Intermune 8K This presentation contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private | ITMN 4 Jun 14

Corporate Overview

June 2014

Exhibit 99.1

Forward-looking Statements

This presentation contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Investors are cautioned that, without limitation, statements in this presentation

regarding InterMune's plans and expectations, including strategies and plans to expand beyond pirfenidone and IPF; the

estimated patient populations suffering from IPF and market potential for pirfenidone in the United States, including

potential pricing estimates; InterMune's expectations regarding the anticipated timing of FDA review of the pirfenidone

NDA; the potential to make pirfenidone available as a medicine to IPF patients in the United States; expectations

regarding U.S. payor mix and reimbursement and revenue update in the U.S.; anticipated timing of initiating a commercial

launch for pirfenidone and the size of a commercial sales force to market pirfenidone in the United States; expectations

regarding year one U.S. Esbriet revenue relative to analog product launches; expectations regarding periods of

intellectual property protection and regulatory exclusivity; and expectations regarding the regulatory approval process and

prospects for success thereof are forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements included in this presentation

are based on information available to InterMune as of the date hereof, and InterMune assumes no obligation to update

any such forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those described in the forward-looking

statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in

detail under the heading “Risk Factors” in InterMune’s periodic reports filed with the SEC, including but not limited to the

following: (i) the risks related to the uncertain, lengthy and expensive clinical development process for the company’s

product candidates; (ii) risks related to the regulatory process for pirfenidone, including that the results of the ASCEND

trial may not be satisfactory to the FDA to receive regulatory approval; (iii) risks related to unexpected regulatory actions

or delays or government regulation generally; (iv) risks related to the company’s manufacturing strategy; (v) government,

industry and general public pricing pressures; (vi) risks related to the company’s ability to successfully launch and

commercialize pirfenidone; and (vii) the company’s ability to maintain intellectual property protection. The risks and other

factors discussed above should be considered only in connection with the risks and other factors discussed in detail in

InterMune’s Form 10-K and its other periodic reports filed with the SEC, which are also available at www.intermune.com.

Our Strategy: Maximize the Value of Esbriet

(Pirfenidone) and Grow Beyond Esbriet and IPF

New formulations

Phase 4

ISTs

Registries

Key launch and

commercialization

activities

Vision: Leader

in Specialty

Fibrotic Diseases

New

indications

Pirfenidone

Analog

LPA-1

Biomarkers

Business

Development

Grow Beyond

Esbriet and IPF

Expand

Esbriet in IPF

Leader in IPF:

Commercialize Esbriet

Commercializing

Esbriet

in IPF

Europe/Canada

Esbriet is now available for prescription for 85%

of the IPF patients in the Top 15 EU countries

Focus First on

Top 5 Countries:

Germany, France,

Italy, UK, Spain

Population of 314

million

~ 70-75% of EU

market value

Esbriet has

launched in

4 of Top 5

Countries

Invest in 10 Mid-Sized

Countries & Regions:

Austria, Nordics (4),

Netherlands, Belgium

Ireland, Iceland and

Luxembourg

~ 10% of EU market

value

Esbriet has

launched in

10 of 10

Mid-Sized

Countries

Our EU Commercialization Strategy:

Focus First on Top 15

Success: 10 Consecutive Quarters of Growth

Esbriet

Revenue

–

and

Canada

•

Anticipate Q over Q growth over time

•

Growth rate expected to moderate due to

fewer country launches and completion of

NPP patient conversions to commercial

customers and the larger revenue base

2.7

4.9

5.5

7.5

8.2

10.5

14.4

19.7

25.7

30.3

Q4’11

Q1’12

Q2’12

Q3’12

Q4’12

Q1’13

Q2’13

Q4’13

Q1’14

Q3’13

Commercializing

Esbriet in IPF

USA

ASCEND Phase 3 Study

for U.S. Registration

ASCEND Study

Efficacy Results

Presented at ATS

May 2014

Primary Efficacy Analysis: Treatment with Pirfenidone

Resulted in a Significant Between-group Difference in

the Rank ANCOVA Analysis (P<0.000001)

Week

Pirfenidone (N=278)

Placebo (N=277)

Absolute Difference

2.5%

7.9%

12.3%

15.3%

Relative Difference

54.0%

58.0%

57.8%

47.9%

Rank

ANCOVA

p-value

<0.000001

0.000002

<0.000001

Primary Efficacy Analysis:

%FVC Change at Week 52

Rank ANCOVA p-value <0.000001

Pirfenidone (N=278)

Placebo (N=277)

