PART I

ITEM 1.      IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS

Not applicable.

ITEM 2.      OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

Not applicable.

ITEM 3.      KEY INFORMATION

A.       SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Our consolidated audited financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB. We derived the selected consolidated statements of profit and loss and other comprehensive income, selected condensed consolidated statements of financial position and selected condensed consolidated statements of cash flow as of December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 and for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 2017 and 20162017 from our consolidated audited financial statements, included herein. Our selected consolidated statement of profit and loss and other comprehensive income, selected condensed consolidated statement of financial position and selected condensed consolidated statement of cash flow as of December 31, 2015 and for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 have been extracted from our audited consolidated financial statements, which are not included herein. Our selected consolidated statement of profit and loss and other comprehensive income, selected condensed consolidated statement of financial position and selected condensed consolidated statement of cash flow as of December 31, 2014 and for the year ended December 31, 2014 have been extracted from our unaudited consolidatedaudited financial statements, which are not included herein. This data should be read together with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, “Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” as well as our financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report. Our historical results for any prior period are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in any future period.

Europe. In the future, we intend to continue to conduct research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials and regulatory compliance activities and we intend to continue our efforts to establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure. These expenses, together with anticipated general and administrative expenses, will result in incurring further significant losses for at least the next several years. Our losses, among other things, will continue to cause our working capital and shareholders’ equity to decrease. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Since our inception in 2008, we have invested most of our resources in developing our product candidates, building our intellectual property portfolio, developing our supply chain, conducting business planning, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We do not currently have any approved products and have never generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have funded our operations through public and private placements of equity securities, upfront, milestone and expense reimbursement payments received from our collaborators, funding from governmental bodies and interest income from the investment of our cash, cash equivalents and financial assets.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering and developing additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials, establishing manufacturing and marketing capabilities and ultimately selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may

Substantial additional funding may need substantial additional fundingbe required in order to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.candidates, but may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate certain of our product development or research operations.

To date, we have funded our operations through public and private placements of equity securities, upfront, milestone and expense reimbursement payments received from our collaborators, funding from governmental bodies and interest income from the investment of our cash, cash equivalents and financial assets. We expect to require additional funding in the future to sufficiently finance our operations and advance development of our product candidates.

Our future capital requirements for efgartigimod, cusatuzumab (ARGX-110) or our clinical and preclinical programs will depend on many factors, including:

business strategy. Asstrategy and as a result, we may be forced to delay, reduce or terminate the development or commercialization of all or part of our research programs or product candidates or we may be unable to take advantage of future business opportunities.opportunities, as desire, all of which may have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to holders of our ordinary shares or ADSs restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

In order to further advance development of our product candidates, discover additional product candidates and pursue our other business objectives, we will need to seek additional funds.

We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of holders of our ordinary shares or the ADSs and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of the ADSs to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our existing shareholders and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of ADSs. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. Further, any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from its day‑to‑day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any of our product candidates, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Since our inception in 2008, we have invested most of our resources in developing our product candidates, building our intellectual property portfolio, developing our supply chain, conducting business planning, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. Our most advanced candidate, efgartigimod, completed a Phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of MG and ITP. In September 2018, we launched our first Phase 3 clinical trial in MG. We also have a third ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial of efgartigimod for the treatment of PV and announced the analysis of efgartigimod in a fourth indication, CIDP. We also concluded a

Risks Related to the Development and Clinical Testing of Our Product Candidates

All of our product candidates are in preclinical, or early‑stage clinical or clinical development. Clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and uncertain outcomes. If clinical trials of our product candidates particularly efgartigimod and cusatuzumab, are prolonged or delayed, we or our collaborators may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals, and therefore will be unable to commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis or at all, which will adversely affect our business.

ToFor our clinical trials to succeed and in order to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we or our collaboratorcollaborators for such candidates must successfully demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our products are safe, pure and potent or effective 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 clinical trial process and our future clinical trial results may not be successful.

We may experience delays in our ongoing clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all.

Clinical trials can be delayed, suspended, or terminated for a large variety of reasons outside our control, including the following:

We could encounter delays, for example, if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted or ethics committees, by the Data Review Committee, or DRC, or Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the EMA, the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination or clinical hold 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 EMA, the FDA or other regulatory authorities, resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, including those relating to the class to which our product candidates belong, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. 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 candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Significant clinical trial delays could also allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do or shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business, and results of operations.operations and financial condition.

Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. 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 or result in the development of our product candidates being stopped early.

Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA, the EMA and other applicable regulatory authorities’ legal requirements and regulations, and are subject to oversight by these governmental agencies and IRBs at the medical institutions where the clinical trials are conducted or ethics committees. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our product candidates produced under current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and other regulations. Furthermore, we rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to

Preclinical drug development is uncertain. Some or all of our preclinical programs such as ARGX‑116 and ARGX‑117, may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize these product candidates on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

In order to obtain FDA or EMA approval to market a new biological product we must demonstrate proof of safety, purity and potency or efficacy in humans. To meet these requirements we will have to conduct adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned Investigational New Drug application,applications, or IND,INDs, in the United States, or a Clinical Trial Authorization Application,Applications, or CTA,CTAs, in Europe. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or EMA will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of these product candidates. Thus, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or CTAs for our preclinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or CTAs will result in the FDA or EMA allowing clinical trials to begin.

