UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 001-38503

Iterum Therapeutics plc

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Fitzwilliam Court, 1st Floor,

Leeson Close,

Dublin 2, Ireland

(Address of principal executive offices)

Not applicable

(Zip Code)

(+353) 1 669-4820

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. Yes ☐ No ☒.

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. □

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to § 240.10D-1(b). □

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the Registrant’s ordinary shares, $0.01 par value per share, on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 30, 2022, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was $36.7 million.

The number of shares of Registrant’s ordinary shares outstanding as of February 28, 2023 was 12,705,961.

Table of Contents

i

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these words or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this Annual Report may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance

ii

or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this Annual Report to conform these statements to new information, actual results or to changes in our expectations, except as required by law.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as exhibits to this Annual Report with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance, and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

This Annual Report also contains industry, market and competitive position data from our own internal estimates and research as well as industry and general publications and research surveys and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications, studies, and surveys generally state that they have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Our internal data and estimates are based upon information obtained from trade and business organizations and other contacts in the markets in which we operate and our management’s understanding of industry conditions. While we believe that each of these studies and publications is reliable, we have not independently verified market and industry data from third-party sources. While we believe our internal company research is reliable and the market definitions are appropriate, neither such research nor these definitions have been verified by any independent source. The industry in which we operate is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risks due to various factors, including those described in the section titled “Summary of Risk Factors” and “Risk Factors.”

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

iii

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our ordinary shares speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings with the SEC before making investment decisions regarding our ordinary shares. These risks include the following:

iv

v

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company dedicated to developing and commercializing sulopenem to be potentially the first oral penem available in the United States and the first and only oral and intravenous (IV) branded penem available globally. Penems, including thiopenems and carbapenems, belong to a class of antibiotics more broadly defined as ß-lactam antibiotics, the original example of which was penicillin, but which now also includes cephalosporins. Sulopenem is a potent, thiopenem antibiotic delivered intravenously which is active against bacteria that belong to the group of organisms known as gram-negatives and cause urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections. We have also successfully developed sulopenem in an oral tablet formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil-probenecid, which we refer to as oral sulopenem. We believe that sulopenem and oral sulopenem have the potential to be important new treatment alternatives to address growing concerns related to antibacterial resistance without the known toxicities of some of the most widely used antibiotics, specifically fluoroquinolones.

During the third quarter of 2018, we initiated three clinical trials in our Phase 3 development program which included: a Phase 3 uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) clinical trial, known as Sulopenem for Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (SURE) 1, comparing oral sulopenem to oral ciprofloxacin in women with uUTI, a Phase 3 complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) clinical trial known as SURE 2, comparing IV sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem to IV ertapenem followed by oral ciprofloxacin in adults with cUTI and a Phase 3 complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) clinical trial known as SURE 3, comparing IV sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem to IV ertapenem followed by a combination of oral ciprofloxacin and oral metronidazole in adults with cIAI. We designed one Phase 3 clinical trial in each indication based on our end of Phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and feedback from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We conducted the Phase 3 clinical trials under Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) agreements from the FDA. In December 2019, we announced that sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapy for the cIAI trial (SURE 3). In the second quarter of 2020, we announced the results of our Phase 3 clinical trials in cUTI (SURE 2) and uUTI (SURE 1). In the cUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapies with the difference in response rates driven almost entirely by higher rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria on the sulopenem IV to oral sulopenem arm relative to the ertapenem IV to oral ciprofloxacin arm, only evident at the test of cure visit. The rates of patients receiving additional antibiotics or with residual cUTI symptoms were similar between therapies. Similarly, in the uUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to ciprofloxacin in the population of patients with baseline pathogens susceptible to ciprofloxacin driven to a large degree by a greater amount of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem treated patients at the test of cure visit relative to those receiving ciprofloxacin. However, in the uUTI trial, in the population of patients with baseline pathogens resistant to quinolones, sulopenem achieved the related primary endpoint by demonstrating statistical significance in the overall response rate by treatment arm in the ciprofloxacin-resistant population, providing evidence of a treatment effect in patients with uUTI. Based on discussions with the FDA at a pre-New Drug Application (NDA) meeting in September 2020 and previous correspondence with the FDA, we submitted an NDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the FDA accepted the application for review in January 2021. We received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA on July 23, 2021 in respect of our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REnewed ASsessment of Sulopenem in uUTI caused by Resistant Enterobacterales (REASSURE), in October 2022 and anticipate completing enrollment in the first half of 2024. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem.

In November 2015, we acquired an exclusive, worldwide license under certain patents and know-how to develop and commercialize sulopenem and its oral prodrug, sulopenem etzadroxil, from Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer). Pfizer conducted Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials of sulopenem delivered intravenously in Japan in over 1,450 patients with a variety of hospital and community acquired infections. These clinical trials documented a treatment effect in the indications studied and provided preliminary insights into the safety profile for sulopenem, which will continue to be assessed with additional clinical trials. Pfizer subsequently developed sulopenem into a prodrug formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil, to enable oral delivery. Once this prodrug is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract, the etzadroxil ester is immediately cleaved off and the active moiety, sulopenem, is released into the bloodstream. We have further enhanced this prodrug formulation with the addition of probenecid to extend sulopenem’s half-life and enhance its antibacterial potential. Probenecid is a pharmacokinetic enhancer that has been safely and extensively used globally for

1

decades. The oral dose of sulopenem etzadroxil-probenecid has been combined in a single bilayer tablet, which we refer to as oral sulopenem. We refer to sulopenem delivered intravenously as sulopenem and, together with oral sulopenem, as our sulopenem program.

The treatment of urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections has become more challenging because of the development of resistance by pathogens responsible for these diseases. There are approximately 15 million emergency room and office visits for symptoms of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and approximately 33 million uUTIs in the United States annually, with approximately 30% of those infections caused by a quinolone non-susceptible organism, and approximately 1% of infections are caused by pathogens that are resistant to all commonly available classes of oral antibiotics. Based on market research, physicians estimated that approximately 35% of these patients are at elevated risk for treatment failure. Proper antibiotic treatment of drug-resistant infections in this group is particularly important due to the risks associated with treatment failure. Elevated risk patients were defined in the research as patients with recurrent UTIs, elderly patients, patients who have a suspected or confirmed drug-resistant infection, patients with comorbidities (e.g., Diabetes mellitus) or that are immunocompromised, patients that have had a recent hospitalization, patients with a history of prior antibiotic failure and patients in a long-term care setting. Treatment failures pose significant clinical and economic challenges to the healthcare system. A recent retrospective database analysis of 5,395 evaluable outpatient UTI episodes revealed that 22% of patients received an antibiotic to which the pathogen was resistant in vitro, and those patients were almost twice as likely to require a second prescription (34% versus 19%) or be hospitalized (15% versus 8%) within 28 days of the initial prescription fill compared to patients who received an antibiotic to which the pathogen was susceptible. There are also approximately 3.6 million patients with cUTI and approximately 350,000 patients with cIAI that require antibiotic therapy every year in the United States.

Growing antibiotic resistance to E. coli, the primary cause of UTIs, has complicated the choice of treatment alternatives in both the community and hospital settings, reducing effective treatment choices for physicians. In addition, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases recommend against empiric use, or prescribing without results from a bacterial culture, of fluoroquinolones for uUTIs in their 2010 Update to the International Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis and Pyelonephritis in Women. Similarly, the FDA in its November 2015 Advisory Committee meeting stated that the risk of serious side effects caused by fluoroquinolones generally outweighs the benefits for patients with uUTIs and other uncomplicated infections. Subsequently, the FDA mandated labeling modifications for fluoroquinolone antibiotics directing healthcare professionals to reserve fluoroquinolones for patients with no other treatment alternatives. In December 2018, the FDA further warned that fluoroquinolone antibiotics could cause aortic aneurysm and dissection in certain patients, especially older persons. In October 2018, the EMA’s pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee recommended restrictions on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, fluoroquinolones and quinolones, following a review of side effects that were reported to be “disabling and potentially long-lasting.” The committee further stated that fluoroquinolones and quinolones should only be used to treat infections where an antibiotic is essential, and others cannot be used.

