The terms “we,” “us,” “our,” “Daré” or the “Company” refer collectively to Daré Bioscience, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires. All information in this report is based on our fiscal year. Unless otherwise stated, references to particular years, quarters, months or periods refer to our fiscal years ending December 31 and the associated quarters, months and periods of those fiscal years.

We believe that there is an opportunity to fill the gap that exists in the developmentbegan assembling our diverse portfolio of innovations in women’s health between (a) non-profit organizations, small private companies and individual entrepreneurs that discover, innovate and conduct early-stage research and clinical development ofclinical-stage product candidates and (b) pharmaceutical companies that conduct late-stage clinical developmentpre-clinical programs in 2017 through acquisitions, exclusive in-licenses and commercialize approved products. We believe that the development activities between these two ends of this spectrum (early pre-clinical and clinical development of product candidates on the one hand and late-stage clinical trials and commercialization of product candidates on the other) are currently underserved. In addition, we believe there are gapsother collaborations. Our programs target unmet needs in treatment options in the women's health market and there is an opportunity to provide therapies that address persistent unmet needs. We intend to fill the mid-stage development gap and to address the gaps in treatment options for women.

The following graphic summarizes the product and product candidates in our portfolio in advanced stages of clinical development and three product candidates in(Phase 2-ready to Phase 1 clinical development or that we believe are Phase 1-ready. The following graphic provides a snapshot of our clinical-stage product candidates,3), including their targeted indications, development status and our current expectations for their respective stages of development in 2021:milestones:

Sales and Marketing

In December 2018, we entered into (a) an Assignment Agreement with Hammock Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Assignment Agreement, and (b) a First Amendment to License Agreement with TriLogic Pharma, LLC and MilanaPharm LLC, or the License Amendment. Both agreements relate to the Exclusive License Agreement among Hammock, TriLogic and MilanaPharm dated as of January 9, 2017, or the MilanaPharm License Agreement. Under the Assignment Agreement and the MilanaPharm License Agreement, as amended by the License Amendment, we acquired an exclusive, worldwide license under certain intellectual property to, among other things, develop and commercialize products for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of human diseases or conditions in or through any intravaginal or urological applications. The licensed intellectual property relates to the hydrogel drug delivery platform of TriLogic and MilanaPharm known as TRI-726. In DARE-BV1,XACIATO, this proprietary technology is formulated with clindamycin for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. In December 2019, we entered into amendments to each of the Assignment Agreement and License Amendment. In September 2021, we entered into a second amendment to the License Agreement. In March 2022, in connection with entering into our exclusive license agreement with Organon, we entered into a consent, waiver and stand-by license agreement with TriLogic, MilanaPharm and Organon, which further amended the License Agreement.

The following is a summary of other terms of the License Amendment, as amended:

In addition to customary termination rights for all parties, MilanaPharm may terminate the license granted to us solely with respect to a licensed product or process in a country if, after having launched such product or process

In February 2018, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Strategic Science & Technologies-D LLC and Strategic Science & Technologies, LLC, referred to collectively as SST, under which we received an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize, in all countries and geographic territories of the world, for all indications for women related to female sexual dysfunction and/or Microchips, via a merger transaction in which a wholly owned subsidiary we formed for purposesfemale reproductive health, including treatment of female sexual arousal disorder, or the Field of Use, SST's topical formulation of Sildenafil Cream as it existed as of the effective date of this transaction mergedagreement, or any other topically applied pharmaceutical product containing sildenafil or a salt thereof as a pharmaceutically active ingredient, alone or with and into Microchipsother active ingredients, but specifically excluding any product containing ibuprofen or any salt derivative of ibuprofen, or the Licensed Products.

Intellectual Property

We actively seek to protect the proprietary technology that we consider important to our business in the United States and other jurisdictions internationally. We also rely upon trade secrets and contracts to protect our proprietary information. 

