Theuer, are independent directors within the meaning of the applicable listing standards of Nasdaq. In making this determination, the Board found that none of these directors had a material or other disqualifying relationship with the Company.

The following table presents fees for services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, for 2019 and 2018 in the following categories:

Policy on Pre-Approval of Audit and Permissible Non-Audit Services of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Our audit committee has established a policy governing our use of the services of our independent registered public accounting firm. Under the policy, our audit committee is required to pre-approve all audit and permissible non-audit services performed by our independent registered public accounting firm in order to ensure that the provision of such services does not impair such accounting firm’s independence. All fees paid to Ernst & Young LLP during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 were pre-approved by our audit committee.

The consolidated financial statements of TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. listed below are set forth in Item 8 of this Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2019:

These schedules have been omitted because the required information is included in the financial statements or notes thereto or because they are not applicable or not required.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Dr. Charles Theuer, M.D., Ph.D. and Scott B. Brown, CPA, and each of them, as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) to this report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, or their or his substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

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

Delaware		34-2037594
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(IRS Employer Identification No.)

4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800, San Diego, CA		92122
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)		(Zip Code)

Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share	TCON	The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

PART I		3

Item 1.	Business.	3
Item 1A.	Risk Factors.	31
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments.	57
Item 2.	Properties.	57
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings.	57
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures.	57

PART II		58

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.	58
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data.	58
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.	60
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.	75
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.	76
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.	101
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures.	101
Item 9B.	Other Information.	102

PART III		103

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.	103
Item 11.	Executive Compensation.	111
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.	121
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.	123
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services.	125

PART IV		126

Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.	126

Signatures.		130

			Companion	Design
Phase	Indication	Sponsor	Treatment	(Number of Patients)
2	Mesothelioma	NCI	Alimta	Single arm Phase 2 portion (14 total)
1	Solid Tumors	NCI	Almita + Cisplatin	Dose escalation (44)
1	Solid Tumors and Lymphomas	NCI	Temodar	Dose escalation (65)
1	Lung Cancer	NCI	Chemoradiation	Dose escalation (15)


	December 31,
	2019		2018		2017
Warrants to purchase common stock		1,561,903		1,561,903		10,384
Common stock options and restricted stock units		370,391		300,738		251,574
ESPP shares		1,322		1,275		365
		1,933,616		1,863,916		262,323

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐

Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒

Emerging growth company	☒


	Phase	Data Expected
Envafolimab (3D Medicines and Alphamab)
Soft Tissue Sarcoma	Planned Pivotal	Final data - 2022
DE-122 (Santen)
Wet AMD	Randomized Phase 2	2020
TRC253
Prostate Cancer	Phase 2	2020
TJ004309 (I-Mab)
Solid Tumors	Phase 1	2020
TRC102
Mesothelioma	Phase 2	2020
Solid tumors	Phase 1	2020
Solid tumors and Lymphomas	Phase 1/2	2021
Lung Cancer	Phase 1	2020

	As of
	December 31,
	2019				2018
	(in thousands)
Balance Sheets Data:
Cash and cash equivalents		$	16,412		$	25,136
Short-term investments			—			13,968
Working capital			5,426			27,108
Total assets			18,121			40,648
Long-term debt, less current portion			2,739			5,343
Accumulated deficit			(162,334	)		(139,660	)
Total stockholders’ equity			2,698			21,442

Expiration	Number of shares		Exercise price
May 13, 2022		1,841	$	108.60
November 14, 2023 through June 4, 2024		3,874	$	77.40
January 25, 2024		4,669	$	51.40
May 3, 2025		5,363	$	26.10
		15,747

				Weighted Average
	Number of			Grant Date
	Shares			Fair Value
Outstanding at December 31, 2018		9,254		$	79.20
Granted		—			—
Vested		(4,629	)		79.20
Forfeited		(1,105	)		79.20
Outstanding at December 31, 2019		3,520		$	79.20

Cash paid within operating cash flows		$	423
ROU assets recognized in exchange for new lease obligations		$	1,143

Reported as:
Other assets (ROU asset)	$	838

Accounts payable and accrued expenses (lease liability)	$	355
Other long-term liabilities (lease liability)		570
Total lease liabilities	$	925

Weighted average remaining lease term		2.30
Weighted average discount rate		11.3%

2020	$	442
2021	461
2022	156
Total lease payments		1,059
Less imputed interest		(134)
Total operating lease liabilities	$	925