Conducting preclinical testing is a lengthy, time‑consuming and expensive process. The length of time may vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of the product candidate, and often can be several years or more per product candidate. Delays associated with product candidates for which we are directly conducting preclinical testing and studies may cause us to incur additional operating expenses. Moreover, we may continue to be affected by delays associated with the preclinical testing and studies of certain product candidates conducted by our potential partners over which we have no control. The commencement and rate of completion of preclinical studiestesting and studies for a product candidate may be delayed by many factors, including, for example:

Moreover, even if clinical trials do begin for these preclinical programs, our development efforts may not be successful, and clinical trials that we conduct or that third parties conduct on our behalf may not demonstrate sufficient safety, purity and potency or efficacy to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates or product candidates employing our technology. Even if we obtain positive results from preclinical studies or initial clinical trials, we may not achieve the same success in future trials.

Interim, topline and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Preliminary and interim data from our clinical trials may change as more patient data become available. Preliminary or interim data from our clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of final results. Preliminary and interim data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues, more patient data become available and we issue our final clinical trial report. Interim, topline and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, preliminary and interim data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the interim data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Our product candidates may have serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval. If such side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates or following approval, if any, we may need to abandon our development of such product candidates, the commercial profile of any approved label may be limited, or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our product candidates could cause us or 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, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities. While our preclinical and clinical studies for our product candidates to date have generally been well tolerated from a risk‑benefit perspective, we have observed adverse events and treatment emergent adverse events in our clinical studies to date, and we may see additional adverse events and TEAEs in our  ongoing and future trials, which may be more serious than those observed to date, and as a result, our ongoing and future trials may not support this conclusion.

The results of future clinical studies may show that our product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects or even death. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, the EMA 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. The drug‑related side effects could 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 harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Further, because all of our product candidates and preclinical programs, other than efgartigimod, are based on our SIMPLE AntibodyTM platform, any adverse safety or efficacy findings related to any product candidate or preclinical program may adversely impact the viability of our other product candidates or preclinical programs.

the product from the market. The regulators could also suspend or withdraw our marketing authorizations, requiring us to conduct additional clinical trials, change our product labeling or submit additional applications for marketing authorization. If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell such product may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with regulatory requirements, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our product candidates may have serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval. If such side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates or following approval, if any, we may need to abandon our development of such product candidates, the commercial profile of any approved label may be limited, or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our product candidates could cause us or 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, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities. While our preclinical and clinical studies for our product candidates to date have generally been well tolerated from a risk‑benefit perspective, we have observed adverse events and treatment emergent adverse events in our clinical studies to date, and we may see additional adverse events and treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, in our  ongoing and future trials, which may be more serious than those observed to date, and as a result, our ongoing and future trials may be negatively impacted.

The results of future clinical studies may show that our product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects or even death. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, the EMA 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. The drug‑related side effects could 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 harm our business, results of operation and financial condition significantly. Further, because all of our product candidates and preclinical programs, other than efgartigimod, are based on our SIMPLE AntibodyTM platform, any adverse safety or efficacy findings related to any product candidate or preclinical program may adversely impact the viability of our other product candidates or preclinical programs.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

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

We face significant competition for our drug discovery and development efforts, and if we do not compete effectively, our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated. We may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our SIMPLE AntibodyTM platform, our NHance® and ABDEGTM technologies, or the licensed POTELLIGENT® technology, to build a pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable products due to significant competition and technological change, which could limit or eliminate the market opportunity for our product candidates and technology platforms.

The market for pharmaceutical products is highly competitive. Our competitors include many established pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities and other research or commercial institutions, many of which have substantially greater financial, research and development resources than we have. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. Smaller and early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, the development of our products. The fields in which we operate are characterized by rapid technological change and innovation. There can be no assurance that our competitors are not currently developing, or will not in the future develop, technologies and products that are equally or more effective or are more economically attractive than any of our current or future technology or product. Competing products or technology platforms may gain faster or greater market acceptance than our products or technology platforms and medical advances or rapid technological development by competitors may result in our product candidates or technology platforms becoming non‑competitive or obsolete before we are able to recover our research and development and commercialization expenses. If we, our product candidates or our technology platforms do not compete effectively, it is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

Competition in the autoimmune field is intense and involves multiple monoclonal antibodies, other biologics and small molecules either already marketed or in development by many different companies including large pharmaceutical companies such as AbbVie Inc. (Humira/rheumatoid arthritis); Amgen Inc. (Enbrel/rheumatoid arthritis); Biogen, Inc. (Tysabri/multiple sclerosis); GlaxoSmithKline plc, or GSK, (Benlysta/lupus); F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, or Roche (Rituxan/often used off label); and Janssen (Remicade/rheumatoid arthritis and Stelara/psoriasis). In some cases, these competitors are also our collaborators. In addition, these and other pharmaceutical companies have monoclonal antibodies or other biologics in clinical development for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. In addition to the current standard of care, we are aware that Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is selling Soliris for the treatment of adult patients with generalized MG who are anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody positive and that GSK; Roche; Novartis AG; CSL Behring; Grifols, S. A.; BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Curavac; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; UCB S.A.; Ra Pharmaceuticals; and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, among others, are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of MG. We are aware that Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Dova Pharmaceuticals; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Immunomedics; Protalex, Inc.; Principia Biopharma and others are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of ITP. We are aware that Roche is selling Rituxan for the treatment of moderate to severe PV and Principia, Alexion and others are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of PV. Furthermore, we are aware of competing products specifically targeting FcRn and being developed by UCB S. A.; Momenta, Inc.; Alexion; Immunovant; and Affibody.