The medical device and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by the existence of a large number of patents and frequent litigation based on allegations of patent infringement. Patent litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and its outcome is uncertain. Any claim relating to infringement of third party patents that is successfully asserted against us or our licensors may require us to pay substantial damages or may limit our or our licensors' ability to rely on such patent protection. Any third party claim successfully alleging the invalidity or unenforceability of the patents may also limit our or our licensors' ability to rely on such patent protection. Even if we, or our licensors were to prevail in any such action, any litigation could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of management and key personnel from our business operations. Also, if our product candidates or any future products are found to infringe the patents of others, our development, manufacture, and sale of these

Under the terms of the Assignment Agreement with Hammock Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the License Amendment with TriLogic Pharma, LLC and MilanaPharm, LLC, regarding the thermosetting hydrogel platform which includes DARE-BV1,XACIATO, we are the exclusive licensee of twothree issued U.S. patents, two of which are set to expire in December 2028 and one of which is set to expire in September 2036, subject to any extensions or disclaimers, and twothree foreign patents, including one European Patent Office, or EPO, patent validated in four countries, that expire in December 2028, subject to any extensions or disclaimers, as well as two foreign patents, including one EPO patent validated in 22 countries, that expire in July 2036, subject to any extensions or disclaimers. One of the three issued U.S. patents is listed in the FDA’s compendium of “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluation," known as the Orange Book, under the Patent Exclusivity Information for XACIATO. In addition, we have rights to three pending foreign patent applications and one pending U.SU.S. patent application. If issued, the patent term for any patents issuing from these patentspending applications would be expected to expire in 2036, subject to any extensions or disclaimers. We own a pending PCT application and one foreign application regarding XACIATO, and a pending PCT application directed to the thermosetting hydrogel platform. The patent term for any patents issuing from these pending applications would be expected to expire in 2042, subject to any extensions or disclaimers. Organon has licensed XACIATO-specific patents and applications from us.

Under the terms of the ADVA-Tec license agreement, regarding Ovaprene, we are the exclusive licensee of nine granted U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, eightseven granted foreign patents, including four EPO

Under the terms of the SST license agreement, regarding SidenafilSildenafil Cream, 3.6%, we are the exclusive licensee in the Field of Use of 1923 issued patents worldwide (nine(10 U.S. patents and 1013 foreign patents, including two EPO patents validated in a total of 2420 countries). Additionally, there is one patent application pending in the US, one in Europe, and threetwo in other international markets. The issued U.S. patents have a patent term that expires in June 2029, including any patent term adjustment, and may be eligible for regulatory exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act, while several foreign patents have a term through that is set to expire in late 2031, each of such terms being subject to any future extensions ofor disclaimers.

Under the terms of the Catalent license agreement, regarding our intravaginal ring platform which includes DARE-HRT1, we are the exclusive licensee of four issued U.S. patents with patent terms set to expire in April 2024, November 2024, February 2025, and September 2027, including patent term adjustment, four issued foreign patents with patent terms until April 2024, including one European patent validated in three countries, as well as one pending U.S. application and two pending foreign applications that if granted are expected to have patent terms that expire in May 2038, subject to any extensions or disclaimers. Additionally, relative to the DARE-HRT1 program, we are the sole owner of two pending U.S. provisional patent applications with an expected term, if granted, until 2044, subject to any extensions or disclaimers.

We also rely upon trade secret rights to protect our product candidates as well as other technologies that may be used to discover, validate and commercialize our current or any future product candidates. We presently seek protection, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements.

We hold a domestic registration for the trademark Daré Bioscience.Bioscience and our registration for the XACIATO trademark in the U.S. is pending. In accordance with the terms of the ADVA-Tec license agreement, we are the exclusive licensee of the Ovaprene registered trademark.

Our investigational contraceptive products, including Ovaprene, if approved, will compete with a wide range of prescription and over-the-counter contraceptive options, including hormone-free options such as condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, sponges, copper IUDs, spermicides and vaginal gels, as well as hormonal products such as pills, patches, vaginal rings and injectables. In addition, multiple new methods of pregnancy prevention are in development, including hormone-free options, and some may be marketed in the U.S. before Ovaprene, potentially adding to the level of market competition Ovaprene will face, if approved.

Over the longer term, our ability, independently or otherwise, to successfully develop, manufacture, market, distribute and sell any approved products, expand their usage or bring additional new products to the marketplace will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to, FDA and foreign regulatory agency approval of new products and of new indications for existing products, the efficacy and safety of our products (alone and relative to other treatment options), the degree of patent or other protection afforded to particular products, and reimbursement for use of those products.

Many other organizations are developing drug products and other therapies intended to treat the same diseases and conditions for which our product candidates are in development, and the success of others may render potential application of our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive, even prior to completion of its development.

Governmental authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate the research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling and packaging, storage, recordkeeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing, and distribution, among other things, of pharmaceutical, medical device, and drug-device combination products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals in the U.S. and in

We and our third-party manufacturers, distributors and contract research organizations, or CROs, may also be subject to government regulation under other federal, state, and local laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, privacy laws and import, export and customs regulations, as well as comparable laws and regulations of other countries.

