ctmx-10q_20170630.htm

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

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

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

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

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

As of August 4, 2017, 36,867,367 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains certain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, future events and our financial performance. These statements are often, but not always, made through the use of words or phrases such as “may,” “might,” “should,” “could,” “predict,” “potential,” “believe,” “expect,” “continue,” “will,” “anticipate,” “seek,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “projection,” “would,” “annualized” and “outlook,” or the negative version of those words or other comparable words or phrases of a future or forward-looking nature. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts, and are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, management’s beliefs and certain assumptions made by management, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and beyond our control. Accordingly, we caution you that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, assumptions, estimates and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, actual results may prove to be materially different from the results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

A number of important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated in these forward-looking statements, including those factors identified in “Risk Factors” or “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” or the following:

Any forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under Part II, Item 1A. Risk Factors and discussed elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business and the markets for certain drugs and therapeutic biologics, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, their projected growth rates and the incidence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances reflected in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained these industry, business, market and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources. In some cases, we do not expressly refer to the sources from which these data are derived.

Except where the context otherwise requires, in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to CytomX Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q includes trademarks, service marks and trade names owned by us or other companies. All trademarks, service marks and trade names included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are the property of their respective owners.

	June 30,			December 31,
	2017			2016

Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	272,860		$	104,645
Short-term investments		63,056			77,293
Accounts receivable		158			2,159
Related party accounts receivable		27			154
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		4,579			3,896
Total current assets		340,680			188,147
Property and equipment, net		4,319			4,392
Intangible assets		1,750			1,750
Goodwill		949			949
Restricted cash		917			917
Other assets		3,240			2,973
Total assets	$	351,855		$	199,128
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	6,364		$	6,596
Accrued liabilities		7,499			8,824
Deferred revenues, current portion		46,772			20,347
Total current liabilities		60,635			35,767
Deferred revenue, net of current portion		237,053			83,803
Deferred tax liability		539			513
Other long-term liabilities		1,391			566
Total liabilities		299,618			120,649
Commitments and contingencies
Preferred stock, $0.00001 par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized and no shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016.		—			—
Common stock, $0.00001 par value; 75,000,000 shares authorized; 36,839,342 and 36,490,169 shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively		1			1
Additional paid-in capital		262,185			254,871
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(110	)		(27	)
Accumulated deficit		(209,839	)		(176,366	)
Total stockholders' equity		52,237			78,479
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	$	351,855		$	199,128

	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2017			2016			2017			2016

Revenues	$	8,283		$	2,539		$	19,459		$	4,322
Revenues from related party		469			555			946			995
Total revenues		8,752			3,094			20,405			5,317
Operating expenses:
Research and development		28,076			12,705			42,652			26,070
General and administrative		6,049			4,647			11,740			9,687
Total operating expenses		34,125			17,352			54,392			35,757
Loss from operations		(25,373	)		(14,258	)		(33,987	)		(30,440	)
Interest income, net		357			195			594			332
Other income (expense), net		(174	)		(110	)		(54	)		(91	)
Loss before provision for income taxes		(25,190	)		(14,173	)		(33,447	)		(30,199	)
Provision for income taxes		26			3			26			6
Net loss	$	(25,216	)	$	(14,176	)	$	(33,473	)	$	(30,205	)
Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(0.69	)	$	(0.39	)	$	(0.91	)	$	(0.84	)
Shares used to compute net loss per share, basic and diluted		36,780,897			36,113,363			36,660,548			36,088,393
Other comprehensive loss:
Changes in unrealized (losses) / gains on short-term investments		(10	)		50			(83	)		156
Total other comprehensive (loss) / income		(10	)		50			(83	)		156
Comprehensive loss	$	(25,226	)	$	(14,126	)	$	(33,556	)	$	(30,049	)

	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2017			2016

Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$	(33,473	)	$	(30,205	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:
Gain on disposal of property and equipment		(1	)		—
Depreciation and amortization		764			800
Accretion of discount on investments		337			817
Stock-based compensation expense		5,757			4,753
Issuance of stock in connection with services		—			159
Deferred income taxes		26			6
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
Accounts receivable		2,001			87
Related party accounts receivable		127			259
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(683	)		(1,112	)
Other assets		(267	)		96
Accounts payable		79			(3,206	)
Accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities		(233	)		2,325
Deferred revenue		179,675			35,435
Net cash provided by operating activities		154,109			10,214
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment		(1,268	)		(711	)
Purchases of short-term investments		(54,183	)		(97,940	)
Maturities of short-term investments		68,000			90,750
Net cash provided by / (used in) investing activities		12,549			(7,901	)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from exercise of stock options		1,557			178
Proceeds from stockholder notes		—			78
Payment of deferred offering costs		—			(12	)
Net cash provided by financing activities		1,557			244
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents		168,215			2,557
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		104,645			59,822
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	272,860		$	62,379

Supplemental disclosures of noncash investing and financing items:
Purchases of property and equipment in accounts payable and accrued liabilities		—			146

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) is a clinical-stage, oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company pioneering a novel class of investigational antibody therapeutics based on its Probody technology platform. Probody therapeutics are masked antibodies that remain inert in healthy tissue but are activated specifically in the disease microenvironment. The Company is located in South San Francisco, California and was incorporated in the state of Delaware in September 2010.

Since inception, the Company has incurred recurring net operating losses. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $209.8 million and $176.4 million, respectively, and expects to incur losses for the foreseeable future. To date, the Company has financed its operations primarily through sales of its common stock in conjunction with the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”), sales of its convertible preferred securities and payments received under its collaboration agreements. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $335.9 million and $181.9 million, respectively.

The Company expects its existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund its operations for a period of at least twelve months from the date the financial statements are issued. However, if the anticipated operating results are not achieved in future periods, the Company’s planned expenditures may need to be reduced in order to extend the time period over which the then-available resources would be able to fund operations. The cost and timing of developing the Company’s products, including CX-072 and CX-2009, are highly uncertain and are subject to substantial risks and many changes. As such, the Company may alter its expenditures as a result of contingencies such as the failure of one of these product candidates in clinical development, the identification of a more promising product candidate in its research efforts or unexpected operating costs and expenditures. The Company will need to raise additional funds in the future. There can be no assurance, however, that such efforts will be successful or that, in the event that they are successful, the terms and conditions of such financing will be favorable to the Company.

The accompanying interim condensed financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) and applicable rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding interim financial reporting.

The accompanying interim condensed financial statements and related disclosures are unaudited, have been prepared on the same basis as the annual financial statements and, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments, which include only normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the results of operations for the periods presented.

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts to conform to the current period presentation. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, a reclassification of interest expense to interest income was made in the condensed statements of operations to conform to the current period presentation.

The December 31, 2016 condensed balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP. The condensed results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year or for any other future year or interim period. The accompanying condensed financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and the related notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC.

The preparation of the financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The Company is subject to a number of risks similar to other biopharmaceutical companies in the early stage, including, but not limited to, the need to obtain adequate additional funding, possible failure of preclinical testing or clinical trials, the need to obtain marketing approval for its product candidates, competitors developing new technological innovations, the need to successfully commercialize and gain market acceptance of the Company’s products, and protection of proprietary technology. If the Company does not successfully obtain regulatory approval, commercialize or partner any of its product candidates, it will be unable to generate revenue from product sales or achieve profitability.

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to a concentration of credit risk consist of cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments and accounts receivable. Substantially all the Company’s cash is held by one financial institution. Such deposits may, at times, exceed federally insured limits. The Company invests its cash equivalents and short-term investments in highly rated money market funds and its short-term investments in U.S. Government Bonds.

Customers who represent 10% or more of the Company’s total revenue during each period presented or accounts receivable balance at each respective balance sheet date are as follows:

	Revenue												Accounts Receivable, net
	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,						June 30,			December 31,
	2017			2016			2017			2016			2017			2016
Customer A		79	%		57	%		50	%		67	%		85	%		93	%
Customer C		16	%		25	%		13	%		14	%	*			*
Customer B		5	%		18	%		5	%		19	%		15	%		7	%
Customer D	*			*				32	%	*			*			*

Management has determined that it has one business activity and operates as one operating segment as it only reports financial information on an aggregate basis to its chief executive officer, who is the Company’s chief operating decision maker. All long-lived assets are maintained in the United States of America.

The Company considers all highly liquid investments purchased with original maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase to be cash equivalents.

Restricted cash represents a standby letter of credit issued pursuant to an office lease entered in December 2015.

All investments have been classified as “available-for-sale” and are carried at fair value as determined based upon quoted market prices or pricing models for similar securities at period end. Generally, those investments with contractual maturities less than 12 months at the date of purchase are considered short-term investments. Unrealized gains and losses, deemed temporary in nature, are reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax.

A decline in the fair value of any security below cost that is deemed other than temporary results in a charge to earnings and the corresponding establishment of a new cost basis for the security. The amortized cost of securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity. Dividend and interest income are recognized when earned. Realized gains and losses are included in earnings and are derived using the specific identification method for determining the cost of securities sold.

Property and equipment are recorded at cost net of accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation is provided using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets. The useful lives of property and equipment are as follows:

Maintenance and repairs that do not extend the life or improve the asset are expensed when incurred.

Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price paid over the fair value of tangible and identifiable intangible assets acquired in business combinations. Goodwill and other intangible assets with indefinite lives are not amortized, but are assigned to reporting units and tested for impairment annually, or whenever there is an impairment indicator. Intangible assets are comprised of in-process research and development (“IPR&D”). The Company assesses impairment indicators annually or more frequently, if a change in circumstances or the occurrence of events suggests the remaining value may not be recoverable. Intangible assets that are not deemed to have an indefinite life are amortized over their estimated useful lives. There was no impairment of goodwill or intangible assets identified during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and the year ended December 31, 2016.

Long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset (or asset group) may not be recoverable and prior to any goodwill impairment test. An impairment loss is recognized when the total of estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset (or asset group) and its eventual disposition is less than its carrying amount. Impairment, if any, would be assessed using discounted cash flows or other appropriate measures of fair value. There was no impairment of long-lived assets during the periods presented in these interim condensed financial statements.

The Company records accrued liabilities for estimated costs of research and development activities conducted by third-party service providers, which include the conduct of preclinical and clinical studies, and contract manufacturing activities. The Company records the estimated costs of research and development activities based upon the estimated amount of services provided but not yet invoiced, and include these costs in accrued liabilities in the balance sheets and within research and development expense in the statements of operations. These costs are a significant component of the Company’s research and development expenses. The Company accrues for these costs based on factors such as estimates of the work completed and in accordance with agreements established with its third-party service providers under the service agreements. The Company makes significant judgments and estimates in determining the accrued liabilities balance in each reporting period. As actual costs become known, the Company adjusts its accrued liabilities. The Company has not experienced any material differences between accrued costs and actual costs incurred. However, the status and timing of actual services performed may vary from the Company’s estimates, resulting in adjustments to expense in future periods. Changes in these estimates that result in material changes to the Company’s accruals could materially affect the Company’s results of operations.

Comprehensive income (loss) represents all changes in stockholders’ equity except those resulting from distributions to stockholders. The Company’s unrealized gains and losses on short-term investments represent the only component of other comprehensive income (loss) that is excluded from the reported net loss.

The Company recognizes revenue when all of the following criteria are met: persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists; transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; the price to the customer is fixed or determinable; and collectability is reasonably assured.

The Company’s revenues are primarily derived through its license, research, development and commercialization agreements. The terms of these types of agreements may include (i) licenses for the Company’s technology, (ii) research and development services, and (iii) services or obligations in connection with participation in research or steering committees. Payments to the Company under these arrangements typically include one or more of the following: nonrefundable upfront and license fees, research funding, milestone and other contingent payments to the Company for the achievement of defined collaboration objectives and certain preclinical, clinical, regulatory and sales-based events, as well as royalties on sales of any commercialized products.

In arrangements involving the delivery of more than one element, each required deliverable is evaluated to determine whether it qualifies as a separate unit of accounting. The determination is based on whether the deliverable has “standalone value” to the customer. If a deliverable does not qualify as a separate unit of accounting, it is combined with the other applicable undelivered item(s) within the arrangement and these combined deliverables are treated as a single unit of accounting.

The arrangement’s consideration that is fixed or determinable is allocated to each separate unit of accounting based on the relative selling price methodology in accordance with the selling price hierarchy, which includes vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) of selling price, if available, or third-party evidence of selling price if VSOE is not available, or the best estimate of selling price, if neither VSOE nor third-party evidence is available.

Payments or reimbursements for the Company’s research and development efforts for the arrangements where such efforts are considered as deliverables are recognized as the services are performed and are presented on a gross basis. When upfront payments are received and if there is no discernible pattern of performance and/or objectively measurable performance measures do not exist, the Company recognizes revenue ratably over the associated period of performance.

The Company’s collaboration and license agreements may include contingent payments related to specified research, development and regulatory milestones and sales-based milestones. Such payments are typically payable under the collaborations when the collaboration partner claims or selects a target, or initiates or advances a covered product candidate in preclinical or clinical development, upon submission for marketing approval of a covered product with regulatory authorities, upon receipt of actual marketing approvals of a covered product or for additional indications, or upon the first commercial sale of a covered product. Sales-based milestones are typically payable when annual sales of a covered product reach specified levels. Each contingent and milestone payment is evaluated to determine whether it is substantive and at risk to both parties. The Company recognizes any payment that is contingent upon the achievement of a substantive milestone entirely in the period in which the milestone is achieved. Any payments that are contingent upon achievement of a non-substantive milestone are recognized as revenue prospectively, when such payments become due and collectible, over the remaining expected performance period under the arrangement, which is generally the remaining period over which the research and development services are expected to be provided.

Research and development expenses include costs directly attributable to the conduct of research and development programs, including the cost of salaries, payroll taxes, employee benefits, materials, supplies, depreciation on and maintenance of research equipment, the cost of services provided by outside contractors, and the allocated portions of facility costs, such as rent, utilities, insurance, repairs and maintenance, depreciation, and general support services. All costs associated with research and development are expensed as incurred.

The Company measures its stock-based awards made to employees based on the fair values of the awards as of the grant date using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Stock-based compensation expense is recognized over the requisite service period using the ratable method and is based on the value of the portion of stock-based payment awards. The Company’s stock-based compensation is adjusted in subsequent periods as forfeitures occur.

Stock-based compensation expense for options granted to non-employees as consideration for services received is measured on the date of performance at the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instruments issued, using the Black-

Scholes option-pricing model, whichever can be more reliably measured. Compensation expense for options granted to non- employees is periodically remeasured as the underlying options vest.