Competition in the leukemia and lymphoma space is intense, with many compounds in clinical trials by large multinational pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotech companies. Rituxan (Roche), Adcetris

(Seattle Genetics, Inc. / Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd.), Darzalex (Janssen) and Poteligeo (Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.) are some examples of monoclonal antibodies approved for the treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma or other blood cancers. We are aware of AML drugs recently approved by the FDA, such as Daurismo (Pfizer), Mylotarg (Pfizer), Rydapt (Amgen), Vyxos (Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and IDHIFA (Agios, Inc. and Celgene). In addition, we are aware of a number of other companies with development stage programs that may compete with cusatuzumab in the future, if it is approved. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new treatments enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

There are several monoclonal antibody drug discovery companies that may compete with us in the search for novel therapeutic antibody targets, including Adimab LLC; Merus N.V.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Xencor Inc. and MorphoSys AG. We are aware that a product candidate in development by Scholar Rock, Inc. may compete with ABBV-151 (formerly named ARGX-115) and a product candidate in development by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. may compete with ARGX-116, if they are approved.

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for our product candidates. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical trials, our research and development efforts and business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical trials is critical to our success. Patient enrollment depends on many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, eligibility criteria for the trial, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the design of the clinical protocol, the availability of competing clinical trials, the availability of new drugs approved for the indication the clinical trial is investigating, and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies. Since some of our product candidates are focused on addressing rare diseases and conditions, there are limited patient pools available to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost‑effective manner. For example, the number of patients suffering from each of MG; ITP; PV; T‑cell lymphoma, or TCL; and AML, is small and has not been established with precision. If the actual number of patients with these disorders is smaller than we anticipate, we may encounter difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical trials, thereby delaying or preventing development and approval of our drug candidates. Even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials.

Furthermore, our efforts to build relationships with patient communities may not succeed, which could result in delays in patient enrollment in our clinical trials. In addition, any negative results we may report in clinical trials of our drug candidate may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of that same drug candidate. Delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, some 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.

Business interruptions resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak or similar public health crises could cause a disruption of the development of our product candidates and adversely impact our business.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks could adversely impact our business. In December 2019, a novel strain of a virus named SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), or coronavirus, which causes coronavirus disease, or COVID-19, was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China and has reached multiple other regions and countries, including Europe and the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic is evolving, and to date has led to the implementation of various responses, including government-imposed quarantines, travel restrictions and other public health safety measures.

The continued spread of COVID-19 or other global health matters, such as pandemics, could adversely impact our clinical trials or preclinical studies. For instance, the COVID-19 outbreak could impair our ability to recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have

heightened exposure to COVID-19 if an outbreak occurs in their geography or due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the outbreak and restrictions in travel. Furthermore, some patients may be unwilling to enroll in our trials or be unable to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines or travel restrictions impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. COVID-19 may also negatively affect the operations of third-party CROs that we rely upon to carry out our clinical trials or the operations of our third-party manufacturers, which could result in delays or disruptions in the supply of our product candidates. Any negative impact COVID-19 has to patient enrollment or treatment or the timing and execution of our clinical trials could cause costly delays to our clinical trial activities, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, increase our operating expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our operations or those of our third party partners will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the outbreak, new information that may emerge concerning the severity of COVID-19 or the effectiveness of actions to contain COVID-19 or treat its impact, among others. We cannot presently predict the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage, however, were to experience shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively affected, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage; and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of pharmaceutical products. Currently, we have no products that have been approved for commercial sale; however, the current and future use of product candidates by us and our corporate collaborators in clinical trials, and the potential sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients who use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, our corporate collaborators or others selling such products. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially adversely affect the market for our product candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our product candidates. Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval of the product candidate, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain product liability insurance for our product candidates, it is possible that our liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage. We intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates. However, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or to obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

Should any of the events described above occur, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must, and have in the past decided to, prioritize development of certain product candidates over other potential candidates. These decisions may prove to have been wrong and may adversely affect our revenues.

Because we have limited resources and access to capital to fund our operations, we must decide which product candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular compounds, product candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of viable commercial products and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, our decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain product development programs may also prove not to be optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the biopharmaceutical industry, in particular for our lead product candidates, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States, the European Union and other foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the United States federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, became law. The ACA is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidates are the following:

heard arguments in Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States, which will determine whether the government must make risk corridor payments. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA, such as removing or delaying penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, delaying the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The Trump administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 30, 2018, the same judge issued an order staying the judgment pending appeal. On December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and remanded the case to the lower court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the full ACA. It is unclear how this decisionthese decisions and any subsequent appeals and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2012 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation's automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to

in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. On November 30, 2018,In May 2019, CMS announcedissued a proposedfinal rule that would amend the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit regulations to reduce out of pocket costs for plan enrollees and allow Medicare plans to negotiate lower rates for certain drugs. Among other things, the proposed rule changes would allow Medicare Advantage plans to use pre authorization (PA) andPlans the option of using step therapy, (ST)a type of prior authorization, for six protected classes of drugs and, with certain exceptions, permit plans to implement PA and ST in Medicare Part B drugs; anddrugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change the definition of “negotiated prices” as well as add a definition of “price concession” in the regulations.that was effective January 1, 2019. It is unclear whether these proposed changes will be accepted, and if so, what effect suchthese changes will have on our business.