An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted under the IND. Occasionally, clinical holds are imposed due to manufacturing issues that may present safety issues for the clinical study subjects.

During the development of a new drug product candidate, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points; specifically, prior to the submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meeting at the end of Phase 2 to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that they believe will support the approval of the new therapeutic.

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

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

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, detailed information on the product candidate is submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more indications. An NDA includes all relevant data available from pertinent nonclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information on the product candidate’s chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC, and proposed

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, each NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for marketed prescription drug products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the applicant is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from receipt in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA for a drug that is not a new molecular entity, and six months from the receipt date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification and athe sponsor’s process to respond to such inquiries. As a result, the NDA review process can be very lengthy. Most innovative drug products (other than biological products) obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA, commonly referred to as a traditional or "full NDA." In 1984, with

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs it receives, whether submitted under Section 505(b)(1) or Section 505(b)(2), to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any NDA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission, and may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA has 60 days after submission of an NDA to conduct an initial review to determine whether it is sufficient to accept for filing. If the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. During its review of an NDA, the FDA may refer the application to an advisory committee of independent experts for a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it typically follows such recommendations. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA or its advisory committee may interpret data differently than the NDA sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA may also re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving the NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements and to assure the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.

The FDA also may require the submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, plan if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the product. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS plan is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS plan. The FDA will not approve an NDA without a REMS plan, if required.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities where the drug product or its API will be produced and the clinical trial sites, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or, in some cases, a complete response letter, or CRL, that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the agency. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A

Even if a drug product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific indications and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as “Phase 4” clinical trials, designed to further assess a product’s safety and effectiveness, and/or testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include, but are not limited to, fast track designation, QIDP designation, and priority review designation. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than could occur under standard FDA procedures for interacting with and responding to product sponsors during development and regulatory review.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. A drug that is designated as a qualified infectious disease product (“QIDP”) is also eligible for fast track status. Fast track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the NDA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA may decide to rescind the fast track designation if it determines that the qualifying criteria no longer apply. In addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, also included the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now Act, or the GAIN Act, which directed FDA to implement QIDP designation program. The GAIN Act created incentives for the development of antibacterial and antifungal drug products for the treatment of serious or life-threatening infections. A therapeutic candidate designated as a QIDP is eligible for fast track designation, and the first marketing application submitted for a specific drug product and indication for which QIDP designation was granted will be granted priority review. A subsequent application from the same sponsor for the same

Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition,

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, QIDP designation, and priority review do not change the standards for marketing approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Following approval of a new drug product, the manufacturer and the approved drug are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Moreover, if there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or an NDA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. In particular, securing FDA approval for new indications is similar to the process for approval of the original indication and requires, among other things, submitting data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the product’s safety and efficacy in the new indication. Even if such trials are conducted, the FDA may not approve any expansion of the labeled indications for use in a timely fashion, or at all. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for that are now assessed as program fees for certain NDA-approved drugs. The most recent, 2017 reauthorization of PDUFA restructured the prescription drug user fee program to eliminate the previously collected establishment and supplemental application fees.

In addition, FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs.cGMP. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPscGMP and other requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved drug product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the NDA sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved drug product. Accordingly, both sponsors and manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance and other aspects of quality control and quality assurance, and to ensure ongoing compliance with other statutory requirements of the FDCA, such as the requirements for making manufacturing changes to an approved NDA.

Accordingly, even after a new drug approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials

Medical devices also are strictly regulated by the FDA in the United States. Under the FDCA, a medical device is defined as “an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component, part or accessory which is, among other things: intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals; or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes.” This definition provides a clear distinction between a medical device and other FDA-regulated products such as drugs. If the primary intended use of a medical product is achieved through chemical action or by being metabolized by the body, the product is usually a drug or biologic. If not, it is generally a medical device.

Medical devices are classified into one of three classes on the basis of the controls deemed by the FDA to be necessary to reasonably ensureassure their safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are those low risk devices for

Class II devices are moderate risk devices and are subject to the FDA’s general controls, and any other special controls, such as performance standards, post-market surveillance, and FDA guidelines, deemed necessary by the FDA to provide reasonable assurance of the devices’ safety and effectiveness. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for most Class II devices is accomplished through the 510(k) process, although some Class II devices are exempt from the 510(k) requirements. To obtain 510(k) clearance, a sponsor must submit to the FDA a premarket notification demonstrating that the device is substantially equivalent to a device that is already legally marketed in the United States and for which a PMA was not required (i.e., a Class II device). The device to which the sponsor’s device is compared for the purpose of determining substantial equivalence is called a “predicate device.” The FDA’s goal is to make a substantial equivalence determination within 90 days of FDA’s receipt of the 510(k) application, but it often takes longer if the FDA requests additional information. Most 510(k)s do not require supporting data from clinical trials, but such data is typically required if the FDA may request such data.predicate device relied in part on clinical trial data to obtain clearance. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, will require a new clearance or possibly a pre-market approval. Premarket notifications are subject to user fees, unless a specific exemption applies.