The Company accounts for income taxes under the liability method which requires, among other things, that deferred income taxes be provided for temporary differences between the tax basis of the Company’s assets and liabilities and their financial statement reported amounts. A valuation allowance is provided against deferred tax assets unless it is more likely than not that they will be realized.

The Company recognizes benefits of uncertain tax positions if it is more likely than not that such positions will be sustained upon examination based solely on their technical merits, as the largest amount of benefit that is more likely than not to be realized upon the ultimate settlement. The Company’s policy is to recognize interest and penalties related to the underpayment of income taxes as a component of income tax expense or benefit. To date, there have been no interest or penalties charged in relation to the unrecognized tax benefits.

Basic net loss per share is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period, without consideration of potentially dilutive securities. Diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share since the effect of potentially dilutive securities is anti-dilutive.

Beginning 2017, the Company adopted ASU No. 2016-09, Improvements to employee share-based payment, which simplifies the accounting for employee share-based transactions. The amendments in this update cover such areas as the recognition of excess tax benefits and deficiencies, the classification of those excess tax benefits on the statement of cash flows, an accounting policy election for forfeitures, the amount an employer can withhold to cover income taxes and still qualify for equity classification, and the classification of those taxes paid on the statement of cash flows. The Company adopted ASU No. 2016-09 in the first quarter of 2017. As a result of adopting this standard, the Company made an accounting policy election to account for forfeitures as they occur. Adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements or its tax position.

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. The ASU will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective. The new standard will be effective for the Company on January 1, 2018, which is the effective date for public companies. Early application is permitted as of January 1, 2017. The standard permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. Additionally, in March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net), which clarifies the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations in ASU No. 2014-09. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing, which clarifies certain aspects of identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation guidance. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients, which relates to disclosures of remaining performance obligations, as well as other amendments to guidance on collectability, non-cash consideration and the presentation of sales and other similar taxes collected from customers. These standards have the same effective date and transition date of January 1, 2018. The Company will adopt this ASU on January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective approach. As part of the Company’s assessment work to date, it has formed an implementation work team to assess what impact the provisions of ASU 2014-09, if any, may have on the Company’s financial statements. The Company has begun an initial assessment of the potential impact from adopting this new standard on its financial reporting and disclosures. The Company is continuing to evaluate the potential impact of the new standard, and its preliminary assessments are subject to change. Additionally, the Company will continue to monitor industry activities and any additional guidance provided by regulators, standards setters, or the accounting profession as an ongoing component of its assessment and implementation plans.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). Under ASU No. 2016-2, an entity will be required to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities on its balance sheet and disclose key information about leasing arrangements. ASU 2016-02 offers specific accounting guidance for a lessee, a lessor and sale and leaseback transactions. Lessees and lessors are required to disclose qualitative and quantitative information about leasing arrangements to enable a user of the financial statements to assess the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. For public companies, ASU No. 2016-02 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within that reporting period, and requires a modified retrospective adoption, with early adoption permitted. The Company plans to adopt this guidance beginning with its first quarter ending March 31, 2019. The Company is in the process of evaluating the future impact of ASU No. 2016-02 on its financial statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. The new standard changes the impairment model for most financial assets and certain other instruments. Under the new standard, entities holding financial assets and net investment in leases that are not accounted for at fair value through net income are to be presented at the net amount expected to be collected. An allowance for credit losses will be a valuation account that will be deducted from the amortized cost basis of the financial asset to present the net carrying value at the amount expected to be collected on the financial asset. The new standard will be effective for the Company on January 1, 2020. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18, Restricted Cash, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230). ASU No. 2016-18 requires that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents, and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. Therefore, amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-18 is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. The amendments in this ASU should be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. The new standard simplifies the measurement of goodwill by eliminating the Step 2 impairment test. Step 2 measures a goodwill impairment loss by comparing the implied fair value of a reporting unit's goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. The new guidance requires an entity to compare the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount and recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value. Additionally, an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if applicable. The new guidance becomes effective for goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, though early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this new guidance.

In accordance with ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, the Company determines the fair value of financial and non-financial assets and liabilities using the fair value hierarchy, which establishes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value, as follows:

The carrying amounts of the Company’s financial instruments, including restricted cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate fair value due to their relatively short maturities. The Company’s financial instruments consist of Level I and II assets. Level I assets consist primarily of highly liquid money market funds, some of which are included in restricted cash. The Company’s Level II assets consist of U.S. government bonds that are included in short-term investments.

The following tables set forth the fair value of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities subject to fair value measurements on a recurring basis and the level of inputs used in such measurements (in thousands):

	June 30, 2017
	Level I		Level II		Level III		Total
Assets
Money market funds	$	269,406	$	—	$	—	$	269,406
Restricted cash (money market funds)		917		—		—		917
U.S. Government bonds		—		63,056		—		63,056
Total	$	270,323	$	63,056	$	—	$	333,379

	December 31, 2016
	Level I		Level II		Level III		Total

Assets
Money market funds	$	89,626	$	—	$	—	$	89,626
Restricted cash (money market funds)		917		—		—		917
U.S. Government bonds		—		77,293		—		77,293
Total	$	90,543	$	77,293	$	—	$	167,836

The following tables set forth the gross unrealized gains and losses on the Company’s investments (in thousands):

The following tables set forth the contractual maturities of securities classified as available-for-sale (in thousands):

	June 30,			December 31,
	2017			2016

Machinery and equipment	$	6,534		$	5,973
Computer equipment and software		897			888
Furniture and fixtures		642			651
Leasehold improvements		701			578
Construction in progress		18			45
Total property and equipment		8,792			8,135
Less: accumulated depreciation and amortization		(4,473	)		(3,743	)
Property and equipment, net	$	4,319		$	4,392

Depreciation and amortization expense was $369,000 and $445,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $764,000 and $800,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Goodwill and in-process research and development assets resulted from a series of integrated financing transactions in 2010 that was accounted for as a business combination. The in-process research and development relates to the Company’s proprietary Probody technology platform and is accounted for as an indefinite-lived intangible asset until the underlying project is completed or abandoned.

In April 2016, the Company and AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company (“AbbVie”) entered into two agreements, a CD71 Co-Development and Licensing Agreement (the “CD71 Agreement”) and a Discovery Collaboration and Licensing Agreement (the “Discovery Agreement” and together with the CD71 Agreement the “AbbVie Agreements”). Under the terms of the CD71 Agreement, the Company and AbbVie will co-develop a Probody Drug Conjugates (“PDC”) against CD71, with the Company responsible for pre-clinical and early clinical development. AbbVie will be responsible for later development and commercialization,

with global late-stage development costs shared between the two companies. The Company will assume 35% of the net profits or net losses related to later development unless it opts-out. If the Company opts-out from participation of co-development of the CD71 PDC, AbbVie will have sole right and responsibility for the further development, manufacturing and commercialization of such CD71 PDC. AbbVie, at its sole discretion, may stop development of any CD71 PDC and terminate the CD71 Agreement if the Company does not meet certain preclinical research criteria by the applicable deadline. In such case, the Company and AbbVie may evaluate and approve an alternate CD71 PDC. If such alternate CD71 PDC is approved, then the Company and AbbVie will, in good faith, negotiate amendments to the timelines and, if necessary, the content in the research and development plan and budget and extensions to the deadlines to achieve defined success criteria.

Under the CD71 Agreement, the Company received an upfront payment of $20.0 million in April 2016, and is eligible to receive up to $470.0 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments and royalties on ex-US sales in the high teens to low twenties if the Company participates in the co-development of the CD71 Licensed Product subject to a reduction in such royalties if the Company opts-out from the co-development of the CD71 PDC. The Company’s share of later stage co-development costs for each CD71 PDC are capped, provided that AbbVie may offset the Company’s co-development cost above the capped amounts from future payments such as milestone payments and royalties.

Under the terms of the Discovery Agreement, AbbVie receives exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize PDC against up to two targets, one of which was selected in March 2017. The Company shall perform research services to discover the Probodies and create PDCs for the nominated collaboration targets. From that point, AbbVie shall have sole right and responsibility for development and commercialization of products comprising or containing such PDCs (“Discovery Licensed Products”).

Under the Discovery Agreement, the Company received an upfront payment of $10.0 million in April 2016 and may receive an additional payment upon the selection by AbbVie of the second target and the satisfaction of certain performance conditions under the CD71 Agreement. AbbVie has not selected the second target, but the performance conditions under the CD71 Agreement were met in September 2016. The Company is also eligible to receive up to $275.0 million in target nomination, development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments and royalties in the high single to low teens from commercial sales of any resulting PDCs.

The Company has determined that the CD71 and Discovery Agreements with AbbVie should be combined and evaluated as a single arrangement in determining revenue recognition, because both agreements were concurrently negotiated and executed.

The Company identified the following deliverables at the inception of the AbbVie Agreements: (1) the research, development and commercialization license for CD71 Probody, (2) the research services related to CD71 Probody, (3) the obligation to participate in the CD71 Agreement joint research committee, (4) the research services related to the first discovery target (5) the research, development and commercialization license for the first discovery target, and (6) the obligation to participate in the Discovery Agreement joint research committee.

The Company determined that the research, development and commercialization licenses for CD71 and discovery targets do not have a standalone value without the Company’s respective research services and expertise. The Company considered factors such as novelty of the Probody and PDC technology and lack of other parties’ expertise in this space, the Company’s rights to technology relating to a proprietary platform to enable the Probody development and AbbVie’s contractual obligation to use the Company’s research services. The Company also determined that the CD71 Agreement research, development and commercialization license, related research service and participation in the joint research committee as a single unit of accounting has a standalone value from the Discovery Agreement research, development and commercialization license, related research service and participation in the joint research committee. Therefore, the Company concluded that there are two units of accounting: CD71 Agreement unit of accounting consisting of the CD71 Agreement research, development and commercialization license, related research service and participation in the joint research committee, and the Discovery Agreement unit of accounting consisting of the Discovery Agreement research, development and commercialization license, related research service and participation in the joint research committee.

The upfront payments under the AbbVie Agreements are allocated between two units of accounting based on the estimated relative selling prices of each unit. In order to determine the best estimate of selling price, the Company used the discounted cash flow method by calculating risk-adjusted net present values of estimated cash flows. The Company recognizes the allocated amounts ratably over the estimated research service period of five years. The Company recognized revenue of $1.4 million and $0.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $2.8 million and $0.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, related to the AbbVie Agreements. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, deferred revenue related to the CD71 unit of accounting was $15.7 million and $17.7 million, respectively, and deferred revenue related to the Discovery Agreement unit of accounting was $7.8 million and $8.9 million, respectively.

On May 23, 2014, the Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement (the “BMS Agreement”) to discover and develop compounds for use in human therapeutics aimed at multiple immuno-oncology targets using the Company’s Probody technology. The effective date of the BMS Agreement was July 7, 2014.

Under the terms of the BMS Agreement, the Company granted BMS exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Probody therapeutics for up to four oncology targets. Each collaboration target has a two-year research term and the two additional targets must be nominated by BMS within five years of the effective date of the BMS Agreement. The research term for each collaboration target can be extended in one year increments up to three times.

Pursuant to the BMS Agreement, the financial consideration from BMS was comprised of an upfront payment of $50.0 million and the Company was entitled to receive contingent payments of up to an aggregate of $1,217.0 million as follows: (i) up to $25.0 million for additional targets; (ii) up to $114.0 million in development milestone payments per research target program or up to $456.0 million if the maximum of four research targets are selected; (iii) up to $124.0 million in milestone payments for the first commercial sale in various territories for up to three indications per research target program or up to $496.0 million if the maximum of four research targets are selected, and (iv) up to $60.0 million in sales milestones payments per research target program or up to $240.0 million if maximum of four research targets are selected. The Company is entitled to royalty payments in the mid to high single digits to low teens from potential future sales. The Company will also receive research and development service fees based on a prescribed full-time employee (“FTE”) rate that is capped.

The BMS Agreement also required BMS to purchase the Company’s common stock upon an IPO if certain conditions were met. In connection with the IPO in October 2015, BMS purchased 833,333 shares of the Company’s common stock at the initial public offering price and on the same terms as other purchasers in the offering.

The Company identified the following deliverables at the inception of the BMS Agreement: (1) the exclusive research, development and commercialization license, (2) the research and development services and (3) the obligation to participate in the joint research committee. The Company determined that the license does not have stand-alone value to BMS without the Company’s research services and expertise related to the development of the product candidates, and accordingly, it was combined with the research services and participation in the joint research committee as a single unit of accounting.

The Company received an upfront payment of $50.0 million from BMS in July 2014. The upfront payment was recorded as deferred revenue and being recognized on a ratable basis over the estimated performance period of ten years. The Company determined that the contingent payments under the BMS Agreement relating to development, sales milestone and royalties do not constitute substantive milestones and will not be accounted for under the milestone method of revenue recognition. The events leading to these payments do not meet the definition of a substantive milestone because the achievement of these events solely depends on BMS’s performance. Accordingly, any revenue from these contingent payments would be subject to an allocation of arrangement consideration and would be recognized over any remaining period of performance obligations, if any, relating to this arrangement. If there are no remaining performance obligations under the arrangement at the time the contingent payment is triggered, the contingent payment will be recognized as revenue in full upon triggering the event.

In January 2016, BMS selected the third target pursuant to the BMS Agreement. Under the terms of the BMS Agreement, BMS paid the Company a $10.0 million payment. In December 2016, BMS selected the fourth and its final target pursuant to the BMS Agreement. Under the terms of the BMS Agreement, BMS paid the Company a $15.0 million payment. Both payments were recorded as deferred revenue and as a result of the fourth target selection, the performance period has been reduced from ten years to seven years and the deferred revenue is being recognized over this new performance period. In December 2016, BMS selected a clinical candidate pursuant to the BMS Agreement, which triggered a $2.0 million pre-clinical milestone payment to the Company. This milestone payment was recognized as revenue in its entirety upon the selection because the achievement of this milestone was based on the Company’s performance.

On March 17, 2017, the Company and BMS entered into Amendment Number 1 to Extend Collaboration and License Agreement (the “Amendment”). The Amendment grants BMS exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Probody therapeutics for up to six additional oncology targets and two non-oncology targets. The effective date of the Amendment was April 25, 2017 (“Amendment Effective Date”).

Under the terms of the Amendment, the Company will continue to collaborate with BMS to discover and conduct preclinical development of Probody therapeutics against targets selected by BMS under the terms of the Amendment.

