If another party has reason to assert a substantial new question of patentability against any of our claims in our own and in-licensed patents, the third party can request that the patent claims be reexamined, which may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. In addition to potential infringement suits, and interference and reexamination proceedings, we may become a party to patent opposition proceedings where either the patentability of the inventions subject of our patents are challenged, or we are challenging the patents of others. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful. As the medical device, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that others may assert our commercial product and/or product candidates infringe their patent rights. If a third-party’s patents were found to cover our commercial product and product candidates, proprietary technologies or our uses, we or our collaborators could be enjoined by a court and required to pay damages and could be unable to continue to commercialize our products or use our proprietary technologies unless we or it obtained a license to the patent. A license may not be available to us or our collaborators on acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, during litigation, the patent holder could obtain a preliminary injunction or other equitable relief, which could prohibit us from making, using or selling our commercial product and product candidates pending a trial on the merits, which could be years away.

Our product candidates may face competition sooner than expected after the expiration of our composition of matter patent protection for such products.

Our composition of matter patents for certain of our product candidates have expired or will expire prior to any product approval. We intend to sellseek data exclusivity or market exclusivity for our GPS as well as our NPS, GALE-301 and GALE-302 product candidates provided under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and similar laws in other countries. We believe that these product candidates will qualify for 12 years of data exclusivity under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product or BLA cannot be submitted to the FDA until four years, or if approved by the FDA, until 12 years, after the original brand product identified as the reference product is approved under a BLA. The BPCIA provides an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on our similarity to an existing brand product. The law is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. There is also a risk that the U.S. Congress could amend the BPCIA to shorten this exclusivity period, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated after the expiration of our patent protection. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any reference product in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

Even if, as we expect, GPS, NPS, GALE-301 and GALE-302 are considered to be reference products eligible for 12 years of exclusivity under the BPCIA or qualify for five years of exclusivity as drugs under the FDCA, another company could market competing products if the FDA approves a full BLA or full NDA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of the products.

In some countries outside of the United States, peptide vaccines, such as GPS, NPS, GALE-301 and GALE-302, are regulated as chemical drugs rather than as biologics and may or may not be eligible for non-patent exclusivity.

If we are sued for infringing the intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could be costly and time-consuming and could prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on us and our collaborators not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation and other adversarial proceedings, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interference or derivation proceedings, oppositions, andinter partes and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO and non-U.S. patent offices. Numerous U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing and may develop our current and future product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, and as our product pipeline grows, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of third parties’ patent rights as it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform or predictable.

If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products and methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid is difficult. If any issued third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the relevant product candidate until such patent expired. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. We could be prevented from commercializing a product candidate or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. In addition, parties making claims against us may also obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates.

Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent, or to redesign our infringing product candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. we may also elect to enter into license agreements in order to settle patent infringement claims prior to litigation, and any such license agreement may require us to pay royalties and other fees that could be significant. During the course of any patent or other intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our product candidates, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our shares of common stock may decline.

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

Filing, prosecuting, enforcing and defending patents on our current and future product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. We or our licensors’ intellectual property rights in certain countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our and our licensors’ inventions in countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing infringing products made using our and our licensors’ inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our and our licensors’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection or where we do not have exclusive rights under the relevant patent(s) to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These infringing products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we or our licensors have no issued patents or where we do not have exclusive rights under the relevant patent(s), or our patent claims and other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

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

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful and have a material adverse effect on the success of our business and on our stock price.

Third parties may infringe our patents, the patents of our licensors, or misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensors’ intellectual property rights. We and our licensors’ 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. In the future, we or our licensors may elect to initiate legal proceedings to enforce or defend our or our licensors’ intellectual property rights, to protect our or our licensors’ trade secrets or to determine the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. Any claims that we assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights or that our intellectual property rights are invalid. In addition, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us or our licensors to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. The proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming. Many of our or our licensors’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors can. Accordingly, despite our or our licensors’ efforts, we or our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect our rights as fully as in the United States. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned by or licensed to us is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly.

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties, brought by us or our licensors or collaborators, or brought by the USPTO or any non-U.S. patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions or matters of inventorship with respect to our or our licensors’ patents or patent applications. We may also become involved in other proceedings, such as reexamination or opposition proceedings,inter partesreview, post-grant review or other pre-issuance or post-grant proceedings in the USPTO or its foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property of others. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceeding could require us or our licensors to cease using the related technology and commercializing the affected product candidate, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party.

Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors a license on commercially reasonable terms if any license is offered at all. Even if we or our licensors obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our or our licensor’s patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current and future product candidates. Even if we successfully defend such litigation or proceeding, we may incur substantial costs and it may distract our management and other employees. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent.