Class III devices are deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk to patients, such as those for which reasonable assurancelife-sustaining or life-supporting devices, devices that present a potential unreasonable risk of the device’sillness or injury, or, more generally, devices whose safety and effectiveness cannot be assured solely by the general controls and special controls described above and that are life-sustaining or life-supporting.above. All Class III devices must be reviewed and approved by the FDA through the PMA process. A PMA must be supported by extensive data including, but not limited to, technical preclinical,data, nonclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and labeling to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After a PMA is submitted and the FDA determines the application is sufficiently complete, the FDAagency will accept the applicationit for filing and begin an in‑depthin-depth review of the submitted information. By statute, the FDA has 180 days to review the accepted application, although review of the application generally can take between one and three years. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided. Also during the review period, an advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device. Although the FDA is not bound by the advisory panel decision, it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. In addition, the FDA will conduct a preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facility to ensure compliance with the QSR. New premarket approvalPMA applications or premarket approval application supplements are also required for product modifications that affect the safety and efficacy of the device. PMA (and supplemental PMAs) are subject to significantly higher user fees than are 510(k) premarket notifications.

After a medical device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply that in some ways mirror the post-approval requirements for prescription drugs. These include, but are not limited to:

Under the FDA medical device reporting, or MDR, regulations, medical device manufacturers are required to report to the FDA information that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or a similar device of such manufacturer were to recur. The decision to file an MDR involves a judgment by the manufacturer. If the FDA disagrees with the manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can take enforcement action.

Additionally, the FDA has the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. The authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is reasonable probability that the device would cause serious adverse health consequences or death. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any distributed devices fail to meet established specifications, are otherwise misbranded or adulterated, or if any other material deficiency is found. The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to the FDA within ten working days after the recall is initiated.

As with prescription drugs, the failure to comply with applicable device regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions:

To ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, medical device manufacturers are subject to market surveillance and periodic, pre-scheduled andprescheduled or unannounced inspections by the FDA, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of subcontractors and third-party component suppliers.

A combination product is a product composed of a combination of two or more FDA-regulated product componentsconstituent parts or products, e.g., drug-device or biologic-device. Such products often raise regulatory, policy and review management challenges because they integrate componentsconstituent parts that are regulated under different types of regulatory requirements and by different FDA Centers, namely, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, or CDRH, or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER. Differences in regulatory pathways for each componentconstituent part can impact the regulatory processes for all aspects of product development and management, including preclinical testing, clinical investigation, marketing applications, manufacturing and quality control, adverse event reporting, promotion and advertising, and post-approval modifications. Specifically, under regulations issued by the FDA, a combination product may be:

The FDA’s Office of Combination Products, or OCP, was established to provide prompt determination of the FDA Center with primary jurisdiction over the review and regulation of a combination product; ensure timely and effective premarket review by overseeing the timeliness of and coordinating reviews involving more than one center; ensure consistent and appropriate post-market regulation; resolve disputes regarding review timeliness; and review/revise agreements, guidance and practices specific to the assignment of combination products.

Often it is difficult for OCP to determine with reasonable certainty the most important therapeutic action of the combination product. In those difficult cases, OCP will consider consistency with other combination products raising similar types of safety and effectiveness questions, or which Center has the most expertise to evaluate the

Combination products are subject to FDA user fees based on the type of application submitted for the product’s premarket approval or clearance. For example, a combination product for which an NDA is submitted is subject to the NDA fee under the PDUFA. Likewise, a combination product for which a PMA is submitted is subject to the PMA fee under the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002.Act.