In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

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

approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

We may be subject to healthcare and privacy laws, regulation and enforcement. Our failure to comply with these laws could harm our results of operations and financial conditions.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, our current and future operations may be directly, or indirectly through our customers and third‑party payors, subject to various U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti‑Kickback Statute. Healthcare providers, physicians and others play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain our business and financial arrangements and relationships with third‑party payors, healthcare professionals who participate in our clinical research program, healthcare professionals and others who recommend, purchase, or provide our approved products, and other parties through which we market, sell and distribute our products 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 other states and countries in which we conduct our business. See also the risk factor titled “We may fail to comply with evolving European and other privacy laws.” below. Finally, our current and future operations are subject to additional healthcare‑related statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by foreign regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements. We have no experience in the sale or marketing of pharmaceutical products and, upon approval and commercialization, we will need to establish and maintain a robust internal system to ensure compliance with the different health care laws and regulations. The establishment of an internal compliance program will involve substantial costs and the program may not be successful in complying with the different reporting requirements.

The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

The riskscope and enforcement of us being found in violationeach of these laws is increased byuncertain and subject to rapid change in the fact that manycurrent environment of them have not been fully interpreted byhealthcare reform, especially in light of the regulatory authorities or the courts,lack of applicable precedent and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations.regulations. For example, the definition of the “remuneration” under the federal Anti‑Anti Kickback Statute has been interpreted to include anything of value. Further, courts have found that if “one purpose” of remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti‑Anti Kickback Statute is violated.

Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time  and resource  consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.  Additionally, recent healthcare reform legislation has strengthened federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws. For example, the ACA amends the intent requirement of the federal Anti‑Anti Kickback Statute and criminal healthcare fraud statutes to clarify that liability under these statutes does not require a person or entity to have actual knowledge of the statutes or a specific intent to violate them. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act. Furthermore, on January 31, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) proposed an amendment to one of the existing Anti-Kickback safe harbors (42 C.F.R. 1001.952(h)) which would prohibit certain pharmaceutical manufacturers from offering rebates to pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) in the Medicare Part D and Medicaid managed care programs. The proposed amendment would remove protection for "discounts" from Anti-Kickback enforcement action, and would include criminal and civil penalties for knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce or reward the referral of business reimbursable under federal health care programs. At the same time, HHS also proposed to create a new safe harbor to protect point-of-sale discounts that drug manufacturers provide directly to patients, and adds another safe harbor to protect certain administrative fees paid by manufacturers to PBMs. If this proposal is adopted, in whole or in part, it could affect the pricing and reimbursement for any products for which we receive approval in the future. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. For example, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is generally not permitted in the countries that form part of the European Union. Some European Union Member States, like the United Kingdom, through the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010, have enacted laws explicitly prohibiting the provision of these types of benefits and advantages. Violations of these laws can subject us to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, including monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment and exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, reputational harm, and the required curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance or

regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR substantially increases the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses. Given the new law, we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements, and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law.

In particular, national laws of member states of the EU are in the process of being adapted to the requirements under the GDPR, thereby implementing national laws which may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EU. Also, in the field of handling genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty.

We must also ensure that we maintain adequate safeguards to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA, in particular to the United States in compliance with European data protection laws, including the GDPR. We expect that we will continue to face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European privacy laws will be sufficient. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or pharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European or multi-national clients or pharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR. Such clients or pharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity. In the European Union, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity following drug or biological product approval. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

We may from time to time seek orphan drug designation in the United States or Europe for certain indications addressed by our product candidates. For example, in September 2017, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for the use of efgartigimod for the treatment of MG. Even if we are able to obtain orphan designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for such 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 with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA or the EMA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA or the EMA concludes that the later drug 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 nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. The successful commercialization of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate reimbursement levels and pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

Even if our product candidates are approved for marketing, sales of such product candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States (such as Medicare and Medicaid), and other countries, commercial health insurers, and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such product candidates. Moreover, increasing efforts by

challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs, especially on drugs when an equivalent generic drug or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third‑party payor may consider our product candidates and other therapies to be substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidates, pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidates. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given drug product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on products that we may develop. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product candidate that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product candidate, and the cost of these studies would be in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Even after pharmacogenomic studies are conducted, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover any product candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such product candidates once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor's decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. For example, the payor may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Further, one payor's determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party reimbursement and coverage may not be adequate to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products for orphan diseases is particularly uncertain, and failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for any such product candidates could limit our ability to generate revenue.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority for U.S. federal and state and international governments and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown

relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to pursue new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Individual state legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing. Some of these measures include price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

Outside the United States, we will face challenges in obtaining adequate coverage and payment for any product candidates we may develop. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product candidate and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the effectiveness of any product candidates we may develop to other available therapies to support cost-effectiveness. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive, involve additional risk and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed upon. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments, or HTAs) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals, and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe

The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of healthcare and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most European Union member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever‑increasing European Union and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post‑approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

The future commercial success of our product candidates will depend on the degree of market acceptance of our potential products among physicians, patients, healthcare payers and the medical community.