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

Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and proprietary information and invention agreements with certain employees, consultants and advisors, third parties may still obtain this information or we may be unable to protect our rights.

Proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how are also very important to our business. We also have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our licensors, collaborators and suppliers. There can be no assurance that binding agreements will not be breached, that we would have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets and unpatented know-how will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by our competitors. If trade secrets are independently discovered, we would not be able to prevent their use. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets or unpatented know-how is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed to us alleged trade secrets of their other clients or former employers. As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, certain of our employees were formerly employed by other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Moreover, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our commercial product and product candidates, many of whom were previously employed at or may have previously been or are currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees and consultants or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers or their former or current customers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these types of claims. Even if we are successful in defending against any such claims, any such litigation would likely be protracted, expensive, a distraction to our management team, not viewed favorably by investors and other third parties, and may potentially result in an unfavorable outcome.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and other proprietary information, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected, and our business could be harmed.

In addition to seeking the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and other elements of our technology, discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, including by enabling them to develop and commercialize products substantially similar to or competitive with our current or future product candidates, thus eroding our competitive position in the market. Trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and outside scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific advisors might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secrets or confidential, proprietary information to competitors. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. If any of our confidential proprietary information were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position.

Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights such as trade secrets to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets to third parties could impair our competitive advantage in the market and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Some intellectual property that we have in-licensed, if created as a result of government funded programs, may be subject to certain federal regulations.

Some of theagreements covering the intellectual property rights we have licensed provide that to the extent that such rights are derived from the use of U.S. government funding, those rights may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention, (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as "march-in rights"). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Current and Future Product Candidates

Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our current and future product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and cancer treatment centers.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our current or future product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical community, including cancer treatment centers. Market acceptance of any product candidates for which we receive approval depends on a number of factors, including:

If any of our current and future product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors or cancer treatment centers, we will not be able to generate significant revenues, which would compromise our ability to become profitable.

Even if we are able to commercialize our current or future product candidates, the products may not receive coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors in the United States and in other countries in which we seek to commercialize our products, which could harm our business.

Our ability to commercialize any product successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other domestic and international government programs, private insurance plans and managed care programs. Most third-party payors may deny reimbursement if they determine that a medical product was not used in accordance with cost-effective treatment methods, as determined by the third-party payor, or was used for an unapproved indication. organizations.

Third-party payors also may refuse to reimburse for experimental proceduresdetermine which medications they will cover and devices. Furthermore, because our programs areestablish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the early stages of development, we are unable at this timehealthcare industry is cost containment. Third-party payors have attempted to determine their cost-effectivenesscontrol costs by limiting coverage and the level or methodamount of reimbursement.reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, the third-party payors who reimburse patients are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. IfThird-party payors may also seek additional clinical evidence, beyond the data required to obtain regulatory approval, demonstrating clinical benefit and value in specific patient populations before covering our products for those patients. We cannot be sure that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if coverage is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we areobtain regulatory approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to chargesuccessfully commercialize any product candidate for any productswhich we develop is inadequate in light of our development and other costs, our profitability could be adversely effected.

Recently enacted and future legislation, including potentially unfavorable pricing regulations, may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain regulatory approval of and commercialize our current or future product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

The regulations that govern, among other things, regulatory approvals, coverage, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to successfully sell any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States, the European Union, United Kingdom and other potentially significant markets for our current and future product candidates, government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting both coverage andlimit or regulate the levelprice of reimbursement for medical products and services. Aservices, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which has resulted in lower average selling prices. Legislative and regulatory proposals have also been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019, that requires direct-to-consumer television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisements the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the regulatory approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be.

Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain international jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was enacted, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as recent efforts by the current U.S. administration to repeal or repeal and replace certain aspects of the ACA. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, or the Texas District Court Judge, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as a part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. While the Texas District Court Judge, as well as the Trump Administration and CMS, have stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA. Until there is more certainty concerning the future of the ACA, it will be difficult to predict its full impact and influence on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in 2013, and will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to change contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

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

In some countries, particularly member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Healthcare Compliance Regulations

Our relationships with customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings. If we or they are unable to comply with these provisions, we may become subject to civil and criminal investigations and proceedings that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and prospects.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, healthcare entities, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, develop and will market, sell and distribute our products. As a pharmaceutical company, even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are applicable to our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct, including intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and integrity oversight and reporting obligations.

We have been involved in multiple legal and governmental proceedings, and may in the future be involved in proceedings, relating to the commercial activities of our predecessor that could adversely affect our financial condition and our business.