Pirfenidone (N=278)

Placebo (N=277)

Relative

Difference

132.5%*

22.7

9.7

16.5

31.8

Relative

Difference

47.9%*

Supportive Analysis of the Primary Endpoint: Treatment

Group

Difference

193

Week

—

45%

Relative

Reduction in the Mean Change in FVC

Absolute difference, mL

59.6

111.0

116.7

192.8

Relative difference

62.5%

54.9%

43.9%

45.1%

Rank ANCOVA P-value

<0.000001

0.000002

<0.000001

Placebo (N=277)

Pirfenidone (N=278)

235 ml

428 ml

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

Week

Supportive Analysis of the Primary Endpoint: Annual Rate of FVC

Decline at Week 52 Favored Pirfenidone (Linear Slope Analysis)

Linear slope analysis: Mixed model with linear time effect adjusted for age, height, and sex

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

Pirfenidone (N=278)

Placebo (N=277)

Absolute Difference, 140 mL/yr

Relative reduction: 53.5%

P<0.0001*

6-Minute Walk Distance: Significant Between-group

Difference in the Change from Baseline to Week 52

Absolute Difference

3.7%

10.9%

9.8%

Relative Difference

24.1%

39.7%

31.8%

27.5%

Rank ANCOVA p-value*

0.401

0.119

0.041

0.036

Tested for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure

Week

Pirfenidone (N=278)

Placebo (N=277)

Time

death

disease

progression

(confirmed

10%

decline

FVC

confirmed

decline

6MWD)

†

Log-rank test

Progression-free Survival*: Pirfenidone Reduced the

Risk of Disease Progression or Death by 43%

Pirfenidone

276

262

243

219

144

Placebo

273

269

225

192

113

Patients at Risk:

Week

100

Placebo (N=277)

Pirfenidone (N=278)

P<0.001

†

HR 0.57 (95% CI, 0.43–0.77)

Pre-Specified

Pooled

(ASCEND

CAPACITY):

All-cause Mortality Analysis (Week 52) —

Pirfenidone Reduced Risk of Death by 48%

Patients, n (%)

Pirfenidone

Placebo

HR (95% CI)

‡

P-value

ASCEND*

(N=555)

11 (4.0)

20 (7.2)

0.55 (0.26–1.15)

0.105

CAPACITY

†

(N=692)

11 (3.2)

22 (6.3)

0.49 (0.24–1.01)

0.047

Pooled Population*

(N=1247)

22 (3.5)

42 (6.7)

0.52 (0.31–0.87)

0.011

HR=hazard ratio; 95% CI=95% confidence interval

Pre-specified secondary endpoint in ASCEND

†

Exploratory analysis in CAPACITY

‡

Cox proportional hazards model

Log-rank test

Pre-Specified

Pooled

All-cause

Mortality

Analysis

(Week 52): Treatment Group Curves Diverge Early and

Continue Separating Throughout the Study Period

Pirfenidone

623

618

609

596

509

Placebo

624

619

603

586

490

Patients at Risk, n:

Cox proportional hazards model

†

Log-rank test

Month

Placebo (N=624)

Pirfenidone (N=623)

HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.31–

0.87)*

P=0.011

†

Pre-Specified Pooled

Treatment-Emergent IPF-related Mortality

(Week 52)*: Pirfenidone Reduced Risk of Death from IPF by 68% —

Difference Between Groups Was Statistically Significant

Patients, n (%)

Pirfenidone

Placebo

HR (95% CI)

P-value

ASCEND

†

(N=555)

3 (1.1%)

7 (2.5%)

0.44 (0.11–1.72)

0.226

CAPACITY

‡

(N=692)

4 (1.2%)

15 (4.3%)

0.27 (0.09-0.81)

0.012

Pooled Population

†

(N=1247)

7 (1.1%)

22 (3.5%)

0.32 (0.14–0.76)

0.006

IPF

relatedness

assessed

blinded

fashion

central

committee

ASCEND

and

investigator

CAPACITY

†

Pre-specified

secondary

endpoint

ASCEND

‡

Exploratory

analysis

CAPACITY

HR=hazard

ratio;

95%

CI=95%

confidence

interval;

Cox

proportional

hazards

model

Log-rank

test

UCSD SOBQ Score: No Significant Difference in

Dyspnea Between Groups at Week 52

Absolute Difference

2.6%

6.2%

3.4%

7.0%

Relative Difference

20.9%

23.9%

10.9%

19.3%

Rank ANCOVA p-value

0.145

0.172

0.258

0.158

ASCEND Study: Treatment-emergent Adverse Events*: Fewer Serious Adverse

Events and Fewer Deaths in the Pirfenidone Group. Less than 4% More Patients

in the Pirfenidone Group Discontinued Treatment Due to an AE

Patients, n (%)