None of the most commonly used oral antibiotics for treatment of uUTIs were initially approved by the FDA within the last two decades. We believe oral sulopenem will be an important treatment option for elevated risk uUTI patients because of its potency against resistant pathogens, as well as its spectrum of antibacterial activity. In addition, oral sulopenem will allow patients who develop an infection with a resistant pathogen but are stable enough to be treated in the community, to avoid the need for an IV catheter and even hospitalization.

In the hospital setting, the lack of effective oral stepdown options results in the potential for lengthy hospital stays or insertion of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) to facilitate administration of IV antibiotics, even for some patients with relatively straightforward infections. Our sulopenem program may enable faster discharges, providing cost-saving advantages for the hospital and mitigating the risk of catheter-related infection for patients. Based on potency, safety and formulation advantages, we believe our sulopenem program is uniquely positioned to address unmet medical needs for patients suffering from uncomplicated and complicated infections in both the community and hospital settings.

If approved, we intend to commercialize our sulopenem program in the United States with a commercial partner and/or on our own with a targeted sales force in the community setting. Data from an ongoing epidemiology study to quantify quinolone resistance by zip code, in addition to data from our clinical trials and available prescriber data, will inform our initial targeted sales force as to where the medical need for a new, effective therapy for UTIs is highest in the community setting. Outside of the United States, we are evaluating our options to maximize the value of our sulopenem program.

We expect to register two suppliers and have validated one supplier for the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for oral sulopenem at the time of a potential resubmission of our NDA. We will initially rely on a single third-party facility to manufacture all of our sulopenem tablets. In the future, given the importance of oral sulopenem to our potential commercial results, we will consider establishing additional sources.

2

As of February 28, 2023, we exclusively license from Pfizer two U.S. patents and three foreign patents, including one U.S. patent directed to composition of matter of sulopenem etzadroxil, which is projected to expire in 2029, subject to potential extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act, to 2034, and three foreign patents related to sulopenem etzadroxil. We also own two U.S. patents, with one patent directed to the composition of the bilayer tablet of oral sulopenem and its related uses and the other directed to the method of use of oral sulopenem in treating multiple diseases, including uUTIs. Both patents are projected to expire in 2039, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions. We also own three U.S. patent applications and twenty-seven foreign patent applications, which collectively cover uses of sulopenem and probenecid and bilayer tablets of sulopenem etzadroxil and probenecid. Any U.S. or foreign patents issuing from the pending applications are projected to expire between 2039 and 2041, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions. In addition, the FDA has designated sulopenem and oral sulopenem as Qualified Infectious Disease Products (QIDP) for the indications of uUTI, cUTI, cIAI, community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, acute bacterial prostatitis, gonococcal urethritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease pursuant to the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act (the GAIN Act). Fast track designation for these seven indications in both the oral and intravenous formulations has also been granted. QIDP status makes sulopenem and oral sulopenem eligible to benefit from certain incentives for the development of new antibiotics provided under the GAIN Act. Further, QIDP status could add five years to any regulatory exclusivity period that we may be granted. QIDP status for other indications is also possible given the coverage of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria by sulopenem, pending submission of additional documentation and acceptance by the FDA. Fast track status provides an opportunity for more frequent meetings with the FDA, more frequent written communication related to the clinical trials, eligibility for accelerated approval and priority review and the potential for a rolling review. None of our licensed patents cover the IV formulation of sulopenem.

Sulopenem Program, Clinical and Regulatory Status

We pursued three initial indications for oral sulopenem and sulopenem in three Phase 3 clinical trials. We designed these Phase 3 clinical trials based on extensive in vitro microbiologic surveillance data, Phase 1 pharmacokinetic data from healthy volunteers as well as population pharmacokinetic data from patients, animal models in relevant disease settings, Phase 2 data from a program performed with sulopenem by Pfizer in Japan in the early 1990s, and regulatory feedback from the FDA at our end-of-Phase 2 meeting, all supported by an advanced commercial manufacturing program which provided clinical supplies.

During the third quarter of 2018, we initiated three clinical trials in our Phase 3 development program, being the SURE 1 trial, the SURE 2 trial and the SURE 3 trial. We designed one Phase 3 clinical trial in each indication based on our end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA and feedback from the EMA. We conducted the Phase 3 clinical trials under SPA agreements from the FDA. In December 2019, we announced that sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapy for the cIAI trial (SURE 3). In the second quarter of 2020, we announced the results of our Phase 3 clinical trials in cUTI (SURE 2) and uUTI (SURE 1). In the cUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapies with the difference in response rates driven almost entirely by higher rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria on the sulopenem IV to oral sulopenem arm relative to the ertapenem IV to oral ciprofloxacin arm, only evident at the test of cure visit. The rates of patients receiving additional antibiotics or with residual cUTI symptoms were similar between therapies. Similarly, in the uUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to ciprofloxacin in the population of patients with baseline pathogens susceptible to ciprofloxacin driven to a large degree by a greater amount of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem treated patients at the test of cure visit relative to those receiving ciprofloxacin. However, in the uUTI trial, in the population of patients with baseline pathogens resistant to quinolones, sulopenem achieved the related primary endpoint by demonstrating statistical significance in the overall response rate by treatment arm in the ciprofloxacin-resistant population, providing evidence of a treatment effect in patients with uUTI. Based on discussions with the FDA at a pre-NDA meeting in September 2020 and previous correspondence with the FDA, we submitted an NDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the FDA accepted the application for review in January 2021. We received a CRL from the FDA on July 23, 2021 in respect of our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone, and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem.

3

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to develop and commercialize our sulopenem program for multiple indications, and in the long term to build a market-leading anti-infective business. The key elements of this strategy include the following:

The Medical Need

Urinary Tract and Intra-Abdominal Infections

UTIs are among the most common bacterial infections encountered in the ambulatory setting. A UTI occurs when one or more parts of the urinary system (kidneys, ureters, bladder or urethra) become infected with a pathogen (most frequently, bacteria). While many UTIs are not considered life-threatening, if the infection reaches the kidneys, serious illness, and even death, can occur. UTI diagnoses are stratified between either complicated or uncomplicated infections. uUTI refers to the invasion of a structurally and functionally normal urinary tract by a nonresident infectious organism (e.g., acute cystitis), and is diagnosed and commonly treated in an outpatient setting with an oral agent. Conversely, cUTIs, including acute pyelonephritis, are defined as a UTI ascending from the bladder accompanied by local and systemic signs and symptoms, including fever, chills, malaise, flank pain, back pain, and/or costo-vertebral angle pain or tenderness, that occur in the presence of a functional or anatomical abnormality of the urinary tract or in the presence of catheterization, with treatment typically initiated by IV therapy in a hospital setting.

cIAIs have similar challenges to those of cUTIs. These complicated infections extend from a gastrointestinal source, such as the appendix or the colon, into the peritoneal space and can be associated with abscess formation.

Antimicrobial Resistance is Increasing

E. coli is growing increasingly resistant to many classes of antibiotics, which is especially problematic for patients suffering from UTIs because E. coli is the primary cause of those infections. The market-leading antibiotics, fluoroquinolones (e.g., Cipro, Levaquin) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (e.g., Bactrim, Septra), currently have E. coli resistance rates over 20% nationally. In 2019, approximately 40% of oral prescriptions for UTIs written in the United States were for fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In hospitals, fluoroquinolones have greater than 30% resistance to E. coli in approximately half the states in the United States, and have greater than 25% resistance rates in nearly 80% of the states. According to national data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fluoroquinolones had greater than 33% resistance to E. coli in the United States in 2019 in hospitalized patients, and in 2020, the national resistance rate of E. coli to fluoroquinolones increased to 35.2%. Further, the national resistance rate of E. coli to cephalosporins, which is a common marker for extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing E. coli, was estimated to be approximately 13% for the combined years of 2011 to 2015, and in 2020, and the resistance rate to cephalosporins was reported to be 24.7% by the CDC. Between 2000 and 2009 the prevalence of extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing E. coli and ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae more than doubled from 3.3% to 8.0% and from 9.1% to 18.6%, respectively. During the same timeframe, hospitalizations caused by ESBL-producing organisms increased by about 300%.