Our product candidates are at varying stages of development and we may never have a product that is commercially successful. To date, we have no productproducts authorized for marketing. Our lead product candidates are in early stages of clinical development. Our lead product candidates will require further clinical investigation, regulatory review, significant marketing efforts and substantial investment before they can provide us with any revenues. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many other companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory approval for the marketing of their product. Due to the inherent risk in the development of pharmaceutical products, it is probable that not all or none of the product candidates in our portfolio will successfully complete development and be commercialized. We do not expect to be able to commercialize any of our products for a number of years. Furthermore, whenWhen available on the market, our products may not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients and the medical community, and we may not become profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third‑party payers on the benefits of our products may require significant resources and may never be successful which would prevent us from generating significant revenues or becoming profitable. Market acceptance of our future products by physicians, patients and healthcare payers will depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

If our product candidates fail to gain market acceptance, this will have a material adverse impact on our ability to generate revenues to provide a satisfactory, or any, return on our investments.revenues. Even if some products achieve market acceptance, the market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant revenues.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our pharmaceutical product candidates even if they are granted marketing approval. We may not be able to successfully achieve support among such third parties for our product candidates, and our relationships with such parties are subject to regulations.

Our current and future arrangements with providers, researchers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable federal and state fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims, transparency and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include, without limitation, the following:

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

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA‑licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12‑year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the

authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more foreign regulatory authorities does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA or EMA.

There can be no assurance that our product candidates will fulfil the criteria required to obtain necessary regulatory approval to access the market. Also, at this time, we cannot guarantee or know the exact nature, precise timing and detailed costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the remainder of the development of our research programs and products candidates. Each of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities may impose its own requirements, may discontinue an approval or revoke a license, may refuse to grant approval, or may require additional data before granting approval, notwithstanding that approval may have been granted by the FDA, the EMA or one or more other comparable foreign authority. The FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications or patient

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants, vendors and collaboration partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants, vendors and collaboration partners may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activities. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate: (i) the regulations of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities; (ii) manufacturing standards; (iii) federal and state data privacy, security, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and abroad;in other countries; or (iv) laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate financial information and data. Specifically, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self‑dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws could also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in

strategy is to develop and market additional products and product candidates. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, research programs to identify product candidates will require substantial additional technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select and develop promising product candidates and products. Our technology platforms may fail to discover and to generate additional product candidates that are suitable for further development. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure typical of pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that a product candidate may not be suitable for clinical development as a result of its harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that it is unlikely to be a product that will receive approval by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates based upon our technological approach, we may not be able to obtain product or collaboration revenues in future periods, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our long‑term growth strategy to develop and market additional products and product candidates is heavily dependent on precise, accurate and reliable scientific data to identify, select and develop promising pharmaceutical product candidates and products. Our business decisions may therefore be adversely influenced by

Our business may be adversely affected as a result of computer system failures. We may suffer data leaks or become the target of cyber-attacks, as a result of which our financial assets, confidential information and/or intellectual property may be materially negatively impacted. We may not be able to successfully protect our computer systems against unauthorized access by third parties.

AnyDespite the implementation of thesecurity measures, our internal computer systems belonging to us orand those of our third‑third party service providers are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failure. LikeCyber-attacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other companies, we have on occasion experienced,means to affect service reliability and will continuethreaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. Cyber-attacks also could include phishing attempts or e-mail fraud to experience, threatscause payments or information to our data and systems, including malicious codes and viruses, phishing, business email compromise attacks, or other cyber-attacks. The number and complexity of these threats continuebe transmitted to increase over time. an unintended recipient.

Any system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our own or in third‑third party service vendors’ operations could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our or our partners’ regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs in order to recover or reproduce the lost data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we may incur liability, our product development programs and competitive position may be adversely affected and the further development of our product candidates may be delayed. If the integrity of our cybersecurity systems is breached, thewe may incur significant effects may be significant, includingsuch as remediation expenses, lost revenues, litigation costs, and increased insurance premiums and may also experience reputational damage and the

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third‑party CROs, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our third party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we, our investigators or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that uponUpon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority willmay determine that any of our clinical trials do not fully comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Further, these investigators and CROs are not our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources, including time, which they devote to our product candidates and clinical trials. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard, it may delay or compromise the prospects for approval and commercialization of any product candidates that we develop. In addition, the use of third‑party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated.

Our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated.

There is a limited number of third‑party service providers that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives. If any of our relationships with these third‑party CROs or clinical investigators terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or investigators or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. If CROs or clinical investigators do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be

challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We rely and will continue to rely on collaborative partners regarding the development of our research programs and product candidates. If we fail to enter into new strategic relationships our business, financial condition, commercialization prospects and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We are, and expect to continue to be, dependent on partnerships with partners relating to the development and commercialization of our existing and future research programs and product candidates. We currently have collaborative research relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, such as Janssen, AbbVie, Shire and with various academic and research institutions worldwide, for the development of product candidates resulting from such collaborations. We had, have and will continue to have discussions on potential partnering opportunities with various pharmaceutical companies. If we fail to enter into or maintain collaborations on reasonable terms or at all, our ability to develop our existing or future research programs and product candidates could be delayed, the commercial potential of our products could change and our costs of development and commercialization could increase.