Our predecessor company, Galena, was involved in multiple legal and governmental proceedings, including stockholder class actions, both state and federal, some of which are ongoing. These legal and governmental actions (the “Galena Legacy Matters”), included allegations relating to federal securities law violations, claims under the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute, claims regarding breaches of contract, and other stockholder allegations, including claims of breaches of fiduciary duty by our former directors, and fentanyl related litigation.

In December 2015, we announced we had received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, or the USAO NJ, requesting the production of a broad range of documents pertaining to marketing and promotional practices related to Abstral, a fentanyl or synthetic opioid product, that we sold to Sentynl Therapeutics Inc., or Sentynl, in November 2015. In January 2016, we announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office of New Jersey, of USAO NJ and the Department of Justice, or DOJ, were conducting a criminal and civil investigation of us, which came to involve criminal investigations with respect to possibly one or more then-current and/or former employees. On September 8, 2017, the DOJ announced a civil settlement agreement with our company regarding certain of the marketing and promotional practices at issue in the USAO NJ and DOJ’s investigation. The settlement involved a civil resolution agreement and a civil payment of approximately $7.551 million, plus interest accrued since the date of reaching an agreement in principle in return for a release of federal government claims against our company in connection with the covered conduct in investigation. The civil payment was fully paid by us on or about December 29, 2017. The settlement did not include releases of criminal claims by the USAO NJ and DOJ or claims by state agencies or administrative claims by the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, but each of these government authorities indicated that they had no present intention to pursue claims in connection with the investigation. A qui tam action had been filed against us and others as described in our settlement agreement with DOJ and USAO NJ. As set forth in that settlement agreement, for a release of all claims against us and our former officers and directors and dismissal with prejudice of the qui tam lawsuit, the relator received a portion of the $7.551 million payment to the federal government. As a result of the payment of the settlement amount, the federal government and the relator filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to their claims against us in the qui tam lawsuit. In a separate settlement agreement, we paid $0.3 million in cash to the relator’s counsel for the statutorily mandated attorney’s fees.

We also received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, or USAO SDNY, in February 2018, seeking documents related to specific prescribing physicians for Abstral who have been subsequently indicted, to which we responded. To our knowledge, we are not a target or subject of that investigation and have had no further interaction with the USAO SDNY with regard to the matter after responding to the subpoena.

A federal investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama, or the SDAL, of two of the high-prescribing physicians for Abstral (fentanyl) sublingual tablets resulted in the criminal prosecution of the two physicians for alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act and other federal statutes. On April 28, 2016, a second superseding indictment was filed in the criminal case, which added additional information about the defendant physicians and provided information regarding the facts and circumstances involving a rebate agreement between us and the defendant physicians’ pharmacy as well as their ownership of our common stock. The criminal trial, which began on January 4, 2017, concluded with a jury verdict on February 23, 2017 finding these physicians guilty on 19 of 20 counts. In May 2017, one physician was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and the other physician was sentenced to 21 years in prison. At the end of the SDAL case, SDAL dismissed count 18 of the indictment charging that the physicians conspired, through the C&R Pharmacy, to receive illegal kickbacks in exchange for prescribing Abstral. To our knowledge, we were not a target or subject of that investigation.

There continues to be significant litigation and governmental activity generally in the fentanyl and opioid area, and this activity is expected to continue and may increase in the future. We cannot assure you we will not become subject to additional significant legal or governmental proceedings relating to Galena’s former Abstral business in the future. Moreover, in addition to these ongoing and prior matters, we may be exposed to claims, or other legal or governmental actions in the future relating to violations of the False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, the Affordable Care Act, or any other applicable state or federal statutes or regulations, and thereby be subject to penalties, such as civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, or an administrative action of exclusion from government health care reimbursement programs.

There can be no assurance that we will not be exposed to other liabilities or risks, including potential liabilities and risks not currently known to us, resulting from the prior operations of Galena. We can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to the Galena Legacy Matters, or any new or future matters resulting from the prior operations of Galena or their outcome, or the impact, if any, that these matters or any resulting legal or governmental proceedings may have on our business or financial condition but any further action in respect of any such matter by a governmental agency could have a material adverse effect on our results of operation and our business and prospects.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our current or future product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. Product liability claims may be brought against us by subjects enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, healthcare providers or others using, administering or selling our products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold product liability insurance coverage at a level that we believe is customary for similarly situated companies and adequate to provide us with insurance coverage for foreseeable risks, but which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. We intend to expand our insurance coverage for products to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in development, but we may be unable to obtain commercially reasonable product liability insurance for any products that receive regulatory approval. Large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us, particularly if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and adversely affect our business.

We face product liability exposure from prior sales of Abstral and Zuplenz (ondansetron) and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability if our insurance coverage for those claims is inadequate.