We have further delineated the prevalence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics used to treat UTIs in the United States. Based on urine culture results obtained at the zip code level from outpatient UTIs, we concluded that the prevalence of resistance of Enterobacteriaceae to quinolone antibiotics is over 20% in a significant portion of the country. In addition, in 2015, 25 states identified as high prevalence for E. coli resistance produced approximately 75% of all UTI prescriptions in the United States.

4

Geographic prevalence of quinolone non-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae by zip code in outpatient
urine cultures.

Numbers represent hospital centers from which data were derived

As antibiotic resistance leads to increased costs of treatment and increased morbidity, as well as increased mortality, there is an urgent unmet medical need for antimicrobial agents that can be utilized in community and hospital infections. A recent nationwide database study that evaluated trends in antibiotic resistance in urinary Enterobacterales isolates from ambulatory patients in the United States revealed that antimicrobial resistance was common in urinary Enterobacterales isolates. Isolates with an ESBL-producing phenotype increased by about 30% between 2011 and 2020, and significant increases were also observed in nitrofurantoin non-susceptible Enterobacterales isolates. Resistance rates for all four antibiotic classes (fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole, nitrofurantoin and β-lactams), were higher than thresholds recommended for use as empiric therapy. The antimicrobial class of penems has the potential to address many of the relevant resistance issues associated with ß-lactam antibiotics because of a targeted spectrum of antibacterial activity and intrinsic stability against hydrolytic attack by many ß-lactamases, including ESBL and AmpC enzymes.

There is a Significant Population at Risk

There are approximately 15 million emergency room and office visits for symptoms of UTIs and approximately 33 million uUTIs in the United States annually with approximately 30% of those infections caused by a quinolone non-susceptible organism, and approximately 1% of infections are caused by pathogens that are resistant to all commonly available classes of oral antibiotics. Based on market research, physicians estimated that approximately 35% of these patients are at elevated risk for treatment failure. Proper antibiotic treatment of drug-resistant infections in this group is particularly important due to the consequences associated with treatment failure. Elevated risk patients were defined in the research as patients with recurrent UTIs, elderly patients, patients who have a suspected or confirmed drug-resistant infection, patients with comorbidities (e.g., Diabetes mellitus) or that are immunocompromised, patients that have had a recent hospitalization, patients with a history of prior antibiotic failure and patients in a long-term care setting.

There are also approximately 3.6 million patients with cUTI and approximately 350,000 patients with cIAI that require antibiotic therapy every year in the United States.

Limited Treatment Options

In addition to worsening antibiotic resistance, many of the antibiotics currently used for first-line empiric oral treatment of uUTIs, such as nitrofurantoin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, suffer from significant safety and tolerability concerns. Pulmonary fibrosis and diffuse interstitial pneumonitis have been observed in patients treated with nitrofurantoin, which is contraindicated in pregnant women after 38 weeks of gestation and newborn children due to hemolytic anemia and in patients with poor renal function. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is associated with fatal hypersensitivity reactions, embryofetal toxicity, hyperkalemia, gastrointestinal disturbances and rashes, including rare cases of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. In addition, some antibiotics, such as nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin, have poor tissue penetration. While fluoroquinolones are now the most widely used antibiotic class in

5

treating community and hospital gram-negative infections, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases now recommend against empiric use of fluoroquinolones for uUTIs in their 2010 Update to the International Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis and Pyelonephritis in Women as they “have a propensity for collateral damage and should be reserved for important uses other than acute cystitis and thus should be considered alternative antimicrobials for acute cystitis.” Similarly, the FDA in its November 2015 Advisory Committee meeting stated that the risk of serious side effects caused by fluoroquinolones generally outweighs the benefits for patients with uUTIs and other uncomplicated infections. Serious side effects associated with fluoroquinolones include tendon rupture, tendinitis, and worsening symptoms of myasthenia gravis and peripheral neuropathy. Subsequently, the FDA mandated labeling modifications for fluoroquinolones antibiotics directing healthcare professionals to reserve fluoroquinolones for patients with no other treatment alternatives. In December 2018 the FDA further warned that fluoroquinolone antibiotics could cause aortic aneurysm and dissection in certain patients, especially older persons. In October 2018, the EMA’s pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee recommended restrictions on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, fluoroquinolones and quinolones, following a review of side effects that were reported to be “disabling and potentially long-lasting”. The committee further stated that fluoroquinolones and quinolones should only be used to treat infections where an antibiotic is essential, and others cannot be used.

The limited oral antibiotic treatment options for patients with uUTIs can sometimes result in hospitalization to facilitate administration of IV antibiotics for patients whose infection progresses. In addition, some patients whose uUTI remains uncomplicated may require hospital admission for IV therapy. For patients with cUTIs, the lack of effective oral stepdown options, and the paucity of new treatment options, which is demonstrated by the fact that none of the most commonly used oral agents were initially approved by the FDA in the last two decades, results in the potential for lengthy hospital stays or insertion of a PICC to facilitate administration of IV antibiotics, even for some patients with relatively straightforward infections. Therefore, based both on the epidemiology described above and recent discussions with practicing clinicians and pharmacists, we believe there is a pressing need for a novel oral antibacterial therapy for UTI, both complicated and uncomplicated, that has potent activity against ESBL producing and quinolone resistant gram-negative organisms.

The Challenge of Developing Antibiotics

Antibiotics work by targeting a critical function of the bacteria and rendering it non-functional. These critical functions include the ability to make proteins, to replicate further, and to build protective envelopes against the harsh external environment. These functions are coded in the bacteria’s DNA, which is copied over to each generation. Occasionally errors are made in the copying; typically, these errors kill off the progeny but can sometimes actually help them survive under specific circumstances, namely when threatened by an antibiotic.

Bacterial mutations, these changes in DNA coding, allow the organism to adapt their protein structures so as to prevent target-specific antibiotics from working. Over time, subsequent generations of bacteria retain these mutations and even develop additional mutations making them resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics and generating what is known as multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens. Furthermore, bacteria have also developed mechanisms that allow them to pass these genetic mutations directly to other nearby bacteria, even those from a different species. As there are a limited number of antibiotic classes available today, there is a concern that eventually we will not have any antibiotics to treat patients who develop an infection caused by these MDR bacteria. We continue to need new antibiotics that stay one step ahead of these mutating bacteria in order to protect against the infections that they cause.

The Solution to Rising Resistance

The solution to the problem of resistance is based on strategies to use those antibiotics only when patients really need them, limiting the number of opportunities for the bacteria to develop these mutations, and to continue efforts aimed at the discovery and development of new and effective antibacterial agents.

These new agents will need to:

For the last thirty years, the penem class of antibiotics, including carbapenems such as imipenem, meropenem, doripenem and ertapenem, have been potent and reliable therapeutic options for patients with serious infections. Their spectrum of activity includes those pathogens responsible for infections such as those in the intra-abdominal space, urinary tract, and respiratory tract with a

6

potency as good or better than any other antibiotic class, targeting the cell wall of bacteria, a critical element of bacterial defense. Resistance to the class, generally caused by organisms which have acquired a carbapenemase, is rarely, if ever, seen in the community setting and is primarily localized to patients with substantial healthcare exposures, particularly recent hospitalizations. These drugs are generally very well tolerated. Their limitation is the requirement to be delivered intravenously, restricting their utility to hospitalized patients.

Our Sulopenem Program

Our sulopenem program has the potential to offer a solution to the problem of antibiotic resistance and the limitations of existing agents. Sulopenem has in vitro activity against gram-negative organisms with resistance to one or more established antibiotics and can be delivered in an oral formulation. If a UTI occurs in the community setting, oral sulopenem can be provided as a tablet, offering an option for care of those with a culture proven or suspected MDR pathogen, potentially avoiding the need for hospitalization. If a patient requires hospitalization for an infection due to a resistant organism, treatment can be initiated intravenously with sulopenem and once the infection begins to improve, stepped down to oral sulopenem, potentially enabling the patient to leave the hospital.