Since a combination product incorporates two or more componentsconstituent parts that have different regulatory requirements, a combination product manufacturer must comply with all cGMP and QSR requirements that apply to each component.constituent part. The FDA has issued a combination product cGMP regulation, along with final guidance, describing two approaches a combination product manufacturer may follow to demonstrate compliance. Under these two options, the manufacturer demonstrates compliance with: (1) All cGMP regulations applicable to each separate regulated componentconstituent part included in the combination product; or (2) either the drug cGMPscGMP or the QSR, as well as with specified provisions from the other of these two sets of requirements (also called the “streamlined approach”). In addition, The 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, which became law in December 2016 and, among other things, amended provisions of the FDCA, clarified that for drug-device combination products comprisingwith a device PMOA and an FDA-approved drug and device primary mode of action,constituent part, Hatch-Waxman Act requirements apply. Accordingly, a potential patent dispute regarding the listed drug that is being referenced by the combination product sponsor may result indelay the delay of the 510(k) clearance or PMA approvalmarketing authorization of the combination product. Furthermore, the Cures Act amendments applied Hatch-Waxman Act exclusivity provisions (e.g., new chemical entity and new clinical investigation) to the device clearance and approval process for combination products with a device primary mode of action.PMOA.

As noted above, Congress created the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway in 1984 as part of the Hatch-Waxman Act amendments to the FDCA. At the same time, it also established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they cannot include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer must rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug, or RLD. Unlike the ANDA pathway, which does not allow applicants to submit new clinical data other than bioavailability or bioequivalence data, the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway does not preclude the possibility that a follow-on applicant would need to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies to demonstrate safety or effectiveness of the proposed change(s) being made to a previously approved drug.

In order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “OrangeOrange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

As part of the NDA review and approval process, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent that has claims that cover the applicant’s product or method of therapeutic use. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential follow-on competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA that relies in full or in part on the reference product.

When an ANDA applicant submits its application to the FDA, it is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the ANDA applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

If the follow-on applicant does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the follow-on applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA/505(b)(2) applicant.

An ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivities listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product have expired. The Hatch-Waxman Act amendments to the FDCA provided a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of data exclusivity if an NDA or NDA supplement includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosage forms, route of administration or combination of ingredients. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; rather, this three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active ingredient.

Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Under the GAIN Act amendments to the FDCA, the FDA may designate a product as a QIDP for a specific use for which it is being studied, upon the written request of a sponsor at any time prior to submission of a marketing application. In order to qualify for designation as a QIDP, the drug product candidate must qualify as an antibiotic or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by either (i) an antibiotic or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, or (ii) a so-called “qualifying pathogen” found on a list of potentially dangerous, drug-resistant organisms established and maintained by the FDA. In addition to the expedited review benefits that a QIDP-designated drug candidate may be eligible for (described above under “Special FDA Programs to Facilitate and Expedite Development and Review of Certain New Drugs”), such a drug that is approved for the use for which the QIDP designation was granted will receive a five-year extension to any non-patent marketing exclusivity period for which the drug qualified upon approval, such as a five-year NCE exclusivity or three-year new clinical data exclusivity. This so-called GAIN exclusivity extension is not available to a QIDP-designated drug that has previously received the five-year extension period, such as when an applicant is seeking approval for a new indication or new strength for a marketed infectious disease product.

A patent claiming a prescription drug or medical device for which FDA approval is granted may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the FDCA, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review provided that certain statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug or medical device is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a new FDA-regulated medical product is typically one-half the time between the date a clinical investigation on human beings is begun and the submission date of an application for premarket approval of the product, plus the time between the submission date of an application for approval of the product and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the marketing approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs and medical devices, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The NIH’s Final Rule on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and both NIH and the FDA have recently signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing those requirementsgovernment has brought enforcement actions against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.sponsors that fail to comply with such requirements.

These applicable health care industry laws include, among others, health care information and data privacy protectionand security laws, transparency laws, and fraud and abuse laws, such as:

The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the aforementioned federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. We may be subject to state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus expanding and complicating compliance efforts.requirements. In addition, we may be subject to reporting requirements under state transparency laws, as well as state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government that otherwise restricts certain payments that may be made to health care providers and entities.

Sales of our drug and drug-device combination products, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health care programs, private health insurers, managed health care providers, and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging drug prices and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, even if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status for newly approved prescription products, including coding, coverage and payment. Sales of any products for which we obtain marketing approval will depend in part on coverage and adequate payment from third-party payors. There is no uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement for prescription products among third-party payors in the United States; therefore coverage and reimbursement for prescription products can differ significantly from payor to payor.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment

Accordingly, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate payment will be applied consistently or obtained.granted at all. The process for determining whether a payor will cover and how much it will reimburse a product may be separate from the process of seeking approval of the product or for setting the price of the product. Even if reimbursement is provided, market acceptance of our products may be adversely affected if the amount of payment for our products proves to be unprofitable for health care providers or less profitable than alternative treatments or if administrative burdens make our products less desirable to use.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to as the ACA, enacted in March 2010, has had and is expected to continue to have a significant impact on the health care industry. The ACA, among other things, imposes a significant annual fee on certain companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. The ACA also increased the Medicaid rebate rate and the volume of rebated drugs has been expanded to include beneficiaries in Medicaid managed care organizations. The ACA also expanded the 340B drug discount program (excluding orphan drugs), including a 50% discount on brand name drugs for Medicare Part D participants in the coverage gap, and revised the

We are subject to numerous laws and regulations governing data privacy and the protection of personal information of patients, clinical investigators, employees, and vendors/business contacts including in relation to medical records and other health information, credit card data and financial information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues which will continue to affect our business. In the United States, we may be subject to state security breach notification laws, state laws protecting the privacy of health and personal information and federal and state consumer protections laws that regulate the collection, use, disclosure and transmission of personal information. These laws overlap and often conflict and each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations we could be subject to penalties or sanctions, including criminal penalties.penalties as well as reputational harm. Our customers and research partners must comply with laws governing the privacy and security of health information, including HIPAA, HITECH and state health information privacy laws. If we knowingly obtain protected health information that is protected under HIPAA, called “protected health information,”without the authority to do so, our customers or research collaborators may be subject to enforcement and we may have direct liability for the unlawful receipt of protected health information or for aiding and abetting a HIPAA violation.

State laws protecting health and personal information are becoming increasingly stringent. For example, California has implemented the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act that imposes restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information, and California has recently adopted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA.CCPA, which went into effect in January of 2020. The CCPA mirrors a number of the key provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, described below. The CCPA establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expanded definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for consumers in the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, requiring covered companies to provide new disclosures to consumers about such companies' practices for collection and creatinguse of consumer data, and providing customers new ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information. In addition, the CCPA creates a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. Additionally,While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities. More recently, a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, was approved by California voters in the election on November 3, 2020. The CPRA will modifywent into effect in January of 2023, modifying and strengthening the CCPA significantly, potentially resulting in further uncertainty, additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply and additional potential for harm and liability for failure to comply. OtherAmong other things, the CPRA established a new regulatory authority, the California Privacy Protection Agency, which will be

Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in health care systems with the stated goals of containing health care costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other health care funding and applying new payment methodologies. In addition to the sweeping reforms contained in the ACA (summarized above in the section entitled “Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement”), other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States that may affect health care expenditures. For example,In addition to the 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-94) includedIRA's drug price negotiation provisions, discussed above, President Biden's Executive Order 14087, issued October 2022, called for CMS to prepare and submit a piece of bipartisan legislation calledreport to the CreatingWhite House on potential payment and Restoring Equal Accessdelivery modes that would complement to Equivalent Samples Act, or the CREATES Act. The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDAIRA, lower drug costs, and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS program for certain products, to deny generic product developerspromote access to samplesinnovative drugs. In February 2023, CMS published its report which described three potential models focusing on affordability, accessibility and feasibility of brand products. Because generic product developers need samples to conduct certain comparativeimplementation for further testing required by the FDA, some have attributedCMS Innovation Center. As of February 2024, the inabilityCMS Innovation Center continues to timely obtain samples as a causetest the proposed models and has started to roll out plans for access model testing of delay in the entry of generic products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a genericcertain product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Whethertypes (e.g., cell and how generic product developments will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertaingene therapies) by states and its potential effects on our future commercial products are unknown.manufacturers.

Other new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our approved product and, accordingly, our financial operations. We 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. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services. Moreover, 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, our therapeutic candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we may be subject to a variety of regulations in foreign jurisdictions that govern, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products, if approved, either directly or through our distribution partners. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing and sale of the product in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with the FDA approval described above, and the time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Some foreign jurisdictions have a drug product approval process similar to that in the U.S., which requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of clinical studies. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. To obtain regulatory approval of a therapeutic product candidate under European Union, or EU, regulatory systems, we would be required to submit a Marketing Authorisation Application, which is similar to the NDA, except that, among other things, there are country-specific document requirements. For countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, and recently the United Kingdom, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product approval, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may

International marketing and distribution of medical devices are also subject to foreign government regulations, which may vary substantially from country to country. There is a trend towards harmonization of quality system standards for medical device products among the European Union, United States, Canada and various other industrialized countries.

As of January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom is no longer a member state of the EU, and therefore a separate marketing authorization application and approval will be required to market a medicinal product in the U.K. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is the U.K.’s standalone pharmaceutical and medical devices regulator.