Balance at December 31, 2016	$	4,177
Change related to prior year positions		(2,701)
Increase related to current year positions		690
Balance at December 31, 2017		2,166
Change related to prior year positions		—
Increase related to current year positions		693
Balance at December 31, 2018		2,859
Change related to prior year positions		—
Increase related to current year positions		2,233
Balance at December 31, 2019	$	5,092

Name	2019 Base Salary ($)
Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.	$	552,921
Mark C. Wiggins, M.B.A.	$	354,164
Scott B. Brown, CPA, M.S.	$	240,000

Director	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)		Stock awards ($)(2)(3)		Total ($)
William R. LaRue		55,000		6,753		61,753
Martin A. Mattingly, Pharm.D.		48,750		6,753		55,503
J. Rainer Twiford, J.D., Ph.D.		40,000		6,753		46,753
Paul Walker		50,000		6,753		56,753
Stephen T. Worland, Ph.D.		46,250		6,753		53,003
Theodore Wang, Ph.D.(1)		17,500		—		17,500

Name(1)	Shares of Common Stock	Warrants		Aggregate Purchase Price ($)
Puissance Capital Management(2)	460,176		460,176		12,999,995
New Enterprise Associates 14, L.P.(3)	70,796		70,796		1,999,998
683 Capital Management	123,893		123,893		3,500,000
Linden Capital L.P.(4)	284,248		637,355		12,999,998
Aspire Capital Fund, LLC	106,194		106,194		2,999,997
Laurence W. Lytton	70,796		70,796		1,999,998

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		77
Consolidated Balance Sheets		78
Consolidated Statements of Operations		79
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity		80
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		81
Consolidated Notes to Financial Statements		82

Exhibit Number		Description of Document

3.1(1)	Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.

3.2(13)		Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.

3.3(1)		Amended and Restated Bylaws.

4.1(2)		Form of Common Stock Certificate of the Registrant.

4.2(2)		Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement by and among the Registrant and certain of its stockholders, dated September 19, 2014.

4.3(7)		Investor Agreement by and between the Registrant and Johnson & Johnson Innovation-JJDC, Inc. dated September 27, 2016.

4.4(7)		Stock Purchase Agreement by and between the Registrant and Johnson & Johnson-JJDC, Inc. dated September 27, 2016.

4.5(12)		Registration Rights Agreement, dated October 18, 2019, by and between the Registrant and Aspire Capital Fund, LLC

4.6(15)		Securities Purchase Agreement, dated March 22, 2018, among TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the purchasers listed on Exhibit A thereto.

4.7(15)		Form of Pre-Funded Warrant dated March 27, 2018.

4.8(15)		Form of Common Warrant dated March 27, 2018.

4.9	Description of Capital Stock.

10.1+(2)		Form of Indemnity Agreement by and between the Registrant and its directors and officers.

10.2+(2)		TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and Forms of Stock Option Agreement and Notice of Exercise thereunder.

10.3+(3)		TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2015 Equity Incentive Plan and Forms of Stock Option Grant Notice, Stock Option Agreement, Notice of Exercise and Restricted Stock Unit Agreement thereunder, as amended December 14, 2015.

10.4+		TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy, as amended January 31, 2020.

10.5+(4)		TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Exhibit Number			Description of Document


10.6+			TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bonus Plan, as amended January 28, 2020.

10.7+(17)			Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between the Registrant and Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D., dated February 5, 2019.

10.8+(17)			Employment Agreement by and between the Registrant and Mark Wiggins, dated May 29, 2018.

10.9+(17)			Severance Agreement by and between the Registrant and Mark Wiggins, dated May 29, 2018.

10.10+			Employment Agreement by and between the Registrant and Scott Brown, dated January 28, 2020.

10.11+			Severance Agreement by and between the Registrant and Scott Brown, dated December 4, 2019.

10.12+(2)			TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Severance Plan and Summary Plan Description.

10.13*(2)			License Agreement by and between the Registrant and Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., dated March 3, 2014, as amended.

10.14*(5)			Second Amendment to License Agreement by and between the Registrant and Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., dated January 31, 2016.

10.15*(2)			License Agreement by and between the Registrant and Roswell Park Cancer Institute and Health Research, Inc., dated November 1, 2005, as amended on November 12, 2009, February 11, 2010 and September 18, 2014.

10.16*(2)			License Agreement by and between the Registrant and Case Western Reserve University, dated August 2, 2006.

10.17*(4)			Amendment to License Agreement by and between the Registrant and Case Western Reserve University, dated April 3, 2015.

10.18*			Collaboration and Clinical Trial Agreement by and among the Registrant, 3D Medicines (Beijing) Co., LTD. and Jiangsu Alphamab Biopharmaceuticals Co., LTD. dated December 20, 2019.