Potential Advantages of Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem

We are developing our sulopenem program to offer patients and clinical care providers a new option to treat drug-resistant gram-negative infections with confidence in its antimicrobial activity, and the flexibility to treat patients in the community while getting those hospitalized back home.

Sulopenem’s differentiating characteristics include:

7

Market Opportunity for Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem

Based upon the clinical evidence to date in eradicating key pathogens, coupled with unmet medical need, if approved, we expect the commercial opportunity for oral sulopenem to be substantial with initial focus on the treatment of uUTIs in elevated risk patients caused by drug-resistant pathogens in the community. We estimate that approximately 30% of uUTIs in the United States are caused by quinolone non-susceptible pathogens, and approximately 1% of infections are caused by pathogens that are resistant to all commonly available classes of oral antibiotics.

Acute cystitis remains one of the most common indications for prescribing antimicrobials to otherwise healthy women, resulting in as many as 15 million office or emergency room visits in the United States annually, according to a review published in 2015. Up to 50% of all women experience one episode by 32 years of age. In addition, there are approximately 3.6 million patients a year in the United States for the more serious cases of cUTI.

In the United States, E. coli resistance presently exceeds 20% for fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and ampicillin. Our market research indicated that physicians identified the lack of effective oral agents for these more difficult drug-resistant infections as a key unmet need in their practice. Physicians are particularly concerned by drug-resistant infections in the 35% of patients considered to be at elevated risk for treatment failure, as they pose significant potential clinical and economic challenges to the healthcare system when initial therapy is unsuccessful.

Given the growing prevalence of bacterial resistance that has rendered existing oral therapies ineffective, coupled with the FDA mandating new safety labeling changes to enhance warnings limiting fluoroquinolone use in uncomplicated infections due to the association with disabling and potentially permanent side effects, physicians are seeking new alternatives to safely and effectively treat their patients.

We believe oral sulopenem’s value proposition will aid physicians in the community setting to address the unmet need for a safe and effective oral uUTI therapy to treat the growing number of patients with suspected or confirmed resistant pathogen(s). In addition, we believe our sulopenem program will offer a compelling value proposition to hospitals by enabling the transition of patients from IV therapy in the inpatient setting to an oral therapy in the community.

Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem Clinical Development Program

The objective of our sulopenem program is to deliver to patients an oral and IV formulation of sulopenem approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of infections due to resistant gram-negative pathogens. Sulopenem’s spectrum of activity, the availability of an oral agent delivered in a convenient dosing schedule and the evolving safety profile supported its further development for the target indications of uUTI, cUTI and cIAI. Oral sulopenem is the oral prodrug metabolized to sulopenem, its therapeutically active form, combined with probenecid.

Both sulopenem and oral sulopenem have received QIDP designation status for the indications of uUTI, cUTI and cIAI as well as for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, acute bacterial prostatitis, gonococcal urethritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease. Fast track designation for these seven indications in both the oral and intravenous formulations has also been granted. QIDP designation status for other indications is also possible given the coverage of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria by sulopenem, pending submission of additional documentation and acceptance by the FDA. We had received feedback on the development program in an end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA, which provided guidance on the size of the safety database, the non-clinical study

8

requirements, the design of the Phase 1 and Phase 3 clinical trials, the pediatric development plan, as well as support for the proposed chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) development activities through production of commercial supplies. The Phase 3 clinical trials for treatment of cIAI, cUTI and uUTI received SPA agreements with the FDA. All three Phase 3 clinical trials were initiated in the third quarter of 2018 and completed enrollment by the end of 2019. In December 2019, we announced that sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapy for the cIAI trial. EMA Scientific Advice received by us, consistent with the existing guidance for this indication, supports an endpoint assessed earlier than the primary study endpoint and a non-inferiority margin of -12.5%. In the second quarter of 2020, we announced the results of our Phase 3 clinical trials in cUTI and uUTI. In the cUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapies, with the difference in response rates driven almost entirely by higher rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria on the sulopenem IV to oral sulopenem arm relative to the ertapenem IV to oral ciprofloxacin arm, only evident at the test of cure visit. The rates of patients receiving additional antibiotics or with residual cUTI symptoms were similar between therapies. Similarly, in the uUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to ciprofloxacin in the population of patients with baseline pathogens susceptible to ciprofloxacin, driven to a large degree by a greater amount of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem treated patients at the test of cure visit relative to those receiving ciprofloxacin. However, in the uUTI trial, in the population of patients with baseline pathogens resistant to quinolones, sulopenem achieved the related primary endpoint by demonstrating superiority to ciprofloxacin, providing evidence of a treatment effect in patients with uUTI. Notwithstanding failure to meet the endpoints described above, in all three Phase 3 clinical trials, at all timepoints measured, the clinical response to sulopenem and/or oral sulopenem was similar to the comparator regimen (non-inferior), except in the instance of the quinolone non-susceptible population in the Phase 3 uUTI trial in which oral sulopenem was statistically superior. Further, we believe the secondary supporting analyses and safety data support the potential of sulopenem in the treatment of multi-drug resistant infections. Based on discussions with the FDA at a pre-NDA meeting in September 2020 and previous correspondence with the FDA, we submitted an NDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the FDA accepted the application for review in January 2021. As described above, we received a CRL from the FDA on July 23, 2021 in respect of our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem.

Microbiology Surveillance Data

Sulopenem has demonstrated potent in vitro activity, as defined by its minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), against nearly all genera of Enterobacteriaceae, in anaerobes such as Bacteroides, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium and Peptostreptococcus, gram-positive organisms including methicillin-susceptible staphylococci, Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae, as well as other community respiratory pathogens such as Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The MIC is a measure used to describe the results of an in vitro assay in which a fixed number of a strain of bacteria are added to a 96-well plate and increasing concentrations of antibiotic are sequentially added to the wells. The concentration of antibiotic which inhibits growth of the bacteria in a well is considered the MIC. When looking across a collection of many strains of a species of bacteria, the MIC90 is the lowest concentration of antibiotic at which 90% of the strains are inhibited. Sulopenem lacks in vitro activity (MIC90 ≥ 16 µg/mL) against the oxidative non-fermenting pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumanii, Burkholderia cepacia, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Given its lack of potency against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, its use in treatment of infections caused by pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae should not select for pseudomonas resistant to carbapenems, as can occur with imipenem and meropenem. For various species of enterococci, the MIC90 values were 4 to ≥ 64 µg/mL. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci also have high MIC values.

9

The table below highlights the MIC50 and MIC90 of key target pathogens collected by JMI Laboratories in 2019 responsible for the infections studied in our Phase 3 program.

A comparison of the in vitro activity of sulopenem relative to other carbapenems, as well as to currently prescribed oral agents for UTI, is provided below. The activity of sulopenem at slightly higher doses was very similar to that of ertapenem and meropenem, which are currently commercially available. In addition, sulopenem is noted to have potent in vitro activity against relevant organisms that are resistant to fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and are ESBL positive. The prevalence of resistance for the existing generic antibiotics, now exceeding 20% for many pathogens, underscores the challenge of treating patients with uUTI in an outpatient setting or releasing patients from the hospital with a cUTI or cIAI on a reliable stepdown oral therapy.

N = bacterial samples; each product candidate was tested using the same sample size

% S = percentage susceptible, meaning the proportion of the number of isolates tested that had a MIC below the FDA defined
susceptibility breakpoint; boxed values signify a percentage susceptible below 80%, which is the threshold for concern for
use of an antibiotic before a culture is available

* Susceptibility breakpoints are established by the FDA and documented in product labeling based on the antibacterial agent treatment efficacy in Phase 3 clinical trials associated with a specific MIC. As such, susceptibility breakpoints have not yet been determined for sulopenem.