Our dependence on collaborative partners subjects us to a number of risks, including, but not limited to, the following:

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborative partners. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a partnership will depend, among other things, upon an assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of regulatory approval, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership regardless of the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a partnership could be more attractive than the one with us.

products are approved. Instead, we rely on, and expect to continue to rely on contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs. We currently rely mainly on Lonza Sales AG, or Lonza, based in Slough, UK and Singapore for the manufacturing of the drug substance of all our products and the production cell line POTELLIGENT® CHOK1SV jointly owned by Lonza and BioWa, Inc. for clinical and commercial scale production of ADCC enhanced antibody products. Reliance on third‑party providers may expose us to more risk than if we were to manufacture our product candidates ourselves. We do not control the manufacturing processes of the CMOs we contract with and are dependent on those third parties for the production of our product candidates in accordance with relevant regulations (such as cGMP), which includes, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation.

If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of or if any supplier were unable to meet our demand for any of our product candidates, we could experience delays in our research or planned clinical studies or commercialization. We could be unable to find alternative suppliers of acceptable quality, in the appropriate volumes and at an acceptable cost. Moreover, our suppliers are often subject to strict manufacturing requirements and rigorous testing requirements, which could limit or delay production. The long transition periods necessary to switch manufacturers and suppliers, if necessary, would significantly delay our clinical studies and the commercialization of our products, if approved, which would materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

In complying with the manufacturing regulations of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities, we and our third‑third party suppliers must spend significant time, money and effort in the areas of design and development, testing, production, record‑record keeping and quality control to assure that the products meet applicable specifications and other regulatory requirements. The failure to comply with these requirements could result in an enforcement action against us, including the seizure of products and shutting down of production. We and any of these third‑our third party suppliers may also be subject to audits by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities. If any of our third‑third party suppliers fails to comply with cGMP or other applicable manufacturing regulations, our ability to develop and commercialize the products could suffer significant interruptions. We face risks inherent in relying on a single CMO, as any disruption, such as a fire, natural hazards or vandalism at the CMO could significantly interrupt our manufacturing capability. We currently do not have alternativeAlternative production plans in place or disaster‑disaster recovery facilities available.available to us may not be sufficient. In case of a disruption, we willmay have to establish additional alternative manufacturing sources. This would require substantial capital on our part, which we may not be able to obtain on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Additionally, we would likelymay experience months ofsignificant manufacturing delays as we build or locate replacement facilities and seek and obtain necessary regulatory approvals. If this occurs, we will be unable to satisfy manufacturing needs on a timely basis, if at all. Also, operating any new facilities may be more expensive than operating our current facility.facilities. Further, business interruption insurance may not adequately compensate us for any losses that may occur, and we would have to bear the additional cost of any disruption. For these reasons, a significant disruptive event of the manufacturing facility could have drastic consequences, including placing our financial stability at risk.

The manufacturing of all of our product candidates requires using cells which are stored in a cell bank. We have one master cell bank for each product manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Working cell banks have not yet been manufactured. Half of each master cell bank is stored at a separate site so that in case of a catastrophic event at one site we believe sufficient vials of the master cell banks are left at the alternative storage site to continue manufacturing. We believe sufficient working cell banks could be produced from the vials of the master cell bank stored at a given site to assure product supply for the future. However, it is possible that we could lose

For our financial reporting, we are partially dependent on financial information received from our collaborativethird party partners, which we do not control and which may not be received in a timely manner and which may not be accurate. Our reliance on financial information received from our collaboration partners may impact our own internal and external financial reporting and any delay in the provision of such financial information to us or any failure by us to identify mistakes in the financial information provided to us may cause our own financial statements to be partially inaccurate.

We have collaborated, and plan to continue to collaborate, with third parties on product candidates that we believe have promising utility in disease areas or patient populations that are better served by resources of larger biopharmaceutical companies. See “Collaborations” in “Item 4B.—Business Overview” for a more detailed description of these collaborations. As part of some of these collaborations, our collaboration partners are responsible for providing us with financial information regarding specific projects, including funds spent, liabilities incurred and expected future costs, on which we rely for our own financial reporting. In the event that our collaboration partners fail to provide us with the necessary financial information within the agreed upon timeframes, or if such financial information proves partially inaccurate, this is likely to impact the accuracy of our own financial reporting. Any inaccuracy in our financial reporting could cause investors to lose confidence in our financial reporting, which may negatively impact the price of our ADSs.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

We rely on patents and other intellectual property rights to protect our product candidates and the SIMPLE AntibodyTM, NHance® and ABDEGTM platform technologies, the enforcement, defense and maintenance of which may be challenging and costly. Failure to enforce or protect these rights adequately could harm our ability to compete and impair our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on obtaining and maintaining patents and other forms of intellectual property rights for our product candidates, methods used to manufacture those products and the methods for treating patients using those products, or on licensing in such rights. Failure to protect or to obtain, maintain or extend adequate patent and other intellectual property rights could materially adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products and product candidates. The enforcement, defense and maintenance of such patents and other intellectual property rights may be challenging and costly.