Pursuant to the European Clinical Trials Directive, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU hashad been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under thisthe previous system, an applicant must obtainobtained approval from the competent national authority of an EU member state in which the clinical trial is to bewas conducted. Furthermore, the applicant maycould only start a clinical trial after a competent ethics committee hashad issued a favorable opinion. Clinical trial applications must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by the European Clinical Trials Directive and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. In April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) was adopted and it is anticipated to come into application in late 2021.became effective on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation will beis directly applicable in all the EU Member States, repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Conduct of all clinical trials performed in the EU will continue to be bound by currently applicable provisions until the new Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will dependdepends on when the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial.

The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the “EU portal”; called the Clinical Trial Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed bytrials. Use of the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an applicationCTIS became mandatory for authorization of anew clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessmentapplication submissions as of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.February 1, 2023.

To obtain marketing approval of a drug in the EU, an applicant must submit ana marketing authorization application (“MAA”) either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EU member states, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”). Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.

The decentralized procedure is available to applicants who wish to market a product in specific EU member states where such product has not received marketing approval in any EU member states before. The decentralized procedure provides for an applicant to apply to one-member state to assess the application (the reference member state) and specifically list other member states in which it wishes to obtain approval (concerned member states). Under this procedure, an applicant submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labelling and package leaflet, to the reference member state and each concerned member state. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 210 days after receipt of a valid application which is then reviewed and approved commented on by the concerned member states. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report and related materials, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

In the EU, only products for which marketing authorizations have been granted may be promoted. A marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Moreover, even if authorized to be marketed in the EU, prescription-only medicines may only be promoted to health care professionals, not the general public. All promotion should be in accordance with the particulars listed in the summary of product characteristics. Promotional materials must also comply with various laws, and codes of conduct developed by pharmaceutical industry bodies in the EU which govern (among other things) the training of sales staff, promotional claims and their justification, comparative advertising, misleading advertising, endorsements, and (where permitted) advertising to the general public. Failure to comply with these requirements could lead to the imposition of penalties by the competent authorities of the EU member states. The penalties could include warnings, orders to discontinue the promotion of the drug product, seizure of promotional materials, fines and possible imprisonment.

In addition,Prior to May 26, 2021, the date on which the new Medical Device Regulation ("MDR") became effective, medical devices marketed in Europe currently arewere required to comply with the Essential Requirements defined in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Directive, or MDD, a coordinated system for the authorization of medical devices. The directives and standards regulateMDD regulated the design, manufacture, clinical trials, labeling and adverse event reporting for medical devices. Devices that comply with the requirements of a relevant directive are entitled to bear the CE conformity marking, indicating that the device conforms to the essential requirements of the applicable directives. The method of assessing conformity varies dependingdepended on the class of the product, but normally involvesinvolved a combination of self-assessment by the manufacturer and a third-party assessment by a “Notified Body.” This third-party assessment may consist of an audit of the manufacturer’s quality system and specific testing of the manufacturer’s product. An assessment by a Notified Body of one country within the European Union is required in order for a manufacturer to commercially distribute the product throughout the EU.

In 2017, European Union regulatory bodies finalized a new Medical Device Regulation (“MDR”), which replaced the existing MDD framework and provided three years for transition and compliance, for a final effective date of May 26, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the European Parliament voted in April 2020 to postpone implementation of the MDRdate was postponed by one year givingto May 26, 2021, and a further transition period until May 26, 2024 gives the medical device industry and Notified Bodies until May 26, 2021additional time to come into compliance assuming no additional delays are needed.compliance. The MDR changeschanged several aspects of the existing regulatory framework for medical device marketing in Europe and is expected to result in increased regulatory oversight of all medical devices marketed in the EU, which may, in turn, increase the costs, time and requirements that need to be met in order to place an innovative or high-risk medical device on the European market. Specifically, the MDR requires post-market clinical follow-up evidence for medical devices, annual reporting of safety information for Class III products, and bi-annual reporting for Class II products, unique device identification, or UDI, for all products, submission of core data elements to a European UDI database prior to placement of a device on the market, reclassification of medical devices, and multiple other labeling changes. A CE certificate issued under the MDD before May 26, 2021 may remain valid until May 25, 2024 under certain conditions. Longer transition periods for various medical devices covered by certificates or declarations of conformity issued before May 26, 2021 were implemented by the European Commission in March 2023 in order to mitigate the risk of device shortages in the EU. The new transition periods permit devices certified in accordance with the MDD to remain on the market under such certifications until May 26, 2026 for class III implantable custom-made devices, December