Animal Models

Sulopenem reduced the bacterial burden in the bladder and tissues of infected animals in a uUTI model in both diabetic and normal C3H/HeN mice using a MDR ST131 E. coli, a strain which is ESBL positive and resistant to fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulopenem was highly efficacious and remarkably robust in its reduction in bacterial burden, leading to complete resolution of bacteriuria in all or most of the animals in both study arms with the high dose treatment regimen also reducing bacterial burden in bladder tissue and the kidney.

10

Non-clinical Pharmacology

Metabolic clearance is primarily characterized by hydrolysis of the ß-lactam ring. Sulopenem does not inhibit the major cytochrome P450 isoforms suggesting a low potential for drug interactions at therapeutic concentrations. It is predominantly excreted in the urine. Plasma protein binding for sulopenem is low at approximately 11%.

Phase 1 Program

The table below outlines the Phase 1 clinical trials that have been conducted with sulopenem etzadroxil and sulopenem.

Note: Total number reflects the sum of patients exposed to a specific formulation and dosing duration and will overestimate the number of subjects exposed as some subjects received more than one formulation in a study.

Oral Sulopenem

We have designed oral sulopenem to include probenecid, a pharmacokinetic enhancer that delays the excretion through the kidneys of sulopenem and other ß-lactam antibiotics and has been extensively used for this purpose and the treatment of gout. It enables us to maximize the antibacterial potential of any given dose of oral sulopenem.

We conducted three Phase 1 clinical trials, IT001-101, IT001-102 and IT001-105, in healthy volunteers, in part to select the prodrug and explore various doses of probenecid combined with 500 mg of sulopenem etzadroxil. Findings from these clinical trials are consistent with those from other pharmacokinetic studies that employed different total doses of sulopenem etzadroxil. Specifically,

11

the AUC (area under the curve, a measure of total exposure) and Cmax (maximum plasma concentration) are generally dose-proportional, and the concomitant use of probenecid increases the plasma exposure of sulopenem with any dose with which it was studied.

The mean total sulopenem exposures in the urine after a single 500 mg dose in IT001-101 exceeded the MIC90 for the entire twice-daily dosing interval in the 32 healthy volunteers who received 500 mg of sulopenem etzadroxil, as illustrated in the graph below. In a urine antibacterial assay, urine collected at two hours post-dose was bactericidal for numerous strains of E. coli and K. pneumoniae, including a strain of K. pneumoniae that was resistant to meropenem and imipenem, with a sulopenem MIC of 16 µg/mL.

Mean total sulopenem exposure in urine after single 500 mg dose of sulopenem etzadroxil with or without probenecid

In IT001-102, we evaluated sulopenem etzadroxil administered with and without probenecid in a randomized cross-over trial in healthy volunteers in a fasted state. Subjects receiving sulopenem etzadroxil in a powder-in-a-bottle formulation co-administered with a separate tablet of probenecid demonstrated an increase in the time over MIC (of a 12 hour dosing interval) and AUC of sulopenem, as shown in the table below.

N = number of subjects; Cmax = maximum plasma concentration; AUC0- = area under the curve from the initiation of dosing extrapolated
through infinite time

In addition, results from IT001-101 demonstrated that food increases the mean AUC and mean time over MIC (0.5 µg/mL) of 500 mg sulopenem etzadroxil dosed with 500 mg probenecid on Day 1 by 62% and 68%, respectively.

12

In IT001-105 we studied the bioavailability of sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid in our planned commercial formulation of a bilayer tablet. The absolute bioavailability of the bilayer tablet was approximately 40% in a fasted state and 64% in the fed state. A graph of the sulopenem plasma concentrations in the patients in this trial is provided below.

A Phase 1 drug interaction study with itraconazole demonstrated no interaction. An additional Phase 1 drug interaction study with valproic acid was also conducted which showed that IV sulopenem decreased the AUC and Cmax of valproic acid by approximately 33% and 28%, respectively, and oral sulopenem etzadroxil tablet without probenecid decreased valproic acid AUC and Cmax by approximately 25% and 19%, respectively, relative to valproic acid alone. These results are consistent with reports in the literature for other penem antibiotics co-administered with valproic acid. In contrast, multiple doses of sulopenem etzadroxil as the bilayer tablet had no effect on valproic acid AUC and Cmax relative to administration of valproic acid alone.

Sulopenem, IV Formulation

Doses of sulopenem up to 2800 mg as a single IV dose and 2000 mg BID, or twice daily, of sulopenem as IV over fourteen days were studied in three Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy adults, one study in patients with renal insufficiency in the United States and two Phase 1 clinical trials in Japan. Results from these pharmacokinetic studies with various IV doses of sulopenem delivered over various durations established dose proportionality among the regimens with regard to AUC and maximal plasma concentrations (Cmax). A representative analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters, a subset of study A1091001, is described in the table below.

N = number of subjects; Cmax = maximum plasma concentration; AUC0-¥ = area under the curve from the initiation of dosing extrapolated
through infinite time; T½ = half-life; CLtotal = clearance (only measured on Day 14)

13

A single dose cross-over design study of 1000 mg of sulopenem infused over 3 hours was given to fasting healthy adults in our IT001-105 Phase 1 clinical trial. Pharmacokinetic parameters observed in this trial are described in the table below.

Modeling and Dose Selection

Based on in vitro susceptibility data from surveillance studies, pharmacokinetics gathered from Phase 1 clinical trials, and population pharmacokinetic data from patients, we performed modeling to help choose the doses for the Phase 3 program. The MIC90 for all Enterobacteriaceae potentially involved in the target indications was 0.25 µg/mL and for the weighted distribution of pathogens most likely to be associated with the indication was 0.06 µg/mL. We have performed modeling both for the weighted distribution of MICs expected in the clinical trials as well as at a fixed MIC of 0.5 µg/mL. Data obtained from animal experiments confirmed that, similar to carbapenems and lower than that for other ß-lactams, the %Tfree >MIC required for bacteriostasis is approximately 10–19%, depending on the dosing regimen; we have used 17% in our models. Based on the outputs from those models, the IV dose of sulopenem studied in the Phase 3 clinical trials was 1000 mg sulopenem delivered over 3 hours once a day. The oral dose studied was 500 mg of sulopenem etzadroxil given with 500 mg of probenecid in a single bilayer tablet twice daily.

Phase 2 Clinical Trial with sulopenem and sulopenem etzadroxil

In 2009, Pfizer initiated a Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial in hospitalized patients with CAP comparing two regimens of IV sulopenem followed by sulopenem etzadroxil to ceftriaxone IV followed by amoxicillin-clavulanate. The sulopenem regimens were a single 600 mg IV dose of sulopenem followed by 1000 mg BID of sulopenem etzadroxil or a 600 mg of sulopenem for a minimum of four doses followed by 1000 mg BID of sulopenem etzadroxil. The clinical trial was terminated early for business reasons after 33 of 250 planned total patients were enrolled and treated. Clinical response rates at the test-of-cure visit (7–14 days after end of therapy) of the ITT patients were similar on each regimen (9/10, 9/11 and 7/12, on sulopenem single IV dose, sulopenem multidose IV and ceftriaxone, respectively). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in six subjects each in the sulopenem groups and eight subjects in the ceftriaxone group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhea, reported by a total of six subjects (two in each treatment group). Treatment related diarrhea was reported by one subject following sulopenem single dose IV, and by a further two subjects following ceftriaxone. There was one treatment-related serious adverse event in the ceftriaxone group. There were no deaths reported in this clinical trial.

14

Phase 3 Clinical Trials - Completed

Based on FDA Guidance from February 2015 (Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment. Guidance for Industry; Complicated Urinary Tract Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment. Guidance for Industry) and on studies conducted by other sponsors, we negotiated SPA agreements for cUTI, cIAI and uUTI. All three Phase 3 clinical trials were initiated in the third quarter of 2018, and completed enrollment by the end of 2019. Oral sulopenem alone was studied for the treatment of outpatients with a uUTI. Oral sulopenem and sulopenem were studied for the treatment of cIAI and cUTI. A brief overview of the comparator agents, sample size, timing of efficacy assessments and duration of oral and IV dosing is provided in the graphic below. Non-inferiority in these clinical trials was defined by the lower limit of the confidence interval in the treatment difference of no more than -10%. The uUTI clinical trial also tested for superiority in the subset of patients with ciprofloxacin resistant pathogens at baseline. An open-label noncomparative treatment study of oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily for three days in uUTI patients was conducted to help characterize certain sample size assumptions as well as enable study logistics for this Phase 3 clinical trial. Patients in the cUTI and cIAI clinical trials received five days of sulopenem IV or comparator and then stepped down to two to five additional days of oral treatment with either oral sulopenem or ciprofloxacin. In the cIAI study, metronidazole was added to ciprofloxacin in the oral stepdown regimen.