Pursuant to the Amendment, the financial consideration from BMS was comprised of an upfront payment of $200.0 million and the Company will be eligible to receive up to an aggregate of $3,586.4 million as follows: (i) up to $116.0 million in development milestone payments per target or up to $928 million if the maximum of eight targets are selected for the first product modality; (ii) up to $124.0 million in milestone payments for the first commercial sale in various territories for up to three indications per target program or up to $992.0 million if the maximum of eight targets are selected for the first product modality; (iii) up to $60.0 million in sales milestone payments per target or up to $480.0 million if maximum of eight targets are selected for the first product modality; and (iv) up to $56.3 million in development milestone payments or up to $450.4 million if the maximum of eight targets are selected for the second product modality; (v) up to $62.0 million in milestone payments for the first commercial sale in various territories for up to three indications per target program or up to $496.0 million if the maximum of eight targets are selected for the second product modality; (iii) up to $30.0 million in sales milestone payments per target or up to $240.0 million if maximum of eight targets are selected for the second product modality. The Company is also entitled to tiered mid-single to low double-digit royalties from potential future sales. The Amendment does not change the term of the BMS’ royalty obligation under the BMS Agreement. BMS’ royalty obligation continues on a licensed product-by licensed-product basis until the later of (i) the expiration of the last claim of the licensed patents covering the licensed products in the country, (ii) the twelfth anniversary of the first commercial sale of a licensed product in a country, or (iii) the expiration of any applicable regulatory, pediatric, orphan drug or data exclusivity with respect to such product.

The Company received an upfront payment from BMS under the Amendment of $200.0 million in May 2017. Upon receipt of the upfront payment from BMS, the Company made a payment of $10.0 million to the Regents of the University of California (“UC”), acting through its Santa Barbara campus, under the terms of our exclusive license agreement with UC. The upfront payment was recorded as deferred revenue and is being recognized on a ratable basis over the estimated performance period of eight years. In addition, the Company concluded the Amendment to be a modification of the BMS Agreement. As a result, the Company will recognize the remaining deferred revenue balance relating to the upfront payment received under the BMS Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date prospectively over the new estimated performance period of eight years.

The Company determined that the contingent payments under the Amendment relating to development, sales milestone and royalties do not constitute substantive milestones and will not be accounted for under the milestone method of revenue recognition. The events leading to these payments do not meet the definition of a substantive milestone because the achievement of these events solely depends on BMS’s performance. Accordingly, any revenue from these contingent payments would be subject to an allocation of arrangement consideration and would be recognized over any remaining period of performance obligations, if any, relating to this arrangement. If there are no remaining performance obligations under the arrangement at the time the contingent payment is triggered, the contingent payment will be recognized as revenue in full upon triggering the event.

The Company recognized revenue of $6.9 million and $1.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $10.2 million and $3.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, deferred revenue relating to the BMS Agreement was $251.1 million and $60.9 million, respectively. The amount due from BMS under the BMS Agreement was $0.2 million and $2.2 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

In January 2014, the Company and ImmunoGen, Inc. (“ImmunoGen”) entered into the Research Collaboration Agreement (the “ImmunoGen Agreement”). The ImmunoGen Agreement provides the Company with the right to use ImmunoGen’s Antibody Drug Conjugate (“ADC”) technology in combination with the Company’s Probody technology to create a PDC directed at one specified target under a research license, and to subsequently obtain an exclusive, worldwide development and commercialization license to use ImmunoGen’s ADC technology to develop and commercialize such PDCs. The Company made no upfront cash payment in connection with the execution of the agreement. Instead, the Company provided ImmunoGen with the rights to CytomX’s Probody technology to create PDCs directed at two targets under the research license and to subsequently obtain exclusive, worldwide development and commercialization licenses to develop and commercialize such PDCs. ImmunoGen discontinued one of the two programs being developed under the ImmunoGen Agreement in July 2017 and substitution rights for this program terminated in February 2017. ImmunoGen continues research work on the second collaboration target.

Under the terms of the agreement, both the Company and ImmunoGen are required to perform research activities on behalf of the other party for no monetary consideration. The research activities for a particular target will last until January 2018 unless they are terminated by one of the parties or when a development and commercialization license is obtained with respect to that target. Each party is solely responsible for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of any products resulting from the exclusive development and commercialization license obtained by such party under the agreement. Each party may be liable to pay annual maintenance fees to the other party if the licensed product candidate covered under each development and commercialization license has not progressed to the clinical stage of development within six years of the exercise of the development and commercialization license.

In consideration for the exclusive development and commercialization license that may be obtained by ImmunoGen, the Company is entitled to receive up to $30.0 million in development and regulatory milestone payments per the research program target, up to $50.0 million in sales milestone payments per target and royalties in the mid-single digits on the commercial sales of any resulting product. For the development and commercialization license that may be obtained by the Company, ImmunoGen is entitled to receive up to $60.0 million in development and regulatory milestone payments, up to $100.0 million in sales milestone payments and royalties in the mid to high single digits on the commercial sales of any resulting product.

The Company accounted for the ImmunoGen Agreement based on the fair value of the assets and services exchanged. The Company identified the following significant deliverables at the inception of the ImmunoGen Agreement: (1) the research license, (2) the research services, (3) the obligation to participate in the joint research committee, (4) the exclusive research, development and commercialization license and (5) the obligation to provide future technology improvements, when available. The Company determined that the research license, participation in the joint steering committee and the research services do not have stand-alone value from the development and commercialization license and therefore those deliverables were combined into one unit of accounting. The Company considered factors such the limited economic benefits to ImmunoGen if development and commercialization license is not obtained and the lack of sublicensing rights in the research license.

The estimated total fair value of the consideration of $13.2 million was recorded as deferred revenue, of which $13.0 million, or $6.5 million per target, was allocated to the unit of accounting comprised of the research license, research services, participation in the joint research committee and the development and commercialization license, and $0.2 million was allocated to the future technological improvements. The Company will recognize $13.0 million upon delivery of the development and commercialization licenses and will recognize amounts allocated to the future technology improvements over the term of the license.

The estimated fair value of assets and services received was also $13.2 million, of which $12.7 million was allocated to the licenses received and was charged to research and development expense, with the remaining amount of $0.5 million was allocated to the research services, joint research committee participation and technology improvements, which is being expensed over the period of services to be provided.

In February 2017, ImmunoGen exercised its option to obtain a development and commercialization license for one of the two targets under the ImmunoGen Agreement. Revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2017 was immaterial and $0 for June 30, 2016. The Company recognized revenue of $6.5 million and $0 million related to the allocated revenue to the exercise of the development and commercialization license for this target for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, deferred revenue relating to the ImmunoGen Agreement was $6.7 million and $13.2 million, respectively.

In November 2015, the Company entered into a research collaboration agreement with MD Anderson to research Probody-enabled chimeric antigen receptor killer (CAR-NK) cell therapies, known as ProCAR-NK cell therapies. Under this collaboration, MD Anderson will use the Company’s Probody technology to conduct research of ProCAR-NK cell therapies against certain targets selected by the Company in cancer immunotherapy. Under the research collaboration agreement, the Company has the right to exercise an option, during the option period expiring on November 2, 2019 and upon payment of an option exercise fee, to negotiate and acquire a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license from MD Anderson for development and commercialization of products directed against any of the selected targets. The research collaboration agreement will continue in effect until the earlier of (i) the date that the Company exercises the option to acquire the license from MD Anderson and (ii) the expiration of the option period. The impact of this agreement was not material for the financial statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016.

In May 2013, the Company and Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) entered into a Research Collaboration, Option and License Agreement (the “Pfizer Agreement”) to collaborate on the discovery and preclinical research activities related to Probody therapeutics, and PDCs for research project targets nominated by Pfizer. Pfizer nominated two research targets in 2013 and, pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement, had the option of nominating two additional research targets. In December 2014, Pfizer selected an additional research target. The option to select a fourth target lapsed in May 2016. Pfizer has discontinued the epidermal growth factor receptor (“EGFR”) program and continues research work on two targets.

The Pfizer Agreement provides Pfizer with an option to acquire an exclusive development and commercialization license for each research project target. Upon exercise of the option, Pfizer (1) will receive an exclusive development and commercialization license for use of the Probody therapeutic during the development, manufacturing and commercialization of the potential product, and (2) will be responsible for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of such potential products.

Pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement, the Company received an upfront payment of $6.0 million and is entitled to receive contingent payments of up to an aggregate of $263.5 million as follows: (i) up to $4.5 million upon exercise of the license options, (ii) up to $38.0 million from the achievement of development milestones for the research target programs, (iii) up to $101.0 million in milestone payments for the first commercial sale in various territories for up to three indications per research target program, and (iv) up to $120.0 million in sales milestones payments for the research target programs. The Company is entitled to receive royalties in the mid-single digit royalties from potential future sales of product candidates. The Company will also receive research and development service fees based on a prescribed FTE rate per year that is capped.

In accordance with ASC 605-25, the Company identified the following deliverables at the inception of the Pfizer Agreement: (1) the research license, (2) the research services and (3) the obligation to participate in the joint research committee. The Company determined that the research license does not have stand-alone value to Pfizer due to the specialized nature of the research services to be provided by the Company, and accordingly, this deliverable was combined with the research services and participation in the joint research committee as a single unit of accounting. The Company concluded that, at the inception of the agreement, Pfizer’s options to obtain an exclusive development and commercialization license for each research project target do not represent deliverables of the agreement because they are substantive options and do not contain a significant or incremental discount.

The upfront payment of $6.0 million was recorded as deferred revenue and is being recognized on a ratable basis over the estimated performance period of seven years. In December 2014, Pfizer selected an additional target and paid $1.5 million, which was recorded as deferred revenue and is being recognized over the remaining performance period. Following the lapse of the Pfizer’s option to select a fourth target in May 2016, the amortization period of deferred revenue was adjusted to five and a half years.

The Company recognized revenue of $0.5 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively and $0.9 million and $1.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, deferred revenue relating to the Pfizer Agreement was $2.5 million and $3.4 million, respectively. The amount due from Pfizer under the Agreement was $27,000 and $0.1 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

The Company has an exclusive, worldwide license agreement (the “UC Agreement”) with the Regents of the University of California (the “UC Regents”), acting through its Santa Barbara Campus, relating to the use of certain patents and technology relating to its core technology, including its therapeutic antibodies. Pursuant to the UC Agreement, the Company is obligated to (i) make royalty payments to the UC Regents on net sales of its products covered under the agreement, subject to annual minimum amounts, (ii) make milestone payments to the UC Regents upon the occurrence of certain events, (iii) make a milestone payment to the UC Regents upon occurrence of an IPO or change of control, and (iv) reimburse the UC Regents for prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents. If the Company sublicenses its rights under the UC Agreement, it is obligated to pay the UC Regents a percentage of the total gross proceeds received in consideration of the grant of the sublicense, which total amount would be first reduced by the aggregate amount of certain research and development related expenses incurred by the Company.

In 2013, the Company amended the UC Agreement to reduce the amounts due to the UC Regents upon receipt by the Company of upfront payments, milestone payments and royalties from sublicensees. In exchange for this amendment, the Company issued to the UC Regents 157,332 shares of common stock. The UC Agreement, as amended, will remain in effect until the expiration or abandonment of the last to expire of the licensed patents.

The Company incurred expenses of $10.0 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively and $10.3 million and $1.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, to the UC Regents under the provisions of the UC Agreement.

The Company has annual minimum royalty obligations of $150,000 under the terms of certain exclusive licensed patent rights.

On December 10, 2015, the Company entered into a lease (the “Lease”) with HCP Oyster Point III LLC (the “Landlord”) to lease approximately 76,173 rentable square feet of office and laboratory space located in South San Francisco, California for the Company’s corporate headquarters. The Company previously leased office and laboratory space located in South San Francisco, California, pursuant to a lease dated March 29, 2013, which expired pursuant to a lease termination agreement (“Lease Termination”) entered into in March 2016. The Lease Termination provided for an early termination of the prior lease and was effective on November 30, 2016. The Company was not required to pay the landlord a termination payment in connection with the early termination of the lease.

The term of the Lease commenced on October 1, 2016. The Lease has an initial term of ten years from the commencement date, and the Company has an option to extend the initial term for an additional five years at the then fair rental value as determined pursuant to the Lease.

The Lease provides for annual base rent of approximately $3.1 million in the first year of the lease term. The annual base rent for the second twelve months will be approximately $4.3 million, which will increase on an annual basis beginning from the 25^th month to approximately $5.5 million for the tenth year of the lease. The Company was entitled to a one-time improvement allowance of up to $12.6 million, of which $2.3 million is recoverable by the landlord through an increase rent which continues through the expiration of the initial lease term.

In addition, the Company obtained a standby letter of credit (the “Letter of Credit”) in an amount of approximately $0.9 million, which may be drawn by the Landlord to be applied for certain purposes upon the Company’s breach of any provisions under the Lease. The Company has recorded the $0.9 million Letter of Credit in restricted cash as a non-current asset on its balance sheet at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016.

Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease and accordingly the Company records the difference between cash rent payments and the recognition of rent expense as a deferred rent liability.

The future minimum lease payments for all of the Company’s facility leases are as follows (in thousands):

Rent expense was $1.1 million and $0.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $2.1 million and $0.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The amount for the six months ended June 30, 2016 included a one-time adjustment of $0.2 million to deferred rent pursuant to the termination of the Company’s previous lease for former office and laboratory space.

The Company is subject to claims and assessments from time to time in the ordinary course of business but is not aware of any such matters, individually or in the aggregate, that will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into agreements that may include indemnification provisions.

Pursuant to such agreements, the Company may indemnify, hold harmless and defend an indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. Some of the provisions will limit losses to those arising from third party actions. In some cases, the indemnification will continue after the termination of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these provisions is not determinable. The Company has never incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware corporate law. The Company currently has directors’ and officers’ insurance.

In October 2015, the Company’s board of directors and stockholders approved the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation. The amended and restated certificate of incorporation was effective as of October 14, 2015, and provides for 75,000,000 authorized shares of common stock with a par value of $0.00001 per share and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock with a par value of $0.00001 per share.

Common stockholders are entitled to dividends if and when declared by the Board of Directors subject to the prior rights of the preferred stockholders. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, no dividends on common stock had been declared by the Board of Directors.

In 2010, the Company adopted its 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2010 Plan”) which provided for the granting of stock options to employees, directors and consultants of the Company. Options granted under the 2010 Plan were either incentive stock options (“ISOs”) or nonqualified stock options (“NSOs”).