10.19*(9)			License and Option Agreement by and between the Registrant and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. dated September 27, 2016.

10.20(2)			Warrant to Purchase Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank on November 14, 2013.

10.21(2)			Warrant to Purchase Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank on June 4, 2014.

10.22(4)			Warrant to Purchase Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank on May 13, 2015.

10.23(8)			Warrant to Purchase Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank on January 25, 2017.

10.24(15)			Warrant to Purchase Stock issued to Silicon Valley Bank on May 3, 2018.

10.25(16)			Capital on Demand^TM Sales Agreement, dated as of September 6, 2018, by and between TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC.

10.26*(17)			Amendment One to License and Option Agreement between the Registrant and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. dated January 15, 2019.

10.27(14)			Amendment No. 1 to Capital on Demand^TM Sales Agreement, dated as of February 28, 2019, by and between the Registrant and JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC.

10.28(4)			Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement by and between the Registrant and Silicon Valley Bank, dated May 13, 2015.

10.29(6)			First Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement by and between the Registrant and Silicon Valley Bank, dated August 9, 2016.

10.30(8)			Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement by and between the Registrant and Silicon Valley Bank, dated January 25, 2017.
10.31(15)			Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement between the Registrant and Silicon Valley Bank dated May 3, 2018.

Exhibit Number		Description of Document

10.32*(2)		Cooperative Research and Development Agreement by and between the Registrant and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by National Cancer Institute, dated December 22, 2010.

10.33(5)		Amendment #2 to Cooperative Research and Development Agreement by and between the Registrant and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by National Cancer Institute, dated November 12, 2015.

10.34*(2)		Cooperative Research and Development Agreement by and between the Registrant and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by National Cancer Institute, dated January 28, 2011, as amended on March 12, 2013.

10.35(5)		Amendment #2 to Cooperative Research and Development Agreement by and between the Registrant and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by National Cancer Institute, dated January 27, 2016.

10.36*(2)		Cooperative Research and Development Agreement by and between the Registrant and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by National Cancer Institute, dated August 7, 2012.

10.37*(2)		Sponsored Research Agreement by and between the Registrant and Tufts Medical Center, Inc., dated December 16, 2014.

10.38(12)	Common Stock Purchase Agreement, dated October 18, 2019 between TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Aspire Capital Fund, LLC.

23.1		Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

24.1		Power of Attorney. Reference is made to the signature page hereto.

31.1		Certification of the Principal Executive and Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

32.1		Certification of the Principal Executive and Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document

101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

+		Indicates management contract or compensatory plan.
*		Confidential treatment has been granted or requested with respect to certain portions of this exhibit. Omitted portions have been filed separately with the SEC.
(1)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on February 4, 2015.
(2)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-201280), as amended.
(3)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on December 17, 2015.
(4)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, filed with the SEC on May 14, 2015.
(5)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on February 19, 2016.
(6)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, filed with the SEC on August 11, 2016.
(7)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, filed with the SEC on November 9, 2016.
(8)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on January 31, 2017.
(9)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, filed with the SEC on February 16, 2017.
(10)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on December 13, 2016.
(11)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 1, 2017.
(12)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on October 21, 2019.

(13)		Incorporated by reference to TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on November 6, 2019.
(14)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019, filed with the SEC on November 5, 2019.
(15)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018, filed with the SEC on May 9, 2018.
(16)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, filed with the SEC on November 7, 2018.
(17)		Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 1, 2019.

	TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date: February 27, 2020	By: /s/ CHARLES P. THEUER, M.D., PH.D.
	Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D. President and Chief Executive Officer

Signature	Title	Date

/s/ Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.	President, Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Board of Directors	February 27,2020
Charles P. Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.	(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

/s/ Scott B. Brown, CPA	Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)	February 27, 2020
Scott B. Brown, CPA

/s/ William R. LaRue	Member of the Board of Directors	February 27, 2020
William R. LaRue

/s/ Martin A. Mattingly, Pharm. D.	Member of the Board of Directors	February 27, 2020
Martin A. Mattingly, Pharm.D.

/s/ J. Rainer Twiford, J.D., Ph.D.	Member of the Board of Directors	February 27, 2020
J. Rainer Twiford, J.D., Ph.D.

/s/ Paul Walker	Member of the Board of Directors	February 27, 2020
Paul Walker

/s/ Stephen T. Worland, Ph.D.	Member of the Board of Directors	February 27, 2020
Stephen T. Worland, Ph.D.