Pirfenidone

(N=278)

Placebo

(N=277)

Any adverse event

277 (99.6)

272 (98.2)

Grade 3

58 (20.9)

61 (22.0)

Grade 4

8 (2.9)

14 (5.1)

Any serious adverse event

55 (19.8)

69 (24.9)

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

7 (2.5)

27 (9.7)

Treatment emergent all-cause mortality

8 (2.9)

15 (5.4)

Any AE leading to treatment D/C

40 (14.4)

30 (10.8)

Occurring

during

treatment

period

(from

first

dose

days

after

last

dose

study

drug)

†

MedDRA

system

organ

class

Patients (%)

Pirfenidone

(N=278)

Placebo

(N=277)

Cough

25.2

29.6

Nausea

36.0

13.4

Headache

25.9

23.1

Diarrhea

22.3

21.7

Upper Respiratory Tract Infection

21.9

20.2

Fatigue

20.9

17.3

Rash

28.1

8.7

Dyspnea

14.7

17.7

Dizziness

17.6

13.0

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

9.4

18.1

Bronchitis

14.0

13.0

Constipation

11.5

13.7

Back pain

10.8

13.4

Dyspepsia

17.6

6.1

Nasopharyngitis

11.9

10.8

Anorexia

15.8

6.5

Vomiting

12.9

8.7

Weight decreased

12.6

7.9

Gastroesophageal reflux

11.9

6.5

Insomnia

11.2

6.5

ASCEND Study: GI and Skin-related Events

Were More Common in the Pirfenidone

Group

Occurring

10%

patients

either

treatment

group

†

Coded

preferred

terms

the

Medical

Dictionary

for

Regulatory

Activities,

version

11.0

ASCEND

Study:

Cough,

Dyspnea,

and

IPF

Worsening

Occurred

with

Greater

Frequency

the

Placebo

Group

Patients (%)

Pirfenidone

(N=278)

Placebo

(N=277)

Cough

25.2

29.6

Nausea

36.0

13.4

Headache

25.9

23.1

Diarrhea

22.3

21.7

Upper Respiratory Tract Infection

21.9

20.2

Fatigue

20.9

17.3

Rash

28.1

8.7

Dyspnea

14.7

17.7

Dizziness

17.6

13.0

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

9.4

18.1

Bronchitis

14.0

13.0

Constipation

11.5

13.7

Back pain

10.8

13.4

Dyspepsia

17.6

6.1

Nasopharyngitis

11.9

10.8

Anorexia

15.8

6.5

Vomiting

12.9

8.7

Weight decreased

12.6

7.9

Gastroesophageal reflux

11.9

6.5

Insomnia

11.2

6.5

Occurring

10%

patients

either

treatment

group

†

Coded

preferred

terms

the

Medical

Dictionary

for

Regulatory

Activities,

version

11.0

Pooled Population (N=1247): Summary

of Efficacy Outcomes at One Year

Decline in %FVC =10% or death

Decline in 6MWD =50 m or death

Progression-free survival

Decline in UCSD SOBQ =20 points or death

All-cause mortality

Treatment-emergent all-cause mortality

IPF-related mortality

Treatment-emergent IPF-related mortality

1.0

1.5

0.4

0.2

0.1

<0.0001

0.0004

<0.0001

0.0471

0.0107

0.0094

0.0029

0.0061

P-value

Relative Risk/Hazard Ratio

Favors

Placebo

Favors

Pirfenidone

Outcome

ASCEND Study: Summary

Treatment with pirfenidone for 52 weeks significantly reduced disease

progression, as measured by

Changes in % predicted FVC (p<0.000001)

Changes in 6-minute walk distance (p=0.036)

Progression-free survival (p<0.001)

Treatment with pirfenidone reduced all-cause mortality and treatment

emergent IPF-related mortality in pooled analyses at Week 52

Pirfenidone was generally safe and well tolerated

NDA resubmitted: May 23, 2014

Class 2 NDA resubmission; six-month FDA review

Build the commercial infrastructure*

•

100-140 will be field-based (sales force, managers, managed care,

support)

•

25-35 will be HQ-based

Majority hired in H2 2014; gated to regulatory progress

Annual non-FTE marketing expense could be approximately in line with

sales force FTE cost

Potential launch in Q1 2015, assuming PDUFA date is met

Commercialize Esbriet in IPF: USA —

Next Steps

U.S.

commercial

team

expected

125-175

employees

*Estimates

finalized

upon

completion

ongoing

market

research

and

analyses.