In February 2012, the Company adopted its 2011 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2011 Plan”). The 2011 Plan is divided into two separate equity programs, an option and stock appreciation rights grant program and a stock award program. In conjunction with adopting the 2011 Plan, the Company discontinued the 2010 Plan and released the shares reserved and still available under that plan.

In connection with the consummation of the IPO in October 2015, the board of directors adopted the Company’s 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2015 Plan”). In conjunction with adopting the 2015 Plan, the Company discontinued the 2011 Plan with respect to new equity awards.

The initial number of shares of common stock available for future issuance under the 2015 Plan was 2,444,735. Beginning on January 1, 2016 and continuing until the expiration of the 2015 Plan, the total number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the 2015 Plan will automatically increase annually on January 1 by 4% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of

common stock as of January 1 of the same year. As of June 30, 2017, 2,506,894 shares of common stock were available for future issuance under the 2015 Plan.

Options under the 2015 Plan may be granted for periods of up to ten years. All options issued to date have had a 10-year life. Under the terms of the 2015 Plan, options may be granted at an exercise price not less than the estimated fair value of the shares on the date of grant, as determined by the Company’s board of directors. For employees holding more than 10% of the voting rights of all classes of stock, the exercise price of ISOs and NSOs may not be less than 110% of the estimated fair value of the shares on the date of grant, as determined by the board of directors. To date, options granted generally vest over four years and vest at a rate of 25% upon the first anniversary of the issuance date and 1/48th per month thereafter.

Concurrent with the completion of the IPO in October 2015, the Company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”) became effective. The ESPP allows eligible employees to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at a discount through payroll deductions of up to 15% of their eligible compensation, subject to any plan limitations. The ESPP generally provides for six-month offering periods, and at the end of each offering period, employees are able to purchase shares at 85% of the lower of the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the first trading day of the offering period or on the last trading day of the offering period. 43,040 shares were issued under the ESPP during the six months ended June 30, 2017.

Shares available for future purchase under the ESPP were 1,005,095 at June 30, 2017. The compensation expense related to the ESPP was $63,000 and $20,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $131,000 and $20,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of June 30, 2017, there was $127,000 of unrecognized compensation cost related to the ESPP, which we expect to recognize over 5 months.

Total stock-based compensation recorded related to options granted to employees and non-employees and employee stock purchase plan was as follows (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30,				June 30,
	2017		2016		2017		2016
Stock-based compensation expense:
Research and development	$	1,319	$	1,180	$	2,547	$	2,529
General and administrative		1,690		1,211		3,210		2,383
Total stock-based compensation expense	$	3,009	$	2,391	$	5,757	$	4,912

Certain employees of Third Rock Ventures, a stockholder of the Company, provide consulting services to the Company. General and administrative expense for these services of $10,000 and $12,000 were recorded for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016,

respectively, and $18,000 and $24,000 were recorded for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The amounts outstanding and included in accounts payable were $10,000 and $12,000 as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Revenues from related party refer to the collaboration agreement with Pfizer, one of the Company’s stockholders. The Company recognized revenue of $0.5 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $0.9 million and $1.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively (Note 8). As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, deferred revenue relating to the Pfizer Agreement was $2.5 million and $3.4 million, respectively. The amount due from Pfizer under the agreement was $27,000 and $0.1 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

The Company sponsors a defined contribution plan under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code covering substantially all full-time U.S. employees. Employee contributions are voluntary and are determined on an individual basis subject to the maximum allowable under federal tax regulations. The Company made contributions to the plan of $24,000 and $31,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $202,000 and $172,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

The following weighted-average outstanding shares of potentially dilutive securities were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share for the periods presented, because including them would have been anti-dilutive:

A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of the basic and diluted net loss per share is as follows (in thousands except share and per share amounts):

	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2017			2016			2017			2016
Numerator:
Net loss		(25,216	)		(14,176	)		(33,473	)		(30,205	)
Denominator:
Weighted-average common shares outstanding used to calculate net loss per share, basic and diluted		36,780,897			36,113,363			36,660,548			36,088,393
Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(0.69	)	$	(0.39	)	$	(0.91	)	$	(0.84	)

On July 19, 2017, the Company achieved GLP Tox Success Criteria under the CD71 Agreement entered into with AbbVie, which triggered a $15.0 million milestone payment to the Company. This milestone is expected to be recognized as revenue in its entirety during the quarter ended September 30, 2017.

You should read the following management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with our unaudited condensed financial statements and notes thereto included in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and with our audited financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2016, included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 2, 2017.

We are a clinical-stage, oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company pioneering a novel class of investigational antibody therapeutics based on our Probody technology platform. We use our platform to create proprietary cancer immunotherapies against clinically-validated targets, such as PD-L1, and develop first-in-class cancer therapeutics against difficult-to-drug targets, such as CD166. Probody therapeutics are designed to take advantage of unique conditions in the tumor microenvironment to enhance the tumor-targeting features of an antibody and reduce drug activity in healthy tissues. Our two lead programs, CX-072, a wholly-owned PD-L1-targeting Probody therapeutic and CX-2009, a first-in-class Probody drug conjugate targeting the highly expressed tumor antigen, CD166, are both currently being evaluated in Phase 1/2 studies. In addition, both CX-072 and CX-2009 are part of PROCLAIM (Probody Clinical Assessment in Man) (“PROCLAIM”), an international umbrella clinical trial program that provides clinical trial sites with access to our novel therapies under one central protocol. In addition to our proprietary programs, we are collaborating with strategic partners, including AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company (“AbbVie”), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”), ImmunoGen, Inc. (“ImmunoGen”), MD Anderson Cancer Center (“MD Anderson”) and Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”). The two most advanced programs from our collaborations are a Probody therapeutic directed against CTLA-4, the target of the BMS immune checkpoint inhibitor, Yervoy and CX-2029, a CD71 targeting Probody Drug Conjugate being advanced with AbbVie. BMS has initiated IND-enabling studies for the CTLA-4-directed Probody therapeutic discovered within the collaboration and clinical trial initiation is anticipated by early 2018. We have initiated IND-enabling studies for CX-2029, a CD-71-directed Probody therapeutics in co-development with AbbVie and an IND filing is anticipated in 2018.

We currently have two product candidates in clinical trials but we do not have any product candidates approved for sale, and we continue to incur significant research and development and general administrative expenses related to our operations. We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each year since our founding in 2008. Our net loss was $25.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and $33.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017. As of June 30, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $209.8 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

A summary of our critical accounting policies is presented in Part II, Item 7 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. There have been no material changes to our critical accounting policies during the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

Our revenue to date has been primarily derived from non-refundable license payments and reimbursements for research and development expenses under our research, collaboration, and license agreements. We recognize revenue from upfront payments ratably over the term of our estimated period of performance under the agreement. In addition to receiving upfront payments, we may also be entitled to milestone and other contingent payments upon achieving predefined objectives. Revenue from milestones, if they are nonrefundable and deemed substantive, is recognized upon successful accomplishment of the milestones. To the extent that non-substantive milestones are achieved and we have remaining performance obligations, milestones are deferred and recognized as revenue over the estimated remaining period of performance. Reimbursements from Pfizer and BMS for research and development costs incurred under our research, collaboration and license agreements with them are classified as revenue.

For the foreseeable future, we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products unless and until such time as our product candidates have advanced through clinical development and obtained regulatory approval. We expect that any revenue we do generate in the foreseeable future will fluctuate from year to year as a result of the timing and amount of milestones and other payments from our collaborations with AbbVie, BMS, ImmunoGen and Pfizer, and any future collaboration partners, and as a result of the fluctuations in the research and development expenses we incur in the performance of assigned activities under these agreements.

Our research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred to conduct research, such as the discovery and development of our product candidates, clinical development including activities with third parties, such as clinical research organizations (“CROs”) and contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”), drug products we used in clinical trials, as well as the development of product candidates pursuant to our research, collaboration and license agreements. Research and development expenses include personnel costs, including stock-based compensation expense, contractor services, laboratory materials and supplies, depreciation and maintenance of research equipment, and an allocation of related facilities costs. We expense research and development costs as they are incurred.

We expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially in absolute dollars in the future as we advance our product candidates into and through clinical trials and pursue regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, we received clearance from the FDA for our IND for CX-072 in December 2016 and treated our first patient in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial in January 2017. We also received clearance from the FDA for our IND for CX-2009 in May 2017 and treated our first patient in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial in June 2017. The process of conducting the necessary clinical research to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time-consuming. The actual probability of success for our product candidates may be affected by a variety of factors including: the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, early clinical data, investment in our clinical program, the ability of collaborators to successfully develop our licensed product candidates, competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. As a result of the uncertainties discussed above, we are unable to determine the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects or when and to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of our product candidates.

General and administrative expenses include personnel costs, expenses for outside professional services and other allocated expenses. Personnel costs consist of salaries, bonuses, benefits and stock-based compensation. Outside professional services consist of legal, accounting and audit services and other consulting fees. Allocated expenses consist of rent expense related to our office and research and development facility. We expect to incur additional expenses as a result of operating as a public company, including expenses related to compliance with the rules and regulations of the SEC, and those of any national securities exchange on which our securities are traded, additional insurance expenses, investor relations activities and other administrative and professional services. We also expect to increase our administrative headcount to operate as a public company and as we advance our product candidates through clinical development, which will also increase our general and administrative expenses.

Interest income primarily consists of interest income from our cash equivalents and short-term investments and interest costs related to amortization of premiums on our short-term investments.

Other income (expense), net consists primarily of gain and losses related to changes in currency exchange rates.

	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2017		2016		Change		2017		2016		Change
	(in thousands)						(in thousands)
Total revenues	$	8,752	$	3,094	$	5,658	$	20,405	$	5,317	$	15,088

Revenue increased $5.7 million during the three months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase in revenue was primarily due to an increase of $4.6 million in recognized revenue related to the recognition of the an upfront payment we received from BMS in connection with the expansion of our collaboration pursuant to an amendment of our Collaboration and License Agreement that we entered into in March 2017 (the “BMS Amendment”), an increase of $0.7 million in recognized revenue related to the recognition of an upfront payment we received pursuant to the Development and Licensing Agreement and Discovery Collaboration and Licensing Agreement we entered into with AbbVie in April 2016 (collectively the “AbbVie

Agreements”), and an increase of $0.5 million in recognized revenue related to payments made by BMS in connection with the selection of its fourth target under our Collaboration and License Agreement entered into in 2014 (the “BMS Agreement”).

Revenue increased $15.1 million during the six months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase in revenue was primarily due to $6.5 million in recognized revenue triggered by our delivery of a Development and Commercialization License to ImmunoGen in connection with our collaboration agreement with ImmunoGen, which we entered into in January 2014, an increase of $4.6 million in recognized revenue related to recognition of an upfront payment we received from BMS in connection with the expansion of our collaboration, an increase of $2.3 million in recognized revenue related to the recognition of the upfront payment we received pursuant to the AbbVie Agreements, an increase of $1.3 million in recognized revenue related to payments made by BMS in connection with the selection of its fourth targets under our Collaboration and License Agreement, and an increase of $0.9 million in recognized revenue due to the acceleration of the research timeline triggered by BMS’s selection of fourth target under the BMS Agreement.

	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2017		2016		Change		2017		2016		Change
	(in thousands)						(in thousands)
Research and development expenses	$	28,076	$	12,705	$	15,371	$	42,652	$	26,070	$	16,582

Research and development expense increased $15.4 million during the three months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase was attributable to a $10 million sublicense payment made to UCSB, which was triggered by the receipt of the $200 million upfront payment made by BMS in connection with our expanded collaboration, an increase of $2.8 million to advance CX-072 and CX-2009 into Phase 1/2 clinical development, an increase of $1.0 million in milestone payments to UCSB triggered by the development of CX-2009, an increase of $1.0 million in facilities-related expenses incurred during the period, and an increase of $0.8 million in personnel-related expense due to an increase in headcount.

Research and development expense increased $16.6 million during the six months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase was attributable to a one-time $10 million sublicense payment made to UCSB which was triggered by the $200 million upfront payment made by BMS in connection with our expanded collaboration, an increase of $4.6 million to advance CX-072 and CX-2009 into Phase 1/2 clinical development, an increase of $2.0 million in facilities-related expenses incurred during the period, an increase of $1.5 million in personnel-related expenses due to an increase in headcount, and an increase of $0.6 million in expenses related to acquisitions with respect to our patent portfolio, which expenses were partly offset by a decrease of $2.9 million in manufacturing expenses for our CX-072 and CX-2009 programs.

	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2017		2016		Change		2017		2016		Change
	(in thousands)						(in thousands)
General and administrative expenses	$	6,049	$	4,647	$	1,402	$	11,740	$	9,687	$	2,053

General and administrative expense increased $1.4 million during the three months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase was attributable to an increase of $0.6 million in personnel-related expenses due to an increase in headcount, an increase of $0.4 million in severance payment, and an increase of $0.3 million in facilities-related expenses incurred during the period.

General and administrative expense increased $2.1 million during the six months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase was attributable to an increase of $1.2 million in personnel-related expense due to an increase in headcount, an increase of $0.5 million in facilities-related expenses incurred during the period and an increase of $0.4 million in severance payment.

	Three Months Ended									Six Months Ended
	June 30,									June 30,
	2017			2016			Change			2017			2016			Change
	(in thousands)									(in thousands)
Interest income, net	$	357		$	195		$	162		$	594		$	332		$	262
Other income (expense), net		(174	)		(110	)		(64	)		(54	)		(91	)		37
Total Interest and other income	$	183		$	85		$	98		$	540		$	241		$	299

Interest income increased $0.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase was primarily attributable to lower amortization of premiums on our short-term investments.

Interest income increased $0.3 million during the six months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016. The increase was primarily attributable to lower amortization of premiums on our short-term investments.

Other income (expense) was relatively flat during the three months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016.

Other income (expense) was relatively flat during the six months ended June 30, 2017 compared to the corresponding period in 2016.

As of June 30, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $335.9 million and an accumulated deficit of $209.8 million, compared to cash and cash equivalents of $181.9 million and an accumulated deficit of $176.4 million as of December 31, 2016. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through sales of our common stock in conjunction with the IPO, sales of our convertible preferred securities prior to our IPO and payments received under our collaboration agreements.