Because we previously sold Abstral and Zuplenz (ondansetron), an anti-emetic, oral soluble film for chemotherapy-induced nausea we are exposed to possible product liability claims. In November 2015, Galena sold the rights to Abstral to Sentynl, and in December 2015, Galena sold the rights to Zuplenz to Midatech Pharma, PLC, or Midatech. Under the respective asset purchase agreements with Sentynl and Midatech, our future obligations under our former agreements with Orexo AB and MonoSol Rx have been assumed by Sentynl and Midatech, respectively, except that we will continue to be responsible for chargebacks, rebates, patient assistance and certain other product distribution channel liabilities related to Abstral and Zuplenz for a specified period of time post-closing. We are also required to indemnify Sentynl and Midatech for contractual or product liability claims arising from actions occurring prior to the sale date. With respect to Zuplenz, we will continue to be responsible for any downstream returns from end user customers or returns from wholesalers from inventory existing as of December 24, 2015 that was sold by us prior to December 24, 2015.

We do not consider our responsibilities with regard to Sentynl and Midatech to be material, but if substantial unknown liabilities were to arise, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims we could incur substantial liabilities, regardless of merit or eventual outcome. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to our Business Operations

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

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Ineffective internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of Common Stock, and which could impact our ability to raise capital in the future. In addition, any future testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (“SOX”), or any required subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our consolidated financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement.

We are required, pursuant to Section 404 of SOX, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018. However, our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. Under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Vice President Finance and Interim Principal Accounting Officer, our management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the guidelines in the Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on that evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2018. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

We face competition from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions for our current product candidates. Our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Competition could result in reduced sales and pricing pressure on our current or future product candidates, if approved, which in turn would reduce our ability to generate meaningful revenues and have a negative impact on our results of operations. In addition, significant delays in the development of our product candidates could allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates. The biotechnology industry, including the cancer immunotherapy market, is intensely competitive and involves a high degree of risk. We compete with other companies that have far greater experience and financial, research and technical resources than us. Potential competitors in the United States and worldwide are numerous and include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, educational institutions and research foundations, many of which have substantially greater capital resources, marketing experience, research and development staffs and facilities than ours. Some of our competitors may develop and commercialize products that compete directly with those incorporating our technology or may introduce products to market earlier than our products or on a more cost-effective basis. In addition, our technology may be subject to competition from other major healthcare marketstechnology or methods developed using techniques other than those developed by traditional biotechnology methods. Our competitors compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to our technology. Our company and our collaborators may face competition with respect to product efficacy and safety, ease of use and adaptability to various modes of administration, acceptance by physicians, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals, availability of resources, reimbursement coverage, price and patent position, including the potentially dominant patent positions of others. An inability to successfully complete our product development or commercializing those product candidates could result in our having limited prospects for establishing market share or generating revenue from our technology.

There are several agents in clinical development in similar settings to our planned Phase 3 AML clinical development program for GPS. The most advanced of these products is oral Vidaza (azacytidine) (also known as CC-486), under development by Celgene Corporation, which is anticipated to report results from a registration-enabling Phase 3 study (named the QUAZAR or CC-486-AML-001 study) by the end of 2019. There are several of other investigational immunotherapies advancing through Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials for target indications that we believe are also potential target indications for GPS. If these or other therapies are successful in their development, it could negatively impact our ability to enroll our clinical trials and could negatively impact the commercial potential of GPS.

We are also planning a clinical development program in combination with cancer checkpoint inhibitors. This is a highly competitive field, with hundreds of such combination trials with various checkpoint inhibitors ongoing. If one or more of these combinations produce positive results in indications that we believe are targets for GPS (either in combination or in stand-alone administration) this could increase the difficulty for us to conduct our trials and could negatively impact our path to regulatory approval and our ability to successfully commercialize our products.

Many of our competitors or potential competitors have been proposed in recent years. These proposals have included prescription drug benefit legislation recently enactedsignificantly greater established presence in the United Statesmarket, financial resources and healthcare reform legislation enacted by certain states. Levels of reimbursementexpertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do, and as a result may decreasehave a competitive advantage over us. Mergers and acquisitions in the future,pharmaceutical and future legislation, regulation or reimbursement policies of third-party payorsbiotechnology industries may adversely affect the demand for and price levelsresult in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through 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 and technology licenses complementary to our programs or potentially advantageous to our business.

As a result of these factors, these competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products before we are able to obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights, which will limit our ability to develop or commercialize our current or future product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are safer, more effective, more widely used and cheaper than ours, and may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. IfThese appreciable advantages could render our customers are not reimbursed for our products, they may reduceproduct candidates obsolete or discontinue purchasesnoncompetitive before we can recover the expenses of development and commercialization.

We enter into various contracts in the normal course of our products,business in which we may be required to indemnify the other party to the contract under certain specific scenarios. In the event we have to perform under these indemnification provisions, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.