We cannot be certain that patents will be issued or granted with respect to applications that are currently pending, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or enforceable. Thepending. As a biopharmaceutical company, our patent position of biopharmaceutical companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards applied by the European Patent Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biopharmaceutical patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending patent applications. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology. The scope of patent protection that the European Patent Office and the USPTO will grant with respect to the antibodies in our antibodies product pipeline is uncertain. It is possible that the European Patent Office and the USPTO will not allow broad antibody claims that cover antibodies closely related to our product candidates as well as the specific antibody. As a result, upon receipt of EMA or FDA approval, competitors may be free to market antibodies almost identical to ours, including biosimilar antibodies, thereby decreasing our market share. However, a competitor cannot submit to the FDA an application for a biosimilar product based on one of our products until four years following the date of approval of our “reference product,” and the FDA may not approve such a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. See the section of this annual report titled “Item 4.—Business—Government Regulation—Licensure and Regulation of Biologics in the United States—Biosimilars and Exclusivity” for more details regarding biosimilar regulatory exclusivities.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time‑consuming, and we and our current or future licensors, licensees or collaboration partners may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Further, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our and our licensors’ pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, or we may need to enter into new license or royalty agreements, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties or have developed in collaboration with our collaboration partners and are reliant on patent procurement activities of our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors, licensees or collaboration partners fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. The patent examination process may require us or our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners to narrow the scope of the claims of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ pending and future patent applications, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained. We cannot assure you that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. If such prior art exists, it can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may initiate an opposition, interference, re‑examination, post‑grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices, or similar proceedings challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in the patent claims being narrowed or invalidated. Our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology.

Because patent applications are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate. Furthermore, as to the United States, if third parties have filed such patent applications on or before March 15, 2013, an interference proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. If third parties have filed such applications after March 15, 2013, a derivation proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine whether our invention was derived from theirs. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing our invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date, or if the other party is able to obtain a compulsory license.

Issued patents covering one or more of our products or the SIMPLE AntibodyTM, NHance® and ABDEGTM platform technologies could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

To protect our competitive position, we may from time to time need to resort to litigation in order to enforce or defend any patents or other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to us, or to determine or challenge the scope or validity of patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties. Enforcement of intellectual property rights is difficult, unpredictable and expensive, and many of our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors or collaboration partners can. Accordingly, despite our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ efforts, we or our licensors or collaboration partners may not prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the European Union and the United States. We may fail in enforcing our rights—in which case our competitors may be permitted to use our technology without being required to pay us any license fees. In addition, however, litigation involving our patents

carries the risk that one or more of our patents will be held invalid (in whole or in part, on a claim‑by‑claim basis) or held unenforceable. Such an adverse court ruling could allow third parties to commercialize our products or use our SIMPLE AntibodyTM, NHance® and ABDEGTM platform technologies, and then compete directly with us, without payment to us.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States or in Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. A claim for a validity challenge may be based on failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non‑enablement. A claim for unenforceability could involve an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the European Patent Office or 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 SIMPLE AntibodyTM, NHance® and ABDEGTM platform technologies. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. Further, litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, regardless of the outcome, and this could harm our business and financial results. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, such that we could 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.

Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third‑party intellectual property rights cover our products or elements thereof, our manufacture or uses relevant to our development plans, the targets of our product candidates, or other attributes of our product candidates or our technology. 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. We are aware of certain U.S. issued patents held by third parties that some may argue cover certain aspects of our product candidates, including cusatuzumab and ARGX‑111. The patent relating to cusatuzumab is scheduled to expire in 2026, and the patents relating to ARGX‑111 are scheduled to expire between 2024 and 2032. In the event that a patent has not expired at the time of approval of such product candidate and the patent owner were to bring an infringement action against us, we may have to argue that our product, its manufacture or use does not infringe a valid claim of the patent in question. Alternatively, if we were to challenge the validity of any issued U.S. patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every U.S. patent. This means that in order to prevail, we would need to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims. There is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement or validity. In the event that a patent is successfully asserted against us such that the patent is found to be valid and enforceable and infringed by our product, unless we obtain a license to such a patent, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, we could be prevented from continuing to develop or commercialize our product. Similarly, the targets for certain of our product candidates have also been the subject of research by other companies, which have filed patent applications or have patents on aspects of the targets or their uses. There can be no assurance any such patents will not be asserted against us or that we will not need to seek licenses from such third parties. We may not be able to secure such licenses on acceptable terms, if at all, and any such litigation would be costly and time‑consuming.

It is also possible that we failed to identify relevant patents or applications. For example, certain U.S. applications filed after November 29, 2000 that will not be filed outside the United States may remain confidential until patents issue. In general, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately

18 months after the earliest filing from 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. Furthermore, we operate in a highly competitive field, and given our limited resources, it is unreasonable to monitor all patent applications purporting to gain broad coverage in the areas in which we are active. Additionally, pending patent applications which 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, including our competitors, may actively bring infringement claims against us. The granting of orphan drug status in respect of any of our product candidates does not guarantee our freedom to operate and is separate from our risk of possible infringement of third parties’ intellectual property rights. We may not 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 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 or our licensees 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. Or, we may be required to seek a license to any such technology that we are found to infringe, which license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we or our licensors or collaboration partners obtain a license, it may be non‑exclusive (for example, the POTELLIGENT® platform), thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors or collaboration partners. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. Any of these events, even if we were to ultimately prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. 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.