Based upon our current operating plan, we expect our existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund our operations into 2020. However, if the anticipated operating results are not achieved in future periods, our planned expenditures may need to be reduced in order to extend the time period over which the then-available resources would be able to fund the operations. The amounts and timing of our actual expenditures depend on numerous factors, including the progress of our preclinical development efforts, the results of any clinical trials and other studies, our operating costs and expenditures and other factors describe under the caption “Risk Factors” in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The cost and timing of developing our products, including CX-072 and CX-2009, are highly uncertain, are subject to substantial risks and many changes. As such, we may alter our expenditures as a result of contingencies such as the failure of one or both of these product candidates in clinical development, acceleration of one or both of these product candidates in clinical development, the identification of a more promising product candidate in our research efforts or unexpected operating costs and expenditures. We will need to raise additional funds in the future. There can be no assurance, however, that such efforts will be successful or that, in the event that they are successful, the terms and conditions of such financing will be favorable to us.

During the six months ended June 30, 2017, cash provided by operating activities was $154.1 million, which consisted of a net loss of $33.5 million, adjusted by non-cash charges of $6.9 million and a net increase of $180.7 million in our net operating assets. The non-cash charges primarily consisted of $5.8 million in stock-based compensation, $0.8 million in depreciation and amortization and $0.3 million in amortization premiums on our short-term investments. The change in our net operating assets and liabilities was primarily attributable to an increase of $179.7 million in deferred revenue, which was primarily due to a $200.0 million upfront payment from BMS in connection with the BMS Amendment entered into in March 2017, which increase was partially offset by the recognition of upfront fees of $13.8 million under certain of our collaboration agreements and $6.5 million in recognized revenue from our delivery of a Development and Commercialization License to ImmunoGen in connection with our collaboration agreement and an increase of $2.1 million in accounts receivable. These increases were partially offset by $0.7 million in prepaid expenses and other current assets and $0.3 million in other assets.

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, cash provided by operating activities was $10.2 million, which consisted of a net loss of $30.2 million, adjusted by non-cash charges of $6.5 million and a net increase of $33.9 million in our net operating assets. The non-cash charges primarily consisted of $4.9 million in stock-based compensation, $0.8 million in depreciation and amortization and $0.8 million in amortization premiums on our short-term investments. The change in our net operating assets and liabilities was primarily attributable to an increase of $35.4 million in deferred revenue, which was primarily due to a $30.0 million upfront payment from AbbVie in connection with AbbVie Agreements and a $10.0 million milestone payment from BMS in connection with its selection of a third target, an increase of $2.3 million in accrued liabilities and an increase of $0.5 million in accounts receivable and other assets. Such increase was partially offset by a decrease of $3.2 million in accounts payable and $1.1 million in prepaid expenses and other current assets.

During the six months ended June 30, 2017, cash provided by investing activities was $12.5 million, which consisted of $68.0 million in proceeds received upon the maturity of marketable securities. Such increase was partially offset by $54.2 million used in the purchase of short-term investments and $1.3 million of capital expenditures used to purchase property and equipment.

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, cash used in investing activities was $7.9 million, which consisted of $97.9 million in purchases of short-term investments and $0.7 million of capital expenditures to purchase property and equipment. Such uses were partially offset by $90.7 million received upon the maturity of marketable securities.

During the six months ended June 30, 2017, cash provided by financing activities primarily consisted of proceeds from the exercise of stock options.

During the six months ended June 30, 2016, cash provided by financing activities primarily consisted of proceeds from the exercise of stock options and repayment of stockholder notes.

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of June 30, 2017 (in thousands):

We enter into agreements in the normal course of business with contract research organizations for clinical trials and with vendors for pre-clinical studies and other services and products for operating purposes, which are cancelable at any time by us, generally upon 30 to 60 days prior written notice. These payments are not included in the above table of contractual obligations. The above table also excludes unrecognized tax benefits of $1.2 million as of December 31, 2016 because these uncertain tax positions, if recognized, would be an adjustment to our deferred tax assets.

We have not entered into any off-balance sheet arrangements and do not have any holdings in variable interest entities.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards issued subsequent to the enactment of the JOBS Act 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. We do intend to rely on other exemptions provided by the JOBS Act, including, without limitation, 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. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) December 31, 2020, (2) the last day of the fiscal year (a) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (b) 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 (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

We are exposed to market risks in the ordinary course of our business. These risks primarily relate to interest rate risks. We had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $335.9 million as of June 30, 2017 and cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $181.9 million as of December 31, 2016, which consists of bank deposits, money market funds and U.S. government bonds. Such interest-bearing instruments carry a degree of interest rate risk; however, historical fluctuations of interest income have not been significant.

We do not enter into investments for trading or speculative purposes and have not used any derivative financial instruments to manage our interest rate exposure. We have not historically been exposed to material risks due to changes in interest rates. Due to the short-term duration of our investment portfolio and low risk profile of our investments, an immediate 100 basis point increase in interest rates would not have material effect on the fair value of our portfolio.

The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) refers to controls and other procedures of an issuer that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by an issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the issuer’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, our management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and our management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives.

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2017, the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting was conducted using the criteria defined in the Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”). Based upon such evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of such date.

There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

We are subject to claims and assessments from time to time in the ordinary course of business but is not aware of any such matters, individually or in the aggregate, that will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including our financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. The risks described below are not the only risks facing the Company. Risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a history of losses, expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability, which could result in a decline in the market value of our common stock.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history, developing a novel class of therapeutic antibody product candidates, based on our proprietary biologic Probody technology platform. Since our inception, we have devoted our resources to the development of Probody therapeutics. We have had significant operating losses since our inception. As of June 30, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $209.8 million. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, our net loss was $25.2 million and $33.5 million, respectively. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. Though we have developed our Probody platform, our technologies and product candidates are in early stages of development, and we are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the development of product candidates based on novel technologies. We have never generated any revenue from product sales, and have not obtained regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

Furthermore, we do not expect to generate any revenue from product sales for the foreseeable future, and we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future due to the cost of research and development, preclinical studies and clinical trials and the regulatory approval process for our product candidates. We expect our net losses to increase substantially as we continue clinical development of our lead programs and advance additional programs into clinical development. However, the amount of our future losses is uncertain. Our ability to achieve profitability, if ever, will depend on, among other things, our, or our existing or future collaborators, successfully developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approvals to market and commercialize product candidates, manufacturing any approved products on commercially reasonable terms, establishing a sales and marketing organization or suitable third-party alternatives for any approved product and raising sufficient funds to finance business activities. If we, or our existing or future collaborators, are unable to develop our technologies and commercialize one or more of our product candidates or if sales revenue from any product candidate that receives approval is insufficient, we will not achieve profitability, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We expect that we will need to raise substantial additional funds to advance development of our product candidates and we cannot guarantee that this additional funding will be available on acceptable terms or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development and commercialization of our current or future product candidates.

The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates is capital-intensive. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need substantial additional funds to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities. We have used substantial funds to develop our technology and product candidates and will require significant funds to conduct further research and development and preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and to manufacture and market any products that are approved for commercial sale. In addition, we have incurred and will continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

As of June 30, 2017, we had $335.9 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Based on our current operating plan, we expect our existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund our operations into 2020. Our future capital requirements and the period for which we expect our existing resources to support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect. Our monthly spending levels vary based on new and ongoing research and development and other corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful research and development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis or on acceptable terms, we may have to delay, reduce or terminate our research and development programs and preclinical studies or clinical trials, limit strategic opportunities or undergo reductions in our workforce or other corporate restructuring activities. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates that we would otherwise pursue on our own. We do not expect to realize revenue from sales of products or royalties from licensed products in the foreseeable future, if at all, and unless and until our product candidates are clinically tested, approved for commercialization and successfully marketed. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through sales of our common stock in conjunction with the IPO, sale of our convertible preferred securities and payments received under our collaboration agreements. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and currently intend to do so through additional collaborations, public or private equity offerings or debt financings, credit or loan facilities or a combination of one or more of these funding sources. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will suffer dilution and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders. Debt financing, if available, is likely to involve restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of our equity securities received any distribution of our corporate assets.

Our product candidates are in early stages of development and only two have been tested in a human subject to date. Our product candidates may fail in development or suffer delays that materially and adversely affect their commercial viability.

We have no products on the market and all but two of our product candidates are in preclinical stages of development. Our ability to achieve and sustain profitability depends on obtaining regulatory approvals for and successfully commercializing our product candidates, either alone or with third parties. Before obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial distribution of our product candidates, we or an existing or future collaborator must conduct extensive preclinical tests and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy in humans of our product candidates.

We may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to modify existing or enter into new collaborations for, a product candidate if we experience any issues that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, product candidates, including:

In addition, our current and future clinical trials will need to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy for approval by regulatory authorities in larger patient populations. Our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CX-072 was initiated in January 2017 and was the first time CX-072 had been administered to cancer patients. It is possible that patients enrolled in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CX-072 or any future clinical trials we commence for other product candidates could respond in unexpected ways. For instance, our Phase 1/2 clinical trial is being conducted in patients with advanced cancers, including metastatic or locally advanced unresectable solid tumors or lymphomas, who have failed other approved therapies for their disease, and as such, it may be difficult to establish safety and efficacy in this type of patient population. In addition, certain arms of our clinical trial of CX-072 enroll patients with tumor types that are not known to be responsive to PD-L1 agents and therefore may be less likely to show effectiveness. Furthermore, a portion of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial includes the administration of CX-072 in combination with Yervoy^® (ipilimumab) or Zelboraf^®(vemurafenib), which could exacerbate immune system related adverse events, cause increased toxicity or otherwise lead to unexpected adverse events.

Furthermore, we treated the first patient in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CX-2009 in June 2017. CX-2009 targets CD-166, an antigen that has not been targeted previously in human beings. The effects in human beings of targeting CD-166, a target that is broadly expressed on normal tissue, are not known and could create unacceptable toxicity or fail to result in anti-tumor activity. We could find that targeting CD-166 is not efficacious.

We may experience delays in completing our preclinical studies and initiating or completing clinical trials of our product candidates. We do not know whether planned preclinical studies and clinical trials will be completed on schedule or at all, or whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Our development programs may be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs or therapeutic biologics that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. For example, CX-072 is directed against PD-L1 and there are currently hundreds of clinical studies exploring the use of PD-1 and PD-L1 agents. As such, there can be no assurance that patients will choose to enroll in our study. In addition, many oncologists and their patients may choose to use an approved PD-1 or PD-L1 agent rather than participate in a clinical trial. Furthermore, the part of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CX-072 in which patients are treated with the combination of CX-072 and vemurafenib can only enroll those patients who do not have access to MEK inhibitors because the standard of care when MEK inhibitors are available is to combine a PD-1 or PD-L1 agent with a BRAF inhibitor (like vemurafenib) and a MEK inhibitor. This may have an impact on enrollment in this part of the trial. In addition, our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CX-2009 studies patients who have one of seven specific tumor types rather than patients suffering from any cancer, which may limit the rate of enrollment of the trial.

Any delays relating to patient enrollment could cause significant delays in the timing of our clinical trials.

We could encounter delays in the development of any of our product candidates if prescribing physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, our collaborators, the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug or therapeutic biologic, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Furthermore, we expect to rely on our collaborators, contract research organizations (“CROs”) and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we expect to enter into agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Our approach to the discovery and development of our therapeutic treatments is based on novel technologies that are unproven and may not result in marketable products.

We plan to develop a pipeline of product candidates using our proprietary Probody platform. We believe that product candidates (including cancer immunotherapies, Probody Drug Conjugates (“PDCs”) and bispecific antibodies) identified with our product discovery platform may offer an improved therapeutic approach by taking advantage of unique conditions in the tumor microenvironment, thereby reducing the dose-limiting toxic effects associated with traditional antibody products, which can also attack healthy tissue. However, the scientific research that forms the basis of our efforts to develop product candidates based on our Probody platform is ongoing. Further, the scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing therapeutic treatments based on our Probody platform is both preliminary and limited.

We may ultimately discover that our Probody platform and any product candidates resulting from it do not possess certain properties required for therapeutic effectiveness or protection from toxicity. For example, when administered in a human, protease levels in the tumor may not be sufficient and the peptide mask may not be cleaved, which would limit the potential efficacy of the antibody and reduce the potential to limit the toxicity of the anti-cancer agent. In addition, if the peptide mask is inappropriately released, for example, due to an inflammatory disease, it may result in unforeseen events when administered in humans. Furthermore, Probody product candidates may also be unable to remain stable in the human body for the period of time required for the drug to reach the target tissue or they may trigger immune responses that inhibit the ability of the product candidate to reach the target tissue or that cause adverse side effects in humans. We currently have only limited data, and no conclusive evidence, to suggest that we can introduce these necessary properties into our Probody platform and any product candidates. We may spend substantial funds attempting to introduce these properties and may never succeed in doing so. In addition, product candidates based on our Probody platform may demonstrate different chemical and pharmacological properties in patients than they do in laboratory studies. Although our Probody platform and certain product candidates have demonstrated successful results in animal studies, they may not demonstrate the same chemical and pharmacological properties in humans and may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways. Problems that are specific to our Probody platform may have an unfavorable impact on all of our product candidates. As a result, we may never succeed in developing a marketable product and we may never become profitable, which would cause the value of our common stock to decline.

Further, we are not aware of any company currently in clinical development with a therapeutic using a prodrug approach to antibody drug development and no regulatory authority has granted approval for a therapeutic of this kind. As such, we believe the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have limited clinical experience with Probody-based therapeutics in oncology and no clinical experience in other disease areas. The only clinical experience thus far with Probody based therapeutics comes from the first few cohorts of our trials of CX-072 and CX-2009, and such limited experience may increase the complexity, uncertainty and length of the regulatory approval process for our product candidates and may keep us from commencing first-in-human trials in certain countries. As there is limited historical precedent for the regulatory clearance of Probody-based therapeutics in oncology, there is a higher degree of risk that the FDA or other regulatory authorities could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence clinical trials for products other than CX-072 and CX-2009 or disagree with our study designs, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or amend our protocols or impose stricter conditions on the commencement of clinical trials. In addition, local clinical practice in other countries may affect whether we are able to initiate a clinical trial there. As a result, we and our existing or future collaborators may never receive approval to market and commercialize any product candidate. Even if we or an existing or future collaborator obtains regulatory approval, the approval may be for targets, disease indications or patient populations that are not as broad as we intended or desired or may require labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. We or an existing or future collaborator may be required to perform additional or unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or be subject to post-marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval. If our Probody technologies prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire platform and pipeline would have little, if any, value, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The market may not be receptive to our product candidates based on a novel therapeutic modality, and we may not generate any future revenue from the sale or licensing of product candidates.