Patients with an organism resistant to ciprofloxacin in the cUTI and cIAI clinical trials were allowed to substitute amoxicillin-clavulanate for the stepdown oral therapy. Patients who received oral sulopenem were encouraged, but not required, to dose with food.

In the uUTI trial, clinical outcome at the test-of-cure visit was noted as cure for those patients who are alive, who demonstrate resolution of the symptoms of uUTI present at trial entry (and no new symptoms) such that no new antibiotics are required, as well as the demonstration that the bacterial pathogen(s) found at trial entry are reduced to <103 CFU/mL on urine culture on Day 12. The primary endpoint was clinical and microbiologic response on Day 12 in the micro-MITT population. The micro-MITT population consists of those randomized patients who received a dose of study drug and had a gram-negative organism isolated in their urine. Two independent populations were prespecified and tested for an overall response of success at the test of cure (TOC) (Day 12): a) Superiority (286 patients): quinolone non-susceptible population assessed for superiority, defined as a p value <0.05, and b) Non-inferiority (785 patients): quinolone-susceptible population tested for non-inferiority, based on lower limit of 95% confidence interval for difference in microbiologic-modified intent to treat population being less than -10%.

15

ASB = asymptomatic bacteriuria; EOT = end of trial; TOC = test of cure

In the quinolone non-susceptible population, sulopenem is superior to ciprofloxacin. In the Combined TOC (quinolone susceptible and quinolone non-susceptible populations), sulopenem is non-inferior to ciprofloxacin; however, in the quinolone susceptible population only, sulopenem is not non-inferior due primarily to asymptomatic bacteriuria at TOC (at end of treatment, results are similar between arms).

In the Phase 3 cUTI trial, clinical outcome at the test-of-cure visit was noted as cure for those patients who are alive, who demonstrate resolution of the symptoms of cUTI present at trial entry (and no new symptoms) such that no new antibiotics are required, as well as the demonstration that the bacterial pathogen(s) found at trial entry are reduced to <103 CFU/mL on urine culture on Day 21. The primary endpoint was clinical and microbiologic response on Day 21 in the micro-MITT population. The micro-MITT population consists of those randomized patients who received a dose of study drug and had a gram-negative organism isolated in their urine. In this population, the difference in outcomes was 6.1% with a 95% confidence interval on that difference of -12.0% to -0.1%. Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint required that the lower limit of the difference in the outcome rates be >-10%.

In the Phase 3 cIAI trial, clinical outcome at the test-of-cure visit was noted as cure for those patients who are alive, have resolution in signs and symptoms of the index infection and for whom no new antibiotics or interventions for treatment failure were required. The primary endpoint was clinical response on Day 28 in the micro-MITT population. The micro-MITT population consists of those randomized patients who received a dose of study drug and had a gram-negative organism isolated from their infection site. In

16

this population, the difference in outcomes was 4.7% with a 95% confidence interval on that difference of -10.3% to 1.0%. Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint required that the lower limit of the difference in the outcome rates be >-10%:

Safety Profile of Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem

Sulopenem is a thiopenem and a member of the class of ß-lactam antibiotics, a class from which numerous safe and well tolerated antibiotics have been available for over thirty years.

In the cIAI trial, among 668 treated patients, treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6.0% and 5.1% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, with the most commonly reported drug-related adverse event being diarrhea, which was observed in 4.5% and 2.4% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively. Discontinuations from treatment were uncommon for both regimens, occurring in 1.5% of patients on sulopenem and 2.1% of patients on ertapenem. Serious adverse events unrelated to study treatment were seen in 7.5% of patients on sulopenem and 3.6% of patients on ertapenem. In the cUTI trial, patients received either sulopenem IV followed by sulopenem etzadroxil, if eligible for oral therapy, or ertapenem IV followed by ciprofloxacin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, if eligible for oral therapy. Among 1,392 treated patients, treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6.0% and 9.2% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, with the most commonly reported adverse events being headache (3.0% and 2.2%), diarrhea (2.7% and 3.0%) and nausea (1.3% and 1.6%), on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively. Discontinuations from treatment were uncommon for both regimens, occurring in 0.4% of patients on sulopenem and 0.6% of patients on ertapenem. Serious adverse events unrelated to study treatment were seen in 2.0% of patients on sulopenem and 0.9% of patients on ertapenem. In the uUTI trial, patients received either oral sulopenem or ciprofloxacin. Among 1,660 treated patients, treatment related adverse events were observed in 17.0% and 6.2% of patients on sulopenem and ciprofloxacin, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea (12.4% and 2.5%), nausea (3.7% and 3.6%), and headache (2.2% and 2.2%), for sulopenem and ciprofloxacin patients, respectively. The difference in adverse events was driven by diarrhea which, in the majority of patients, was mild and self-limited. Overall discontinuations due to adverse events were uncommon on both regimens and were seen in 1.6% of patients on sulopenem and 1.0% of patients on ciprofloxacin. Serious adverse events were seen in 0.7% of patients on sulopenem with one drug-related serious adverse event due to transient angioedema and 0.2% of patients on ciprofloxacin with no drug-related serious adverse event.

Data is also available for the oral formulation collected in healthy volunteers in the Phase 1 program conducted by Pfizer and Iterum that is consistent with the adverse event profile observed above. An additional adverse event of interest identified with the oral prodrug, as further assessed in detail in clinical trial IT001-101, is loose stool/diarrhea, which was considered of mild severity and self-limited, as seen with other broad spectrum oral antibiotics with activity against the anaerobic flora of the gastrointestinal tract. During the seven-day dosing interval, the incidence of diarrhea, defined as having three or more episodes of loose stool in one day or having two or more episodes of loose stool per day for two consecutive days, peaked at 13% on Day 3 and fell to 2% by Day 7, with no patient discontinuing their dosing due to this event. For patients who took their dose with food, the peak incidence was 9%, dropping again to 3% by Day 4, similar to placebo. Some patients also identified a mild change in the odor of their urine after dosing with either the oral or IV formulations, as can be seen with other ß-lactam antibiotics.

We have received a waiver from the FDA for the requirement of performing a thorough QT interval study given the lack both of any significant preclinical findings and signals in Phase 1 clinical trials during which intensive electrocardiogram monitoring was performed. The EMA in written scientific advice also agreed that a QT interval study is not warranted. A preclinical study of the hydrolysis product of etzadroxil (2-ethylbutyric acid) has been performed in which no effect on plasma carnitine in rats was identified, while a significant effect of a different prodrug moiety, pivoxil, was observed. No reports of seizures, seen with some members of the carbapenem class, were noted in preclinical studies or clinical trials.

17

Phase 3 Clinical Trial – Ongoing

In July 2022, we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. We anticipate completing enrollment in the first half of 2024. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. Oral sulopenem alone is being studied for the treatment of outpatients with a uUTI. A brief overview of the comparator agent, sample size, timing of efficacy assessment and duration of oral dosing is provided in the graphic below. Non-inferiority in this clinical trial is defined by the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference of no more than -10%. If successful, this trial would form the basis for a resubmission of our NDA to the FDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTI, which may potentially include for a limited population. REASSURE will also test for superiority in the subset of patients with Augmentin® resistant pathogens at baseline.