Field-based

FTE

expense

~$300k

per

head

count.

U.S. IPF Prevalence

U.S. IPF Population

~70k

diagnosed

prevalent

IPF

patients in the U.S.

~30-50k

IPF

patients

with

mild

moderate impairment

EU and Canada label indication is for

mild to moderate patients

All Phase 3 trials to support U.S.

approval are in patients with mild to

moderate impairment

Payors may work to exclude severe

patients from coverage

~6% of patients are not addressable

due to severe liver disease or dialysis

Mild to Moderate

(30,000-50,000)

Severe

(~20,000)

Patient Claims Data from March 2011 –

Feb 2014, projected using US census data for patients with diagnosis codes 516.3, 516.30 and 516.31

InterMune Market Research

Expected U.S. Payor Mix for Esbriet

Approximately 50% of patients are

covered by Medicare Part D

•

Nearly 25% of IPF patients are < 65 yrs.

•

Significant % of patients > age 65 have

commercial insurance

Part D Plans and Commercial Plans

together make up approximately 90% of

IPF patient coverage

Medicaid, Managed Medicaid, and

Assistance Programs account for under

6% of IPF patient coverage

Commercial and Part D plans are likely

to put Esbriet into non-preferred

specialty tier requiring higher co-pays or

co-insurance

Source:

SHA

Prescription

and

Medical

Claims

for

IPF

Diagnosed

Patients

(516.31)

between

Oct

2010

–

Oct

2013

IPF

patients

are

identified

patients

with

least

one

IPF

diagnosis

between

Oct

2010

and

Oct

2013

The

payor

mix

shown

above

based

claims

for

the

identified

IPF

patients

these

months

Medicare

Commercial

Managed Medicaid

Medicaid

Cash

Assistance Programs

Many Factors Impact the Time to Product Reimbursement and

Revenue Uptake During the First 9 Months of Launch

Launch Month

Market Access (6 -

9 months)

•

Minimum

months

convene

P&T

committee

•

Lack

familiarity

with

IPF

adds

review

time

•

Denials,

Prior-Authorization

navigation

and

affordability

will

limit

conversions

first

months

launch

RECAP/EAP

Rollover

months)

•

Rollover

contingent

payer

coverage

•

Patient

cycle

time

Patient

Mix

–

severe

IPF

patients

(4-6

months)

•

Lower

average

persistence/compliance

rates,

deaths

•

Patients

generally

see

pulmonologist

every

3-6

months

•

Time

needed

for

reps

reach

target

prescribers

Patient

cycle

time

months)

Initial

physician

target

coverage

(2-3

months)

Successful U.S. Orphan/Specialty Drug Launches

Revlimid®

Gleevec®

Namenda®

Tracleer®

Peak Revenue

($MM)

$2430

$1939

$1537

$774

Annualized First

Year ($MM)

$299

$151

$45

$51

First Year as % of

Peak

12%

Source: Evaluate Pharma.

Successful analog

products have achieved a

range of 3% to 12% of

peak revenue in their

annualized first year of

sales

We expect Esbriet to be

among the better

performers in this peer

group and therefore be

above the mid-point of this

year-one range

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Revlimid

(2006)

Gleevec (2001)

Namenda

(2003)

Tracleer (2001)

Peak revenue

1st year revenue

(annualized)

•

On average, about one third of the first 12 months’

revenues was

realized in the first two quarters

Successful U.S. Orphan/Specialty Drug Launches: Quarterly Net

Revenue as a Percent of First Year Sales

Source: EvaluatePharma, L.E.K. analysis

Revlimid®

Tracleer®

Gleevec®

•

The fourth quarter comprised roughly 40% of first year revenue

Esbriet Price: Benchmark Products in the U.S. have a

Broad Range of Prices ($000’s/year)*

Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC). Source: AnalySource (12/17/13)

(PAH)

Oral or inhaled administration

Infusion or injection administration

(mCRPC)

(cystic

fibrosis)

(severe

epilepsy)

(multiple

sclerosis)

(multiple

sclerosis)

(multiple

sclerosis)

(cataplexy)

(multiple

sclerosis)

(PAH)

Esbriet IP –

Extends Patent Protection up to 10 Years

Beyond Orphan Drug Status

Comprehensive patent estate provides protection beyond Orphan Drug

exclusivity; 20-year patent terms range from 2026 to 2033

21 patents issued and allowed in U.S., 7 in EU

InterMune’s IP supported by four pillars:

Patent important discoveries around the safe and effective use of Esbriet®

(pirfenidone) made during our research, development and

commercialization of Esbriet

Incorporate the clinically relevant safety and efficacy information into our

prescribing information for Esbriet to provide guidance to doctors so that

Esbriet

therapy

can

administered

safely

and

effectively

possible

Utilize the legal and administrative defenses institutionalized in each

territory

Patent

different

aspects

the

product

and

its

uses

surround

Esbriet

with

many

issued

and

valid

patents

possible

–

“picket

fence”

Esbriet IP and Regulatory Exclusivity

Protection in the U.S.

Exclusivity

Protections

•

Patents covering different aspects of the product and its use provide stronger protection overall

a “picket fence”

•

order

launch,

generics

must

successfully

challenge

avoid

all

InterMune’s

patents

•

Methods of use and formulation patents are historically more likely than not to survive challenge.

Multiple patents also make it more difficult for generics to prevail

•

Safety

information

difficult

for

generics

“carve

out”

proprietor’s

label

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

Safety & Efficacy IP

Formulation IP

Regulatory Exclusivity

Program

Description

Rationale

Status

PANORAMA

Study

Esbriet +/-

NAC

NAC is used widely in

EU and USA

Opportunistic –

PANTHER were

positive

Launched Q3 2013

Under Review post

negative PANTHER

Results (May 2014)

New

Esbriet

Formulations

Development of

optimized

formulation

Enhance patient

experience

Increase compliance

and persistency in IPF

patients

Prototype

formulations in

development

BE study begins H1

2015

Phase 4

Studies of

Esbriet

Expand the Use of

Esbriet in IPF

Build the Esbriet

business, expand the

Esbriet label

Alternative studies

under active

consideration

Expand Esbriet in IPF

PASSPORT/Country

Registries

Esbriet

2012

2014

2013

2015

U.S.

Esbriet

LAUNCH

New Formulation

Studies

LOTUSS Phase 2b (SSc-ILD)

PANORAMA (Esbriet +/-

NAC)

Esbriet

Life

Cycle

Management

BD Activities

External Opportunities Under Evaluation

Internal

Pipeline (Anti-

fibrotics)

IND Development

Phase 1

Drug Discovery

IND Development

Pirfenidone Analog

LPA-1 Inhibitor

Additional Targets

Grow Beyond Esbriet and Beyond IPF

Our Small Molecule Anti-Fibrotic Research Programs

Lead

Compound

Mechanism

Route of

Administration

Dosing

Schedule

Differentiation

Status

IP protection

(Composition

of Matter)

Pirfenidone

Analogs

(ITMN-30162,

ITMN-14440)

Pirfenidone

scaffold,

Anti-TGF-b

Oral

BID to QD

Improved

tolerability,

efficacy &

dosing

schedule

IND-

Dev

~4Q’33

ITMN-10534

LPA1

receptor

antagonist

Oral

TBD

Best-in-class

IND-

Dev

~3Q’32

Compound

Name TBD

LOXL2

inhibition

Oral

TBD

First-in-class

Small Molecule

LOXL2 Inhibitor

Lead

Opt.

>2034

Financial Overview

Cash and cash equivalents (3/31/14): $606.4M

Convertible debt:

$18.4M due 2015: 5.00% coupon, $18.88 conversion price

$120.75M due 2017: 2.50% coupon, $12.87 conversion price

$155M due 2018: 2.50% coupon, $31.80 conversion price

2013

2014 YTD

2014

Guidance

Revenue

$70.3M

$30.3M

$130 -

$140M

R&D

$113.5M

$32.1M

$110 -

$120M

SG&A

$145.1M

$44.3M

$210 -

$225M

Total (R&D + SG&A)

$258.6M

$76.4M

$320 -

$345M

Summary

IPF is an attractive orphan market

Large orphan, huge unmet medical need, strong pricing and small marketing

structure leading to large opportunity with

high operating margins

Esbriet (pirfenidone) has first-mover advantage and continues its

momentum in Europe and Canada

U.S. launch of pirfenidone is a major value creation opportunity

Positive ASCEND results; NDA resubmitted; anticipate 6-month review

Commercial launch potentially in Q1 2015

Lessons and successes learned in the EU and Canada will be applied to U.S.

We are investing to enhance the value of pirfenidone

We are investing to be a leader in the emerging new antifibrotic

market

Intermune (ITMN) Inactive 8-KThis presentation contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private