Even if regulatory approval is obtained for a product candidate, we may not generate or sustain revenue from sales of the product due to factors such as whether the product can be sold at a competitive cost and whether it will otherwise be accepted in the market. The product candidates that we are developing are based on our Probody platform, which is a new technology and therapeutic approach. Market participants with significant influence over acceptance of new treatments, such as physicians and third-party payors, may not adopt a product or treatment based on our Probody platform and technologies, and we may not be able to convince the medical community and third-party payors to accept and use, or to provide favorable reimbursement for, any product candidates developed by us or our existing or future collaborators. This may be particularly true for any of our product candidates (including CX-072) for which there are existing approved therapies, such as approved agents targeting PD-L1 or PD-1. Market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on, among other factors:

If any product candidate we commercialize fails to achieve market acceptance, it could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have entered, and may in the future seek to enter, into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of our product candidates using our Probody platform. If we fail to enter into such collaborations, or such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of our Probody platform and resulting product candidates.

Since 2013, we have entered into collaborations with Pfizer, BMS, ImmunoGen and AbbVie to develop certain Probody therapeutics. We may in the future seek third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of other therapeutic technologies or product candidates. Biopharmaceutical companies are our prior and likely future collaborators for any marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements. With respect to our existing collaboration agreements, and what we expect will be the case with any future collaboration agreements, we have and would expect to have limited control over whether such collaborations pursue the development of our product candidates or the amount and timing of resources that such collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. For instance, Pfizer allowed its option to select a fourth target pursuant to our collaboration agreement lapse in May 2016, discontinued its epidermal growth factor receptor (“EGFR”) program and has not yet advanced any program to clinical candidate stage. As a result, the development and potential commercialization of any product candidates for the targets covered by our collaboration agreement with Pfizer could be delayed. In July 2017, ImmunoGen discontinued the preclinical evaluation of one of its programs being developed under our collaboration. Further, our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Overall, collaborations involving our product candidates currently pose, and will continue to pose, the following risks to us:

As a result of the foregoing, our current and any future collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of our product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all. Any failure to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates pursuant to our current or any future collaboration agreements could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If our collaborators cease development efforts under our existing or future collaboration agreements, or if any of those agreements are terminated, these collaborations may fail to lead to commercial products and we may never receive milestone payments or future royalties under these agreements.

Substantially all of our revenue to date has been derived from our existing collaboration agreements, including, most recently, the Amendment to Extend Collaboration and License Agreement that we entered into with Bristol-Myers Squibb in March 2017, and a significant portion of our future revenue and cash resources is expected to be derived from these agreements or other similar agreements we may enter into in the future. Revenue from research and development collaborations depend upon continuation of the collaborations, reimbursement of development costs, the achievement of milestones and royalties, if any, derived from future products developed from our research. If we are unable to successfully advance the development of our product candidates or achieve milestones, revenue and cash resources from milestone payments under our collaboration agreements will be substantially less than expected.

In addition, to the extent that any of our existing or future collaborators were to terminate a collaboration agreement or to forego the selection of target product candidates (as Pfizer has done with respect to its fourth target), we may decide, in some cases, to independently develop these product candidates, including funding preclinical or clinical trials, assuming marketing and distribution costs and defending intellectual property rights, or, in certain instances, to abandon product candidates altogether, any of which could result in a change to our business plan and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If a collaboration is terminated, we would not be eligible to receive the milestone, royalty or other payments that would have been payable under the collaboration agreement.

We may not successfully engage in strategic transactions, including any additional collaborations we seek, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates, impact our cash position, increase our expense and present significant distractions to our management.

Since commencing operations, we have entered into several collaboration agreements, including, most recently, the Amendment to Extend Collaboration and License Agreement that we entered into with Bristol-Myers Squibb in March 2017. From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as additional collaborations, acquisitions of companies, asset purchases and out- or in-licensing of product candidates or technologies. In particular, we will evaluate and, if strategically attractive, seek to enter into additional collaborations, including with major biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies. The competition for collaborators is intense, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Any new collaboration may be on terms that are not optimal for us, and we may not be able to maintain any new collaboration if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed, sales of an approved product candidate do not meet expectations or the collaborator terminates the collaboration. Any such collaboration, or other strategic transaction, may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures and pose significant integration or implementation challenges or disrupt our management or business. These transactions would entail numerous operational and financial risks, including exposure to unknown liabilities, disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention in order to manage a collaboration or develop acquired products, product candidates or technologies, incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of equity securities to pay transaction consideration or costs, higher than expected collaboration, acquisition or integration costs, write-downs of assets or goodwill or impairment charges, increased amortization expenses, difficulty and cost in facilitating the collaboration or combining the operations and personnel of any acquired business, impairment of relationships with key suppliers, manufacturers or customers of any acquired business due to changes in management and ownership and the inability to retain key employees of any acquired business. For instance, Pfizer allowed its option to select a fourth target pursuant to our collaboration agreement lapse in May 2016, discontinued its EGFR program and has not yet advanced any program to clinical candidate stage. Accordingly, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any transactions of the nature described above, any transactions that we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The termination by a collaborator of a collaboration may decrease our stock price. Conversely, any failure to enter any additional collaboration or other strategic transaction that would be beneficial to us could delay the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates and have a negative impact on the competitiveness of any product candidate that reaches market.

We rely on third parties to conduct some of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials and intend to continue to do so, and if such third parties do not perform as contractually required, fail to satisfy regulatory or legal requirements or miss expected deadlines, our development programs could be delayed with material and adverse effects on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials. As such, we currently rely and intend to continue to rely on third-party clinical investigators, CROs, clinical data management organizations and consultants to design, conduct, supervise and monitor clinical trials of our product candidates. As a result, we will have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of our clinical trials than we would have had we conducted them on our own. These investigators, CROs and consultants are not our employees and we have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources from our programs. The third parties with which we contract might not be diligent, careful or timely in conducting our preclinical studies or clinical trials, resulting in the preclinical studies or clinical trials being delayed or unsuccessful.

If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their contractual duties, satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of preclinical studies or clinical trials or meet expected deadlines, our clinical development programs could be delayed and otherwise adversely affected. In all events, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. The FDA requires preclinical studies to be conducted in accordance with good laboratory practices (“GLPs”) and clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices (“GCPs”), including for designing, conducting, recording and reporting the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control will not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. Any adverse development or delay in our clinical trials could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Because we rely on third-party manufacturing and supply partners, our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development materials may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality.

We rely on third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture our preclinical and clinical trial product supplies. We do not own manufacturing facilities for producing such supplies. We do not currently have an alternative to any of our third-party manufacturers. There can be no assurance that our preclinical and clinical development product supplies will not be limited, interrupted, or of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices. In particular, any replacement of our manufacturer could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In addition, we may encounter issues with transferring technology to a new third party manufacturer, and we may encounter regulatory delays if we need to move the manufacturing of our products from one third-party manufacturer to another.

The manufacturing process for a product candidate is subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authority review. Suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards, such as current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMPs”). In the event that any of our manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, such as one of our manufacturers going out of business, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party and a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third party manufacture our product candidates. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers if we receive regulatory approval for any product candidate. To the extent that we have existing, or enter into future, manufacturing arrangements with third parties, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance. If we are unable to obtain or maintain third-party manufacturing for product candidates, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our product candidates successfully. We may find that our third party manufacturer is unable to scale up the process in order to produce commercial quantities of our products. Our or a third party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements and comply with cGMPs could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

The supply chain for the manufacturing of our product candidates is complicated and can involve many parties, especially that of CX-2009 and CX-2029, and supply chain issues may seriously disrupt our product supply. In addition, we expect to the logistical challenges associated with our supply chain to grow more complex as additional product candidates, such as CX-2029, commence any clinical trials.

We, or third-party manufacturers, may be unable to successfully scale-up manufacturing of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, which would delay or prevent us from developing our product candidates and commercializing approved products, if any.

It may prove more challenging to manufacture products that incorporate our technology. In order to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, including our Phase 1/2 clinical trials for CX-072 and CX-2009, we will need to manufacture them in large quantities. We, or any manufacturing partners, may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all, although we have been able to successfully manufacture clinical quantities of CX-072 and CX-2009. In particular, we are dependent on ImmunoGen under our collaboration for certain steps in the manufacturing of clinical quantities of CX-2009. However, contract manufacturing is not ImmunoGen’s primary business and ImmunoGen may not have sufficient resources to commit to manufacturing for third parties. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we, or any manufacturing partners, are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing, and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

We may acquire assets or form strategic alliances in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions.

We may acquire additional technologies and assets, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire assets with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such assets if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing technologies.

We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on specific product candidates, including CX-072 and CX-2009. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

We face competition from entities that have developed or may develop product candidates for cancer, including companies developing novel treatments and technology platforms. If these companies develop technologies or product candidates more rapidly than we do or their technologies are more effective, our ability to develop and successfully commercialize product candidates may be adversely affected.

The development and commercialization of drugs and therapeutic biologics is highly competitive. We compete with a variety of multinational biopharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies, as well as technology being developed at universities and other research institutions. Our competitors have developed, are developing or will develop product candidates and processes competitive with our product candidates. Competitive therapeutic treatments include those that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community and any new treatments that enter the market. We believe that a significant number of products are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may try to develop product candidates. There is intense and rapidly evolving competition in the biotechnology, biopharmaceutical and antibody and immunoregulatory therapeutics fields. We believe that while our Probody platform, its associated intellectual property and our scientific and technical know-how give us a competitive advantage in this space, competition from many sources remains. Our competitors include larger and better funded biopharmaceutical, biotechnological and therapeutics companies. Moreover, we also compete with current and future therapeutics developed at universities and other research institutions.

We are aware of several companies that are developing cancer immunotherapies and ADCs, including certain companies that are exploring antibody masking strategies. Many of these companies are well-capitalized and have significant clinical experience, and may include our existing or future collaborators. In addition, these companies compete with us in recruiting scientific and managerial talent.

Our success will partially depend on our ability to develop and protect therapeutics that are safer and more effective than competing products. Our commercial opportunity and success will be reduced or eliminated if competing products that are safer, more effective, or less expensive than the therapeutics we develop.

If our lead product candidates, CX-072 and CX-2009, are approved, they will compete with a range of therapeutic treatments that are either in development or currently marketed. Indeed, a variety of oncology drugs and therapeutic biologics are on the market or in clinical development. Such marketed therapies range from ADCs such as Genentech, Inc.’s Kadcyla, immune checkpoint inhibitors such as BMS’s Opdivo and T-cell engager immunotherapies such as Amgen, Inc.’s BLINCYTO. The market for immunotherapies like CX-072 is, in particular, highly competitive and the field is changing quickly, causing a product to lose its differentiation before it even reaches the market. In addition, numerous compounds are in clinical development for cancer treatment. The clinical development pipeline for cancer includes small molecules, antibodies and therapies from a variety of groups.

We face substantial competition from biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies developing products in immuno-oncology, including AstraZeneca PLC, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Merck & Co., Inc. Novartis AG, Pfizer, Roche Holding Ltd., Sanofi SA and numerous small companies.

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

Any inability to attract and retain qualified key management and technical personnel would impair our ability to implement our business plan.

Our success largely depends on the continued service of key management, advisors and other specialized personnel, including Sean A. McCarthy, D.Phil., our president and chief executive officer, W. Michael Kavanaugh, M.D., our chief scientific officer and Rachel W. Humphrey, M.D., our chief medical officer. The loss of one or more members of our management team or other key employees or advisors could delay our research and development programs and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The relationships that our key managers have cultivated within our industry make us particularly dependent upon their continued employment with us. We are dependent on the continued service of our technical personnel because of the highly technical nature of our product candidates and technologies and the specialized nature of the regulatory approval process. Because our management team and key employees are not obligated to provide us with continued service, they could terminate their employment with us at any time without penalty. Our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain other highly qualified scientific, technical and management personnel, as well as personnel with expertise in clinical testing, manufacturing, governmental regulation and commercialization. We face competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions, government entities and other organizations.

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

We will need to grow our organization substantially to continue development and pursue the potential commercialization of CX-072, CX-2009 and our other product candidates, as well as function as a public company. We have conducted limited product development to date and have not begun clinical trials for any of our product candidates, other than CX-072 and CX-2009. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and any clinical trials, we will need to expand our development, regulatory and manufacturing capabilities or contract with other organizations to provide these capabilities for us. In the future, we expect to have to manage additional relationships with collaborators or partners, suppliers and other organizations. In particular, if the third-parties on which we currently rely are not capable of delivering services or supplies in a manner that is sufficient to meet our requirements as we expand our operations, we could be required to contract with new third parties and there can be no assurances that the services or supplies of such third parties will be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Furthermore, our ability to manage our operations and future growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. We may not be able to implement improvements to our management information and control systems in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls.

If any of our product candidates are approved for marketing and commercialization and we are unable to develop sales, marketing and distribution capabilities on our own or enter into agreements with third parties to perform these functions on acceptable terms, we will be unable to commercialize successfully any such future products.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities or experience. If any of our product candidates is approved, we will need to develop internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities to commercialize such products, which would be expensive and time-consuming, or enter into collaborations with third parties to perform these services. If we decide to market our products directly, we will need to commit significant financial and managerial resources to develop a marketing and sales force with technical expertise and supporting distribution, administration and compliance capabilities. If we rely on third parties with such capabilities to market our products or decide to co-promote products with collaborators, we will need to establish and maintain marketing and distribution arrangements with third parties, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all. In entering into third-party marketing or distribution arrangements, any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of the third parties and there can be no assurance that such third parties will establish adequate sales and distribution capabilities or be successful in gaining market acceptance of any approved product. If we are not successful in commercializing any product approved in the future, either on our own or through third parties, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to operate in foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets for which we may rely on collaboration with third parties. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that foreign market, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. To obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. If we obtain approval of our product candidates and ultimately commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to the risks and uncertainties, including the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements and the reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries. We may need to rely on third parties to market, distribute and sell our products in foreign markets.

Price controls imposed in foreign markets may adversely affect our future profitability.

In some countries, particularly member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we or future collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our Probody therapeutic candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of any product candidate approved for marketing is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not know how the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union will affect the pricing of prescription drugs, either in the United Kingdom or in the remaining European Union member states.

Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and our ability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are exposed to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments, including as a result of the clinical testing of CX-072, CX-2009 and any other product candidates we may conduct clinical trials for in the future. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our products, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients and a decline in our stock price. We currently have insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels of insurance prior to marketing any of our product candidates. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees or independent contractors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we may establish, comply with federal and state data privacy, security, fraud and abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws could also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our CROs or other contractors or consultants we may utilize, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants we may utilize, may be vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Such events could cause interruptions of our operations. For instance, the loss of preclinical data or data from any current or future clinical trial involving our product candidates could result in delays in our development and regulatory filing efforts and significantly increase our costs. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, recovery of our data could take a prolonged period of time, and the development of our product candidates could be delayed.

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

Our research, development and manufacturing involve the use of hazardous materials and various chemicals. We maintain quantities of various flammable and toxic chemicals in our facilities in South San Francisco, California that are required for our research, development and manufacturing activities. We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. We believe our procedures for storing, handling and disposing these materials in our South San Francisco facilities comply with the relevant guidelines of South San Francisco, the state of California and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by applicable regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of animals and biohazardous materials. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of these materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological or hazardous materials. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations.

Our information technology systems could face serious disruptions that could adversely affect our business.

Our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems, including corporate firewalls, servers, leased lines and connection to the Internet, face the risk of systemic failure that could disrupt our operations. A significant disruption in the availability of our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems could cause interruptions and delays in our research and development work.

Our current operations are concentrated in one location, and we or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Our current operations are located in our facilities in South San Francisco, California. Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our product candidates or interruption of our business operations. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could further disrupt our operations, and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our research facilities or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, could have a material and adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our research and development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our Reported Financial Results May be Adversely Affected by Changes in Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the U.S.

We prepare our financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. These accounting principles are subject to interpretation by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission. A change in these policies or interpretations could have a significant effect on our reported financial results, may retroactively affect previously reported results, could cause unexpected financial reporting fluctuations, and may require us to make costly changes to our operational processes and accounting systems. In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. The ASU will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in the U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective. The new standard will be effective for our fiscal year 2018 with early adoption permitted for our fiscal year 2017. Although we are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of ASU 2014-09 on our financial statements, it could change the way we account for certain of our sales transactions. Thus, adoption of the standard could have a significant impact on our financial statements and may retroactively affect the accounting treatment of transactions completed before adoption. See “Note 3 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for additional discussion of the accounting changes.

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

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRC”), if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage points change (by value) in the ownership of its equity over a rolling three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and certain other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income and taxes may be limited. California has similar rules. We have performed an IRC Section 382 analysis and determined there was an ownership change in 2015. As a result, the federal and state carryforwards associated with the net operating loss and credit deferred tax assets were reduced by the amount of tax attributes estimated to expire during their respective carryforward periods. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside our control. As of December 31, 2016, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $71.5 million and $14.3 million, respectively, and our ability to utilize those net operating loss carryforwards could be limited by an “ownership change” as described above, which could result in increased tax liability to our company.

If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection for our technologies or product candidates, development and commercialization of our product candidates may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, including in-licenses of intellectual property rights of others, for our product candidates, methods used to manufacture our product candidates and methods for treating patients using our product candidates, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. As of July 10, 2017, we solely own 47 patents and 140 pending patent applications; we co-own six patents and six pending patent applications with UC, acting through its Santa Barbara Campus and two patent and one pending patent application with UC, acting through its San Francisco Campus; and, under an exclusive, worldwide license agreement with UC, acting through its Santa Barbara Campus (the “UC Agreement”), we have licensed seventeen patents and seven pending patent applications that cover compositions and methods related to the screening and identification of the masks and protease-cleavable linkers that we incorporate into our Probody candidates. We also exclusively licensed UCSB’s rights in the co-owned patent family. We may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our product candidates in a timely fashion or at all. Our existing issued and granted patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technology. There is no guarantee that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued or granted patents, that any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable or that any issued or granted patents will include claims that are sufficiently broad to cover our product candidates or to provide meaningful protection from our competitors. Moreover, the patent position of biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual questions. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our current and future proprietary technology and product candidates are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. If third parties disclose or misappropriate our proprietary rights, it may materially and adversely affect our position in the market.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. The standards applied by the 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 and biopharmaceutical patents. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology. While we will endeavor to try to protect our product candidates with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining patents is time-consuming, expensive and sometimes unpredictable.

In addition, there are numerous recent changes to the patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the USPTO that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) enacted within the last several years involves significant changes in patent legislation. The Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, some of which cases either narrow the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weaken the rights of patent owners in certain situations. The recent decision by the Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. precludes a claim to a nucleic acid having a stated nucleotide sequence that is identical to a sequence found in nature and unmodified. We currently are not aware of an immediate impact of this decision on our patents or patent applications because we are developing product candidates that contain modifications, such as our Probody substrates and masks, that we believe are not found in nature. However, this decision has yet to be clearly interpreted by courts and by the USPTO. We cannot assure you that the interpretations of this decision or subsequent rulings will not adversely impact our patents or patent applications. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such initial grant. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether. In addition, there can be no assurance that:

Other companies or organizations may challenge our or our licensors’ patent rights or may assert patent rights that prevent us from developing and commercializing our products.

Probody therapeutics are a relatively new scientific field. We have obtained grants and issuances of Probody therapeutic patents and have licensed several of these patents from a third party on an exclusive basis for therapeutics applications. The issued patents and pending patent applications in the U.S. and in key markets around the world that we own or license claim many different methods, compositions and processes relating to the discovery, development, manufacture and commercialization of antibody and immunoregulatory therapeutics. Specifically, we own and have licensed a portfolio of patents, patent applications and other intellectual property covering Probody compositions of matter as well as their methods of manufacturing and use.

As the field of antibody and immunoregulatory therapeutics matures, patent applications are being processed by national patent offices around the world. There is uncertainty about which patents will issue, and, if they do, as to when, to whom, and with what claims. In addition, third parties may attempt to invalidate our intellectual property rights. Even if our rights are not directly challenged, disputes could lead to the weakening of our intellectual property rights. Our defense against any attempt by third parties to circumvent or invalidate our intellectual property rights could be costly to us, could require significant time and attention of our management and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects or our ability to successfully compete.

There are many issued and pending patents that claim aspects of our product candidates and modifications that we may need to apply to our product candidates. There are also many issued patents that claim antibodies or portions of antibodies that may be relevant for Probody products we wish to develop. Thus, it is possible that one or more organizations will hold patent rights to which we will need a license. If those organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights on reasonable terms, we may not be able to market products or perform research and development or other activities covered by these patents.

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

Obtaining a valid and enforceable issued or granted patent covering our technology in the U.S. and worldwide can be extremely costly. In jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection, competitors may use our technology to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where it is more difficult to enforce a patent as compared to the U.S. Competitor products may compete with our future products in jurisdictions where we do not have issued or granted patents or where our issued or granted patent claims or other intellectual property rights are not sufficient to prevent competitor activities in these jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, make it difficult to enforce patents and such countries may not recognize other types of intellectual property protection, particularly that relating to biopharmaceuticals. This could make it difficult for us to prevent the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally in certain jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

We generally file a provisional patent application first (a priority filing) at the USPTO. An international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) is usually filed within twelve months after the priority filing. Based on the PCT filing, national and regional patent applications may be filed in the United States, European Union, Japan, Australia and Canada and, depending on the individual case, also in any or all of, inter alia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and other jurisdictions. We have so far not filed for patent protection in all national and regional jurisdictions where such protection may be available. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. Finally, the grant proceeding of each national or regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant registration authorities, while granted by others. It is also quite common that depending on the country, various scopes of patent protection may be granted on the same product candidate or technology.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the U.S., and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or our licensors encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction may be impaired and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We or our licensors, or any future strategic partners may become subject to third party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other proprietary rights, and we may need to resort to litigation to protect or enforce our patents or other proprietary rights, all of which could be costly, time consuming, delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our product candidates, or put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.

We or our licensors, or any future strategic partners may be subject to third-party claims for infringement or misappropriation of patent or other proprietary rights. We are generally obligated under our license or collaboration agreements to indemnify and hold harmless our licensors or collaborators for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by us. If we or our licensors, or any future strategic partners are found to infringe a third-party patent or other intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed. In addition, we or our licensors, or any future strategic partners may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from a third party, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license, we or our existing or future collaborators may be unable to effectively market product candidates based on our technology, which could limit our ability to generate revenue or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations. In addition, we may find it necessary to pursue claims or initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights. The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation would divert our management’s attention. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products or certain aspects of our platform technology. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without legally infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, and we might be required to litigate or obtain licenses from third parties in order to develop or market our product candidates. Such litigation or licenses could be costly or not available on commercially reasonable terms.

Because the antibody landscape is still evolving, including the masked antibody landscape, it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing on third-party rights. There are numerous companies that have pending patent applications and issued patents broadly covering antibodies generally or covering antibodies directed against the same targets as, or targets similar to, those we are pursuing. There are many issued patents and patent applications covering antibodies targeted against PD-1 and, to a lesser extent, PD-L1, and the intellectual property covering PD-1 has been the subject of litigation, especially regarding how broadly certain claims should be construed. If the claims were to be construed broadly by the courts, we may need to obtain a license to some of such intellectual property, covering PD-1, which would decrease the profits we would realize from the sale of such products. An increasing number of third parties are filing masked antibody patent applications, several of which contain claims that are patterned after our own patent claims. Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third-party intellectual property rights cover our products or product candidates or elements thereof, or our manufacture or uses relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize products or product candidates unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned, or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms. There may be issued patents of which we are not aware, held by third parties that, if found to be valid and enforceable, could be alleged to be infringed by our Probody technologies. There also may be pending patent applications of which we are not aware that may result in issued patents, which could be alleged to be infringed by our Probody technologies. If such an infringement claim should be brought and be successful, we may be required to pay substantial damages, be forced to abandon our product candidates or seek a license from any patent holders. No assurances can be given that a license will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, U.S. applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S. remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies, our products or the use of our products. Third-party intellectual property right holders may also actively bring infringement claims against us. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or continue costly, unpredictable and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from or experience substantial delays in marketing our products. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material and adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under any license, collaboration or other agreements, we may be required to pay damages and could lose intellectual property rights that are necessary for developing and protecting our product candidates or we could lose certain rights to grant sublicenses.

Our licenses from UCSB and ImmunoGen impose, and any future licenses we enter into are likely to impose, various development, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement and/or other obligations on us. If we breach any of these obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, which could result in us being unable to develop, manufacture and sell products that are covered by the licensed technology or enable a competitor to gain access to the licensed technology. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in products that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.

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

In addition to seeking patent protection for certain aspects of our product candidates, we also consider trade secrets, including confidential and unpatented know-how important to the maintenance of our competitive position. We protect trade secrets and confidential and unpatented know-how, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to maintain confidentiality and assign their inventions to us.

Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

We may be subject to claims that we or our employees or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our employees’ or consultants’ former employers or their clients. These claims may be costly to defend and if we do not successfully do so, we may be required to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper our ability to commercialize, or prevent us from commercializing, our product candidates, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

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

Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

Clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results.

Our product candidates are in preclinical development or at the beginning of clinical development and their risk of failure is high. We commenced enrollment of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CX-072, our candidate directed against PD-L1, for cancer and treated our first patient in January 2017. We commenced a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CX-2009, our PDC candidate directed against CD-166, for cancer in June 2017. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective and safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the development process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials.

Commencement of clinical trials is subject to finalizing the trial design and filing an IND or similar filing with the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authority. However, even after we file our IND or comparable submissions in other jurisdictions, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence our clinical trials or disagree with our study design, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or amend our protocols or impose stricter conditions on the commencement of clinical trials and may delay our ability to begin Phase 1 clinical trials, causing an increase in the amount of time and expense required to develop our product candidates.

We may be unable to obtain U.S. or foreign regulatory approval and, as a result, unable to commercialize our product candidates.

Our product candidates are subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to, among other things, research, testing, development, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, approval, recordkeeping, reporting, labeling, storage, packaging, advertising and promotion, pricing, marketing and distribution of drugs and therapeutic biologics. Rigorous preclinical testing and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory approval process are required to be successfully completed in the U.S. and in many foreign jurisdictions before a new drug or therapeutic biologic can be marketed. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. It is possible that none of the product candidates we may develop will obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for us or our existing or future collaborators to begin selling them.

As a company, we have very limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA. The time required to obtain FDA and other approvals is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials, depending upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate. The standards that the FDA and its foreign counterparts use when regulating us require judgment and can change, which makes it difficult to predict with certainty how they will be applied. Any analysis we perform of data from preclinical and clinical activities is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations, for example, from future legislation or administrative action, or from changes in FDA policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and FDA regulatory review. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Because the product candidates we are developing may represent a new class of therapeutic biologics, the FDA and its foreign counterparts have not yet established any definitive policies, practices or guidelines in relation to these product candidates. While we believe the product candidates that we are currently developing are regulated as therapeutic biologics that are subject to requirements for review and approval of a BLA by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (“CDER”), the FDA could decide to regulate them as drugs that are subject to requirements for review and approval of an NDA by CDER or as biological products that are subject to requirements for review and approval of a BLA by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”). The lack of policies, practices or guidelines may hinder or slow review by the FDA of any regulatory filings that we may submit. Moreover, the FDA may respond to these submissions by defining requirements we may not have anticipated. Such responses could lead to significant delays in the clinical development of our product candidates. In addition, because there may be approved treatments for some of the diseases for which we may seek approval, in order to receive regulatory approval, we may need to demonstrate through clinical trials that the product candidates we develop to treat these diseases, if any, are not only safe and effective, but safer or more effective than existing products. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been increased public and political pressure on the FDA with respect to the approval process for new drugs and therapeutic biologics, and the FDA’s standards, especially regarding product safety, appear to have become more stringent.

Any delay or failure in obtaining required approvals could have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenues from the particular product candidate for which we are seeking approval. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a product may be subject to limitations on the approved uses for which we may market the product or the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (“REMS”) plan as part of an NDA or BLA or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug or biologic, such as limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may limit the size of the market for the product and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.

We are also subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries and may include all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the U.S. and vice versa.