Our ability to compete may be adversely affected if we are unsuccessful in defending against any claims by competitors or others that we are infringing upon their intellectual property rights.

The various markets in which we plan to operate are subject to frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. In addition, companies producing therapeutics to treat and potentially cure cancer have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. As a result, we may be required to defend against claims of intellectual property infringement that may be asserted by our competitors against us and, if the outcome of any such litigation is adverse to us, it may affect our ability to compete effectively.

Our involvement in litigation, and in, e.g., any interference, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, opposition or post‑grant proceedings or other intellectual property proceedings inside and outside of the European Union or the United States may divert management time from focusing on business operations, could cause us to spend significant amounts of money and may have no guarantee of success. Any current and potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following:

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

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. 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, this could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of the ADSs. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development 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 substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Many of our consultants and employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these consultants and employees executed proprietary rights, non disclosure and non competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our consultants and employees do not use the proprietary information or know how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these consultants and employees have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such consultant’s or employee’s former employer, or have breached their non competition agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in‑licenses.

Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in‑license, maintain or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in‑license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third‑party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third‑party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third‑party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with U.S. and non‑U.S. academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our applicable product candidate or program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third‑party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain a license to third‑party intellectual property rights necessary for the development of a product candidate or program, we may have to abandon development of that product candidate or program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under the agreements pursuant to which we license intellectual property rights from third parties, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose the rights to intellectual property that are important to our business.

We are a party to license agreements under which we are granted rights to intellectual property that are important to our business and we expect that we may need to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various development obligations, payment of royalties and fees based on achieving certain milestones, as well as other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. The termination of any license agreements or failure to adequately protect such license agreements could prevent us from commercializing product candidates covered by the licensed intellectual property. Several of our existing license agreements are sublicenses from third parties which are not the original licensor of the intellectual property at issue. Under these agreements, we must rely on our licensor to comply with its obligations under the primary license agreements under which such third party obtained rights in the applicable intellectual property, where we may have no relationship with the original licensor of such rights. If the licensors fail to comply with their obligations under these upstream license agreements, the original third party licensor may have the right to terminate the original license, which may terminate the sublicense. If this were to occur, we would no longer have rights to the applicable intellectual property and, in the case of a sublicense, if we were not able to secure our own direct license with the owner of the relevant rights, which it may not be able to do at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, it may adversely affect our ability to continue to develop and commercialize the product candidates incorporating the relevant intellectual property.

Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates

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 registered or unregistered 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, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. If other entities use trademarks similar to ours in different jurisdictions, or have senior rights to ours, it could interfere with our use of our current trademarks throughout the world.

Although we have trademark registrations for arGEN-X, this trademark may be considered as confusing with other registered trademarks and we may not be in a position to keep exclusive rights over the use of it. We do not expect the potential loss of this trademark registration to have an adverse impact on our business as we are not planning to use arGEN-X as a product name.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch‑Waxman Amendments and similar non‑U.S. legislation for extending the term of patents covering each of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

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

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch‑Waxman Act and similar legislation in the European Union. The Hatch‑Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner than we expect. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced, possibly materially.

We enjoy only limited geographical protection with respect to certain patents and may face difficulties in certain jurisdictions, which may diminish the value of intellectual property rights in those jurisdictions.

We often file our first patent application (i.e., priority filing) at the UK Intellectual Property Office, the European Patent Office or the USPTO. International applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, are usually filed within twelve months after the priority filing. Based on the PCT filing, national and regional patent applications may be filed in additional jurisdictions where we believe our product candidates may be marketed. 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/regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant patent offices, while granted by others. It

is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product candidate or technology.

Competitors may use our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors or collaboration partners have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States and the European Union. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States and the European Union, and 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.

Some countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some 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 is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired and our business, and results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Proceedings to enforce our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors or collaboration partners. We or our licensors or collaboration partners may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors or collaboration partners initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under the agreements pursuant to which we license intellectual property rights from third parties, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose the rights to intellectual property that are important to our business.

We are a party to license agreements under which we are granted rights to intellectual property that are important to our business and we expect that we may need to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various development obligations, payment of royalties and fees based on achieving certain milestones, as well as other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. The termination of any license agreements or failure to adequately protect such license agreements could prevent us from commercializing product candidates covered by the licensed intellectual property. Several of our existing license agreements are sublicenses from third parties which are not the original licensor of the intellectual property at issue. Under these agreements, we must rely on our licensor to comply with its obligations under the primary license agreements under which such third party obtained rights in the applicable intellectual property, where we may have no relationship with the original licensor of such rights. If the licensors fail to comply with their obligations under these upstream license agreements, the original third‑party licensor may have the right to terminate the original license, which may terminate the sublicense. If this were to occur, we would no longer have rights to the applicable intellectual property and, in the case of a sublicense, if we were not able to secure our own direct license with the owner of the relevant rights, which it may not be able to do at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, it may adversely affect our ability to continue to develop and commercialize the product candidates incorporating the relevant intellectual property.