Pfizer License Agreement

In November 2015, we and our wholly owned subsidiary, Iterum Therapeutics International Limited, entered into a license agreement with Pfizer (the Pfizer License), pursuant to which we acquired from Pfizer an exclusive, royalty-bearing license under certain patent rights and know-how to develop, manufacture and commercialize sulopenem and related compounds, including, among others, sulopenem etzadroxil and three other sulopenem prodrugs, globally for the treatment, diagnosis and prevention of infectious diseases and infections in humans. The licensed patents include two U.S. patents, one of which covers the composition of matter of sulopenem etzadroxil, one patent in Japan, one patent in Hong Kong and one patent in Mexico. None of the licensed patents cover the IV formulation of sulopenem. All patents directed to the compound sulopenem expired prior to us entering into the Pfizer License. Pursuant to the Pfizer License, our exclusive license from Pfizer includes certain know-how, data and regulatory documents that will support the development of sulopenem. We have the right to grant development or commercialization sublicenses to third parties, provided that we (1) obtain Pfizer’s prior written consent in connection with such sublicense, (2) enter into a written sublicense agreement consistent with the terms and conditions of the Pfizer License and (3) include Pfizer as a third-party beneficiary under such sublicense. As between Pfizer and us, we own all right, title and interest in any intellectual property rights that are developed by us or our sublicensees in connection with the Pfizer License.

Under the Pfizer License, we have sole responsibility for and control over the development, regulatory approval, manufacture and commercialization of licensed products worldwide, including bearing all costs and expenses associated therewith. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and seek regulatory approval for one licensed product in the United States and in at least one country out of any of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain or the United Kingdom (Major Market Countries) and, if deemed appropriate by us in our exercise of commercially reasonable efforts, for a second licensed product in the United States or at least one Major Market Country. In addition, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize a licensed product in the United States and each Major Market Country in which we have received regulatory approval for such product.

Under the Pfizer License, we have paid Pfizer a one-time nonrefundable upfront fee of $5.0 million and a total of $15.0 million in clinical milestones based on first patient dosed in our Phase 3 clinical trials with sulopenem etzadroxil and sulopenem IV and are obligated to pay Pfizer potential future regulatory milestone payments, as well as potential sales milestones upon achievement of net sales ranging from $250.0 million to $1.0 billion for each product type (sulopenem etzadroxil and other prodrugs, and sulopenem and other non-prodrugs). We are obligated to pay Pfizer royalties ranging from a single-digit to mid-teens percentage of marginal net sales of each licensed product. Pfizer also received 381,922 of our Series A preferred shares (which converted to 25,461 ordinary shares in connection with our initial public offering) at a value of $15.71 per share as additional payment for the licensed rights. In addition, if we sublicense or assign any of our rights to any licensed products to a third party, and we receive in connection with such transaction a threshold amount of at least a low nine figure dollar amount over a specified period of time, we will be obligated to pay Pfizer an additional one-time payment of a low eight figure dollar amount.

18

At our cost and expense, we are responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents worldwide, using specific legal counsel in various jurisdictions as set forth in the Pfizer License. If we elect to forgo prosecution or maintenance of a licensed patent, we must notify Pfizer and Pfizer has the right to continue prosecution and maintenance of such licensed patent and the exclusive license granted to us under such licensed patent will become a non-exclusive and non-sublicensable license. Subject to certain consultation rights granted to Pfizer, we have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the licensed patents at our cost and expense. If we elect to enforce any licensed patent, we may not enter into a settlement agreement that would: (1) adversely affect the validity, enforceability or scope of any of the licensed patents, (2) give rise to any liability for Pfizer, (3) admit non-infringement of any of the licensed patents or (4) otherwise impair Pfizer’s rights in any of the licensed patents or licensed know-how without the prior written consent of Pfizer.

The Pfizer License continues in effect until the expiration of all royalty terms thereunder, unless earlier terminated. Upon such expiration, the Pfizer License shall become non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty free, perpetual and irrevocable. The royalty term for each licensed product in each country begins as of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country and lasts until the later of (1) the expiration of the applicable licensed patents in such country, (2) the expiration of regulatory or data exclusivity for such licensed product in such country and (3) fifteen years after the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. Pursuant to the terms of the Pfizer License, each party has the right to terminate the Pfizer License upon the other party’s (1) material breach of the Pfizer License that remains uncured after 60 days (or, if the breach cannot be cured in 60 days, up to 150 days) of receipt of notice or (2) insolvency. In addition, we have the unilateral right to terminate the Pfizer License for convenience by providing 90 days’ written notice to Pfizer.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining rights in patents intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture and any other inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We own two U.S. patents, with one patent directed to the composition of the bilayer tablet of oral sulopenem and its related uses, and the other directed to the method of use of oral sulopenem in treating multiple diseases, including uUTIs. In addition to patents owned by us, we also rely on the Pfizer License for intellectual property rights that are important or necessary for the development of sulopenem etzadroxil and the IV formulation of sulopenem. We do not however license any patent rights that cover the IV formulation of sulopenem and all patent rights covering the compound sulopenem expired prior to us entering into the Pfizer License. We also rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our success will significantly depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology and inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our in-licensed patents and patents we may own in the future, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

Intellectual Property Relating to Oral Sulopenem

As of February 28, 2023, we exclusively license from Pfizer two U.S. patents and three foreign patents, including one U.S. patent directed to composition of matter of sulopenem etzadroxil, which is projected to expire in 2029, subject to potential extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act to 2034, and three foreign patents related to oral sulopenem. We also own two U.S. patents, with one patent directed to the composition of the bilayer tablet of oral sulopenem and its related uses, and the other directed to the method of use of oral sulopenem in treating multiple diseases, including uUTIs. Both patents are projected to expire in 2039, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions. We also own three pending U.S. patent applications and twenty-seven pending foreign patent applications, which collectively cover uses of sulopenem and probenecid and bilayer tablets of sulopenem etzadroxil and probenecid. Any U.S. or foreign patents issuing from the pending applications are projected to expire between 2039 and 2041, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions.

Patent Term and Patent Term Extensions

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug, biological product or medical device approved pursuant to a pre-market approval may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the

19

expiration date set for the patent. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be granted an extension and only those claims reading on the approved drug are extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

Trade Secrets

We rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our unpatented technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets and proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, suppliers, contractors and other third parties. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and our trade secrets and other proprietary information may be disclosed. We may not have adequate remedies for any breach and could lose our trade secrets and other proprietary information through such a breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting trade secrets, know-how and inventions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.”

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and generic drug companies. Many of our potential competitors have greater financial, technical and human resources than we do, as well as greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining FDA approved drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of oral sulopenem and sulopenem, if approved, will be efficacy, coverage of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of oral dosing, price, availability of reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payors and susceptibility to drug resistance.

If approved, oral sulopenem could compete with a few oral antibiotics currently in late-stage clinical development to treat uUTIs, including gepotidacin from GlaxoSmithKline and pivmecillinam from Utility Therapeutics Limited. If our competitors obtain marketing approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for their product candidates more rapidly than us, it could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

We also expect that oral sulopenem, if approved, would compete with future and current generic versions of marketed oral antibiotics such as levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cephalexin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. If approved, we believe that oral sulopenem would compete effectively against these compounds on the basis of sulopenem’s potential:

There are several IV-administered products marketed for the treatment of infections resistant to first-line therapy for gram-negative infections, including Avycaz from AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer, Vabomere from Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., Zerbaxa from Merck & Co., Zemdri from Cipla, Xerava from La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, Recarbrio from Merck & Co, and Fetroja from Shionogi & Co., Ltd.

If approved, we believe that sulopenem would compete effectively and potentially occupy an earlier place in treatment against these compounds on the basis of sulopenem’s potential, including that sulopenem:

20

QIDP Status

As noted above, the FDA has designated sulopenem and oral sulopenem as QIDPs for the indications of uUTI, cUTI and cIAI as well as community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, acute bacterial prostatitis, gonococcal urethritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease. Fast track designation for these seven indications in both the oral and intravenous formulations has also been granted. QIDP status makes sulopenem eligible to benefit from certain incentives for the development of new antibiotics provided under the GAIN Act. Further, QIDP status could add five years to any other regulatory exclusivity period that may be granted. QIDP status for other indications is also possible given the coverage of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria by sulopenem, pending submission of additional documentation and acceptance by the FDA. Fast track status provides an opportunity for more frequent meetings with the FDA, more frequent written communication related to the clinical trials, eligibility for accelerated approval and priority review and the potential for a rolling review.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, clinical trials, testing, manufacture, including any manufacturing changes, authorization, pharmacovigilance, adverse event reporting, recalls, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, sales, import and export of pharmaceutical products and product candidates such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in other countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and for their regulatory approval, is typically referred to as a sponsor.