Health Canada is the Canadian federal authority that regulates, evaluates and monitors the safety, effectiveness, and quality of drugs, medical devices, and other therapeutic products available to Canadians. Health

Prior to being given market authorization for a drug product, a manufacturer must present substantive scientific evidence of a product’s safety, efficacy and quality as required by the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and its associated regulations, including the Food and Drug Regulations. This information is usually submitted in the form of a New Drug Submission, or NDS. Health Canada reviews the submitted information, sometimes using external consultants and advisory committees, to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of a drug. If after of the review, the conclusion is that the patient benefits outweigh the risks associated with the drug, the drug is issued a Drug Identification Number (“DIN”), followed by a Notice of Compliance (“NOC"), which permits the market authorization holder (i.e., the NOC and DIN holder) to market the drug in Canada. Drugs granted an NOC may be subject to additional postmarket surveillance and reporting requirements.

All establishments engaged in the fabrication, packaging/labeling, importation, distribution, and wholesale of drugs and operation of a testing laboratory relating to drugs are required to hold a Drug Establishment License to conduct one or more of the licensed activities unless expressly exempted under the Food and Drug Regulations. The basis for the issuance of a Drug Establishment License is to ensure the facility complies with cGMP as stipulated in the Food and Drug Regulations and as determined by cGMP inspection conducted by Health Canada. An importer of pharmaceutical products manufactured at foreign sites must also be able to demonstrate that the foreign sites comply with cGMP, and such foreign sites are included on the importer’s Drug Establishment License.

Regulatory obligations and oversight continue following the initial market approval of a pharmaceutical product. For example, every market authorization holder must report any new information received concerning adverse drug reactions, including timely reporting of serious adverse drug reactions that occur in Canada and any serious unexpected adverse drug reactions that occur outside of Canada. The market authorization holder must also notify Health Canada of any new safety and efficacy issues that it becomes aware of after the launch of a product.

The Canadian regulatory approval requirements for new drugs outlined above are similar to those of other major pharmaceutical markets. While the testing carried out in Canada is often acceptable for the purposes of regulatory submissions in other countries, individual regulatory authorities may request supplementary testing during their assessment of any submission. Therefore, the clinical testing conducted under Health Canada authorization or the approval of regulatory authorities of other countries may not be accepted by regulatory authorities outside Canada or other countries.

Health Canada has also implemented a similar process as the FDA for regulating combination products comprising both drug and device constituent parts. The agency considers the principal mechanism of action by which the claimed effect or purpose of the product is achieved, and then subjects the entire product to regulation under either the Food and Drug Regulations or the Medical Devices Regulations.

In addition to regulations in the United States, and Australia, EU, and Canada, we may become subject to a variety of regulations governing clinical studies and commercial sales and distribution of prescription drug and drug-device combination products in other jurisdictions around the world. These laws and regulations typically require the licensing of manufacturing and contract research facilities, carefully controlled research and testing of product candidates and governmental review and approval of results prior to marketing therapeutic product candidates. Additionally, they may require adherence to the FDA’s GLPs, GCPs, and GMPscGMPs during manufacturing. The process of new drug approvals

Whether or not FDA, EMA, or Health Canada approval is obtained for a product, we must obtain approval from the comparable regulatory authorities of other countries before we can commence clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for the FDA, EMA, or Health Canada approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. In

Moreover, outside of the United States, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed to. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. In some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

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

As of March 29, 2021,27, 2024, we had 2326 employees. SixteenTwenty three of our employees are full-time and seventhree are part-time, employees, 1218 are in research and development and 11eight are in general and administrative. Given the differing characteristics of our product candidates, our approach is to engage consultants with experience in varying specialties to help us develop such candidates. Our numerous consultants serve as an extension to our employee base. We believe this approach will enableenables us to access the expertise needed in a cost-efficient manner and without the need to rapidly increase the number of full-time employees and their associated costs. In the future, if we select a commercialization strategy for a product candidate that requires us to establish marketing, sales or distribution infrastructure and capabilities, we may need to rapidly increase our employee base.

We were incorporated in Delaware in December 2005. Until July 2017, our corporate name was Cerulean Pharma Inc., or Cerulean. In July 2017, Cerulean completed a business combination with Daré Bioscience Operations, Inc., at which time we changed our name to “Daré Bioscience, Inc.” and began to focus on development of innovative, investigational products in women's health. We and our wholly-owned subsidiaries operate in one business segment.