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

Any regulatory approvals that we or our existing or future collaborators obtain for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which a product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including “Phase 4” clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, import, export, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and good clinical practices for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, 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 policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, in December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or “Cures Act”, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and biologics and to spur innovation, but its ultimate implementation is unclear. 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, which would adversely affect our business.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. Notably, on January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order, applicable to all executive agencies, including the FDA, that requires that for each notice of proposed rulemaking or final regulation to be issued in fiscal year 2017, the agency shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, unless prohibited by law. These requirements are referred to as the “two-for-one” provisions. This Executive Order includes a budget neutrality provision that requires the total incremental cost of all new regulations in the 2017 fiscal year, including repealed regulations, to be no greater than zero, except in limited circumstances. For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, the Executive Order requires agencies to identify regulations to offset any incremental cost of a new regulation and approximate the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation. In interim guidance issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB on February 2, 2017, the administration indicates that the “two-for-one” provisions may apply not only to agency regulations, but also to significant agency guidance documents. Moreover, on February 24, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order requiring each agency to designate a regulatory reform officer and create a regulatory reform task force to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification. It is difficult to predict how these requirements will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

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

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act (together, the “ACA”), was passed, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects therapeutic biologics to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and therapeutic biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and therapeutic biologics, and a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs and therapeutic biologics to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs and therapeutic biologics to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. The new Presidential Administration and U.S. Congress will likely continue to seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the ACA. It is uncertain the extent to which any such changes may impact our business or financial condition.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures. Additionally, U.S. federal government agencies currently face potentially significant spending reductions, which may further impact healthcare expenditures. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. If federal spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies, such as the FDA or the National Institutes of Health to continue to function at current levels. Amounts allocated to federal grants and contracts may be reduced or eliminated. These reductions may also impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing, and marketing activities, which may delay our ability to develop, market and sell any products we may develop.

Moreover, payment methodologies, including payment for companion diagnostics, may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has begun bundling the Medicare payments for certain laboratory tests ordered while a patient received services in a hospital outpatient setting and, beginning in 2018, CMS will pay for clinical laboratory services based on a weighted average of reported prices that private payors, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid Managed Care plans pay for laboratory services. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, the 21st Century Cures Act changed the reimbursement methodology for infusion drugs and biologics furnished through durable medical equipment in an attempt to remedy over- and underpayment of certain products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or companion diagnostics or additional pricing pressures.

If we or existing or future collaborators, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with healthcare laws and regulations, we or they could be subject to enforcement actions, which could affect our ability to develop, market and sell our products and may harm our reputation.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, once we begin commercializing our product candidates, we will be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Ensuring that our future business arrangements with third-parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, we may be subject to penalties, including civil or criminal penalties, monetary damages, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, or exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, any of which could adversely our financial results. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources.

If we or future collaborators, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, which could affect our ability to develop, market and sell our products successfully and could harm our reputation and lead to reduced acceptance of our products by the market. These enforcement actions include, among others:

If we fail to comply with U.S. and foreign regulatory requirements, regulatory authorities could limit or withdraw any marketing or commercialization approvals we may receive and subject us to other penalties that could materially harm our business.

Even if we receive marketing and commercialization approval of a product candidate, we will be subject to continuing regulatory requirements, including in relation to adverse patient experiences with the product and clinical results that are reported after a product is made commercially available, both in the U.S. and any foreign jurisdiction in which we seek regulatory approval. The FDA has significant post-market authority, including the authority to require labeling changes based on new safety information and to require post-market studies or clinical trials to evaluate safety risks related to the use of a product or to require withdrawal of the product from the market. The FDA also has the authority to require a REMS plan after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug or therapeutic biologic. The manufacturer and manufacturing facilities we use to make a future product, if any, will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA and other regulatory agencies, including for continued compliance with cGMP requirements. The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with our third-party manufacturers, manufacturing processes or facilities may result in restrictions on the product, manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the product from the market. If we rely on third-party manufacturers, we will not have control over compliance with applicable rules and regulations by such manufacturers. Any product promotion and advertising will also be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. If we or our existing or future collaborators, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements in the U.S. or foreign jurisdictions in which we seek to market our products, we or they may be subject to, among other things, fines, warning letters, holds on clinical trials, delay of approval or refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, administrative detention of products, refusal to permit the import or export of products, operating restrictions, injunction, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidate, such product candidate may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which would harm our business.

The regulations that govern regulatory approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs and therapeutic biologics vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug or therapeutic biologic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription biopharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval.

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if we succeed in bringing one or more products to the market, these products may not be considered cost-effective, and the amount reimbursed for any products may be insufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive basis. Because our programs are in the early stages of development, we are unable at this time to determine their cost effectiveness or the likely level or method of reimbursement. Increasingly, the third-party payors who reimburse patients or healthcare providers, such as government and private insurance plans, are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, and are seeking to reduce the prices charged or the amounts reimbursed for biopharmaceutical products. If the price we are able to charge for any products we develop, or the reimbursement provided for such products, is inadequate in light of our development and other costs, our return on investment could be adversely affected. There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly-approved drugs or therapeutic biologics, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug or therapeutic biologic is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug or therapeutic biologic will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs or therapeutic biologics, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may be based on payments allowed for lower-cost drugs or therapeutic biologics that are already reimbursed, may be incorporated into existing payments for other services and may reflect budgetary constraints or imperfections in Medicare data. Net prices for drugs or therapeutic biologics may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs or therapeutic biologics from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for new drugs or therapeutic biologics that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our financial condition.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the product candidate, our ability to market and derive revenue from the product candidates could be compromised.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. While we have not yet initiated clinical trials for any of our product candidates, it is likely that there may be side effects associated with their use. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Such side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the product candidate.

In the event that any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by one of our products, any of the following adverse events could occur, which could result in the loss of significant revenue to us and materially and adversely affect our results of operations and business:

A Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA for any of our product candidates may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for some of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For products that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Products designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA can also be eligible for accelerated approval.

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

A Fast Track Designation by the FDA for any of our product candidates may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek Fast Track Designation for some of our product candidates. If a product is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may seek Orphan Drug Designation for some of our product candidates, and we may be unsuccessful or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug Designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

As part of our business strategy, we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for our product candidates, and we may be unsuccessful. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs and therapeutic biologics for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or therapeutic biologic as an orphan drug if it is a drug or therapeutic biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug or therapeutic biologic will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding toward clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product that has Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA or BLA, to market the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.

Even if we obtain Orphan Drug Designation for our product candidates in specific indications, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of these product candidates for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs or therapeutic biologics with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug or therapeutic biologic with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug or therapeutic biologic is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan Drug Designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug or therapeutic biologic nor gives the drug or therapeutic biologic any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. In addition, while we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for our product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

We expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly fluctuations. Our net loss and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

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

Our stock price may be volatile and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.

Our stock price is volatile. From October 8, 2015, the first day of trading our common stock, through August 4, 2017, our stock had high and low sales prices in the range of $24.68 and $9.01 per share. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including the other risks described in this section titled “Risk Factors” and the following:

In addition, the stock markets in general, and the markets for pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility that has been often unrelated to the operating performance of the issuer. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance.

The future issuance of equity or of debt securities that are convertible into equity will dilute our share capital.

We may choose to raise additional capital in the future, depending on market conditions, strategic considerations and operational requirements. To the extent that additional capital is raised through the issuance of shares or other securities convertible into shares, our stockholders will be diluted. Future issuances of our common stock or other equity securities, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the trading price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through future offerings of shares or equity securities. No prediction can be made as to the effect, if any, that future sales of common stock or the availability of common stock for future sales will have on the trading price of our common stock.

The employment agreements with our executive officers may require us to pay severance benefits to officers in connection with termination of employment or upon a change of control of us, which could harm our financial condition.

Each of our executive officers is entitled to receive a lump sum payment equal to nine months or one year of his or her base salary as well as continued medical and dental coverage for a period of nine months or one year following his or her termination of employment due to good reason or without cause. In the event of a change in control and a termination of employment without cause or due to good reason, each of our executive officers would similarly receive nine months or one year of his or her base salary as well as continued medical and dental coverage for a period of nine months or one year, as well as an additional lump sum payment equal to three-fourths or 100% of his or her target annual bonus for the calendar year in which his or her employment is terminated and full vesting of his or her outstanding option awards. The accelerated vesting of options could result in dilution to our existing stockholders and harm the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, the payment of these severance benefits could harm our financial condition. In addition, these potential severance payments may discourage or prevent third parties from seeking a business combination with us.

Prior to our IPO in October 2015, there had been no public market for shares of our common stock. Our stock only recently began trading on The NASDAQ Global Select Market, and we can provide no assurance that we will be able to maintain an active trading market on The NASDAQ Global Select Market or any other exchange in the future. If an active market for our common stock does not develop or is not maintained, it may be difficult for our stockholders to sell shares without depressing the market price for the shares or at all. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other businesses, applications or technologies using our shares as consideration

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

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our target studies and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

As of June 30, 2017, our executive officers, directors, holders of 5% or more of our capital stock based on publicly available filings made with the SEC and their respective affiliates beneficially owned approximately 42% of our outstanding common stock. Therefore, these stockholders have the ability to influence us through this ownership position. These stockholders may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that our stockholders may feel are in their best interest.

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 (1) not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), (2) reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and (3) exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years following the consummation of the IPO, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier, including if we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer,” which occurs when the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30, or if we have total annual gross revenue of $1.07 billion or more during any fiscal year before that time, in which cases we would no longer be an emerging growth company as of the following December 31, or if we issue more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during any three-year period before that time, in which case we would no longer be an emerging growth company immediately. 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 not being required to comply 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 share 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.

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

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws may delay or prevent an acquisition of us or a change in our management. In addition, 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. Because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions could in turn affect any attempt by our stockholders to replace current members of our management team. These provisions include:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as amended, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15 percent of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15 percent of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. These provisions would apply even if the proposed merger or acquisition could be considered beneficial by some stockholders.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an emerging growth company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The NASDAQ Global Select Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, which in turn could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors. However, these rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

We are required to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the related rules and regulations of the SEC, including the requirements that we maintain disclosure controls and procedures and adequate internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. Nevertheless, in order to maintain our compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, engage outside consultants to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate-through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. In addition, if we are not able to continue to meet these requirements, we may not be able to remain listed on The NASDAQ Global Select Market.

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

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

We may incur significant costs from class action litigation due to our expected stock volatility.

Our stock price may fluctuate for many reasons, including as a result of public announcements regarding the progress of our development efforts or the development efforts of future collaborators or competitors, the addition or departure of our key personnel, variations in our quarterly operating results and changes in market valuations of biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

This risk is especially relevant to us because biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. When the market price of a stock has been volatile as our stock price may be, holders of that stock have occasionally brought securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit of this type against us, even if the lawsuit is without merit, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. The lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management.

Our amended and restated bylaws designate the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our amended and restated bylaws provide that, subject to limited exceptions, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as amended, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws, any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws or any other action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation described above. This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

On October 7, 2015, our registration statements on Form S-1 (File No. 333-206658) relating to our IPO of common stock became effective.

There has been no material change in the planned use of proceeds from our IPO from that described in the related Prospectus.

The list of exhibits set forth in the accompanying Exhibit Index is incorporated by reference into this Item 6.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Except as so indicated in Exhibits 32.1, 32.2 and 101, the following exhibits are filed as part of, or incorporated by reference into, this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Incorporated by Reference

Exhibit
Number

Exhibit Description

Form

Date

Number

Filed
Herewith

3.1

Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.

8-K

10/19/2015

3.1

3.2

Amended and Restated Bylaws.

8-K

10/19/2015

3.2

4.1

Reference is made to Exhibits 3.1 through 3.2.

4.2

Specimen Common Stock Certificate

S-1/A

9/28/2015

4.1

4.3

Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement dated as of June 12, 2015, by and among CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. and the investors named therein.

S-1/A

8/28/2015

4.2

10.1⁺

Separation Agreement, dated May 15, 2017, by and between the Company and Robert C. Goeltz.

10.2⁺

Severance and Change of Control Agreement, by and between CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. and Debanjan Ray, dated as of May 15, 2017.

31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).

31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).

32.1*

Certification of Chief Executive Officer required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350).

32.2*

Certification of Chief Financial Officer required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §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.

	PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.	Financial Statements (unaudited)	5
	Condensed Balance Sheets	5
	Condensed Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss	6
	Condensed Statements of Cash Flows	7
	Notes to Condensed Financial Statements	8
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	25
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	30
Item 4	Controls and Procedures	31

	PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	32
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	32
Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	63
Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities	63
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	64
Item 5.	Other Information	64
Item 6.	Exhibits	64
Signatures		65
Exhibit Index		66

Machinery and equipment		5 years
Computer equipment and software		3 years
Furniture and fixtures		3 years
Leasehold improvements		Shorter of remaining
		lease term or estimated life of the assets

	June 30, 2017
	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Aggregate Fair Value

Investment Securities
U.S. Government bonds	$	63,140	$	—	$	(84	)	$	63,056
Total securities	$	63,140	$	—	$	(84	)	$	63,056

	December 31, 2016
	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Holding Gains		Gross Unrealized Holding Losses			Aggregate Fair Value

Investment Securities
U.S. Government bonds	$	77,295	$	8	$	(10	)	$	77,293
Total securities	$	77,295	$	8	$	(10	)	$	77,293

	June 30,		December 31,
	2017		2016
Research and clinical expenses	$	4,530	$	3,909
Payroll and related expenses		2,221		3,971
Legal and professional expenses		638		264
Property and equipment		—		331
Other accrued expenses		110		349
Total	$	7,499	$	8,824

Year Ending December 31:
2017 (six months remaining)	$	1,853
2018		4,374
2019		4,506
2020		4,641
2021 and beyond		29,503
Total	$	44,877

	June 30, 2017		December 31, 2016
Options issued and outstanding		6,992,564		6,158,746
Shares available for future stock option grants		2,506,894		2,493,188
Shares reserved under the ESPP		1,005,095		683,234
		10,504,553		9,335,168


	Options Outstanding
	Number of Options			Weighted-Average Exercise Price Per Share
Balances at December 31, 2016		6,158,746		$	5.932
Options granted		1,711,270			12.300
Options exercised		(306,133	)		3.864
Option forfeited/expired		(571,319	)		8.706
Balances at June 30, 2017		6,992,564		$	7.354
Options exercisable at June 30, 2017		3,574,138		$	4.757

	Payments Due by Period⁽¹⁾
	2017 ⁽²⁾		2018		2019		2020		2021 +		Total
Operating leases⁽³⁾	$	1,853	$	4,374	$	4,506	$	4,641	$	29,503	$	44,877
Total contractual obligations	$	1,853	$	4,374	$	4,506	$	4,641	$	29,503	$	44,877

	CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.

Date: August 7, 2017	By:	/s/ Sean A. McCarthy
		Sean A. McCarthy, D. Phil.
		President, Chief Executive Officer and Director (principal executive officer)

Date: August 7, 2017	By:	/s/ Debanjan Ray
		Debanjan Ray
		Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)