The process required by the FDA before a drug product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

21

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Preclinical tests intended for submission to the FDA to support the safety of a product candidate must be conducted in compliance with GLP regulations and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. A drug sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Such studies are typically referred to as IND-enabling studies. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical trials, non-clinical studies, and/or CMC. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must continue to review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB, which must operate in compliance with FDA regulations, must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects and must monitor the trial until completed. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board (DSMB). This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on review of available data from the study, to which only the DSMB maintains access. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of a clinical trial can occur if the DSMB determines that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial along with the requirement to ensure that the data and results reported from the clinical trials are credible and accurate. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the criteria for determining subject eligibility, the dosing plan, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, the procedure for timely reporting of adverse events, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. During Phase 1 clinical trials, sufficient information about the investigational drug’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

22

Phase 2: The drug is administered to a larger, but still limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted indications and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. Phase 2 clinical trials are typically well-controlled and closely monitored.

Phase 3: The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Phase 3 clinical trials usually involve a larger number of participants than a Phase 2 clinical trial.

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials, typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. Moreover, a clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA.

In December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA), Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Results from one trial may not be predictive of results from subsequent trials. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. The failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to the long delay of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in issuing final implementing regulations, those regulations have now been issued and the FDA has issued several Notices of Noncompliance to manufacturers since April 2021.

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application. Our Expanded Access Program for oral sulopenem for the treatment of cUTIs due to quinolone non-susceptible uropathogens after an initial course of effective intravenous therapy became available in December 2020.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, passed in 2016, sponsors are required to make policies for evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access for patients publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial, or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that

23

are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Pediatric Studies

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, a biologics license application or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The sponsor, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. The FDA maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population.

Submission and Review of an NDA

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s CMC and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2022 is $3,117,218 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2022 is $369,413. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit its filing and substantive review. In pertinent part, the FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information, and it will also be subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facilities in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meet standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

In connection with its review of an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP. The FDA generally accepts data from foreign clinical trials in support of an NDA if the trials were conducted under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the FDA nevertheless may accept the data in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCPs and the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection, if deemed necessary.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

24

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) plan to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools. The FDA provided written notice to us in February 2021 that there is currently no requirement for a REMS plan in connection with our NDA for oral sulopenem.

Decisions on an NDA

The FDA reviews an application to determine whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. Ultimately, the FDA will determine whether the expected benefits of the drug product outweigh its potential risks to patients.

Before approving an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA or Biologics License Application (BLA) submission, including drug component manufacturing, (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified the FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to the FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA will issue either a Complete Response Letter (CRL), or an approval letter. A CRL generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met before the NDA may be resubmitted and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for FDA to reconsider the application. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six month extension to respond. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. For those seeking to challenge the FDA’s CRL decision, the agency has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution.

If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. In addition, none of these expedited programs changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need, or if the

25

drug qualifies as a QIDP under the GAIN Act. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides additional opportunities for interaction with the FDA’s review team and may allow for rolling review of NDA components before the completed application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA may decide to rescind the fast track designation if it determines that the qualifying criteria no longer apply.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment for a serious condition or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. Most products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six and ten month review periods are measured from the “filing” date for NDAs for new molecular entities. The FDA will automatically give a priority review designation for the first application submitted in respect of a product for which a QIDP designation was granted, such as sulopenem and oral sulopenem.

Limited Population Drug Pathway

With passage of the Cures Act, Congress also authorized the FDA to approve an antibacterial or antifungal drug product, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, as a “limited population drug.” To qualify for this approval, or LPAD, pathway, the drug product must be intended to treat a serious or life‑threatening infection in a limited population of patients with unmet needs; the standards for approval of drugs under the FDCA must be satisfied; and FDA must receive a written request from the sponsor to approve the drug as a limited population drug pursuant to this provision. The FDA’s determination of safety and effectiveness for such a product must reflect the benefit‑risk profile of such drug in the intended limited population, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the infection the drug is intended to treat and the availability or lack of alternative treatment in such a limited population. Accordingly, the FDA expects that development programs for drugs eligible for approval under the LPAD pathway will follow streamlined approaches to clinical development such as smaller, shorter or fewer clinical trials.

Any drug product approved under this pathway must be labeled with the statement “Limited Population” in a prominent manner and adjacent to the proprietary name of the drug product. The prescribing information must also state that the drug is indicated for use in a limited and specific population of patients and copies of all promotional materials relating to the drug must be submitted to the FDA at least 30 days prior to dissemination of the materials. If the FDA subsequently approves the drug for a broader indication, the agency may remove any post‑marketing conditions applicable to the product, including requirements with respect to labeling and review of promotional materials. Nothing in this pathway to approval of a limited population drug prevents sponsors of such products from seeking designation or approval under other provisions of the FDCA, such as accelerated approval.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product label, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products that are placed on the market. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved, and approved drugs may generally be promoted only for their approved indications. Promotional claims must also be consistent with the product’s FDA-approved label, including claims related to safety and effectiveness. The FDA and other federal agencies also closely regulate the promotion of drugs in specific contexts such as direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and education activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet

26

and social media. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product.

It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance, but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences of regulatory non-compliance include, among other things:

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA), which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Congress more recently enacted the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), which made significant amendments to the FDCA, including by replacing certain provisions from the PDMA pertaining to wholesale distribution of prescription drugs with a more comprehensive statutory scheme. The DSCSA now requires uniform national standards for wholesale distribution and, for the first time, for third-party logistics providers; it also provides for preemption of certain state laws in the areas of licensure and prescription drug traceability.

Exclusivity and Approval of Competing Products

Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA. To obtain approval of a generic drug, a sponsor must submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (RLD). In addition, Congress authorized the FDA to approve a 505(b)(2) NDA for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the sponsor for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the sponsor and for which the sponsor has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first sponsor to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the activity of the drug substance. This interpretation was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or a 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company that references the previously approved drug. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

27

The FDCA also provides three years of data exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. Three-year exclusivity may be awarded for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity

Under the GAIN Act, the FDA may designate a product as a QIDP. In order to receive this designation, a drug must qualify as an antibiotic or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by either (i) an antibiotic or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, or (ii) a so-called “qualifying pathogen” found on a list of potentially dangerous, drug-resistant organisms established and maintained by the FDA. A sponsor must request such designation before submitting a marketing application.

Upon approving an application for a QIDP, the FDA will extend by an additional five years any regulatory exclusivity period awarded, such as a five-year exclusivity period awarded for a new molecular entity. This extension is in addition to any pediatric exclusivity extension awarded, and the extension will be awarded only to a drug first approved on or after the date of enactment.

The GAIN Act provisions prohibit the grant of an exclusivity extension where the application is a supplement to an application for which an extension is in effect or has expired, is a subsequent application for a specified change to an approved product or is an application for a product that does not meet the definition of QIDP based on the uses for which it is ultimately approved.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of regulatory exclusivity to the term of any existing patent or non-patent regulatory exclusivity, including orphan exclusivity, for drug products. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data does not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of other countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Clinical Trials

On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one EU Member State will only be required to submit a single

28

application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

Beyond streamlining the process, the new regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors, and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided into two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the European Union at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.

Marketing Authorization

Under European Union regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the EMA where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one member state, known as the “reference” member state. Under the decentralized approval procedure, a sponsor submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a member state does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union took place on January 31, 2020. The European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Agreement), which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the European Union and the United Kingdom will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol. The MHRA will rely on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended) (HMR) as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization via the centralized procedure, until December 31, 2023.

General Data Protection Regulation

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating

29

to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.