Sienna Biopharmaceuticals (SNNAQ) Risk Factors

Any regulatory approvals or other marketing authorizations we obtain for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or the conditions of approval or marketing authorization, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our drug product candidates, such as SNA-120 and SNA-125, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority authorizes our product candidates for marketing, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs (including the QSR in the case of any of our product candidates cleared under the 510(k) clearance process), and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things: -   restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our product candidates, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;-   fines, warning or untitled letters or holds on clinical trials;-   refusal by the FDA to accept new marketing applications or supplements, approve or otherwise authorize for marketing pending applications or supplements to applications filed by us or suspension or revocation of approvals or other marketing authorizations;-   product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of our product candidates; and -   injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. In addition, the FDA may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our future products under development. For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced forthcoming steps that the FDA intends to take to modernize the premarket notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Among other things, the FDA announced that it plans to develop proposals to drive manufacturers utilizing the 510(k) pathway toward the use of newer predicates. These proposals include plans to potentially sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway, and to potentially publish a list of devices that have been cleared on the basis of demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate devices that are more than 10 years old. The FDA also announced that it intends to finalize guidance to establish a premarket review pathway for "manufacturers of certain well-understood device types" as an alternative to the 510(k) clearance pathway and that such premarket review pathway would allow manufacturers to rely on objective safety and performance criteria recognized by the FDA to demonstrate substantial equivalence, obviating the need for manufacturers to compare the safety and performance of their medical devices to specific predicate devices in the clearance process. These proposals have not yet been finalized or adopted, and the FDA announced that it would seek public feedback prior to publication of any such proposals, and may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation. Accordingly, it is unclear the extent to which any proposals, if adopted, could impose additional regulatory requirements on us that could delay our ability to obtain new 510(k) clearances, increase the costs of compliance, or restrict our ability to maintain our current clearances, or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA's ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these executive actions, including the Executive Orders, will be implemented, and the extent to which they will affect the FDA's ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on the FDA's ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

With respect to any of our product candidates cleared under the 510(k) clearance process, we will be subject to the FDA's medical device reporting regulations and similar foreign regulations, which require us to report to the FDA when we receive or become aware of information that reasonably suggests that one or more of our products may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that, if the malfunction were to recur, it could cause or contribute to a death or serious injury. The timing of our obligation to report is triggered by the date we become aware of the adverse event as well as the nature of the event. We may fail to report adverse events of which we become aware within the prescribed timeframe. There are similar reporting requirements for our drug product candidates, if and when they are approved. We may also fail to recognize that we have become aware of a reportable adverse event, especially if it is not reported to us as an adverse event or if it is an adverse event that is unexpected or removed in time from the use of the product. If we fail to comply with our reporting obligations, the FDA could take action, including warning letters, untitled letters, administrative actions, criminal prosecution, imposition of civil monetary penalties, revocation of our device clearance, seizure of our products or delay in clearance of future products. The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture of a product or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. We may also choose to voluntarily recall a product if any material deficiency is found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, malfunctions, manufacturing defects, labeling or design deficiencies, packaging defects or other deficiencies or failures to comply with applicable regulations. Product defects or other errors may occur in the future. Recalls involving our product candidates, if and when they are cleared or approved or otherwise authorized for marketing, could be particularly harmful to our business, financial condition and results of operations. Depending on the corrective action we take to redress a device product's deficiencies or defects, the FDA may require, or we may decide, that we will need to obtain new approvals, clearances, or other marketing authorizations for the device before we may market or distribute the corrected device. Seeking such authorizations may delay our ability to replace the recalled devices in a timely manner. Moreover, if we do not adequately address problems associated with our devices, we may face additional regulatory enforcement action, including FDA warning letters, product seizure, injunctions, administrative penalties, or civil or criminal fines. Companies are required to maintain certain records of recalls and corrections, even if they are not reportable to the FDA. If we obtain marketing authorizations and market our medical device product candidates, we may initiate voluntary withdrawals or corrections for our products in the future that we determine do not require notification of the FDA. If the FDA disagrees with our determinations, it could require us to report those actions as recalls and we may be subject to enforcement action. A future recall announcement could harm our reputation with customers, potentially lead to product liability claims against us and negatively affect our sales.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, customers and patients, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include: -   the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under a U.S. healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;-   U.S. federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalties laws, including the civil False Claims Act, which, among other things, impose criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the U.S. government, claims for payment or approval that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. government;-   the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement, in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;-   HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, which also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by covered entities subject to the rule, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and healthcare providers as well as their business associates that perform certain services for or on their behalf involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information;-   the U.S. Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the government information related to payments or other "transfers of value" made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and requires applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to the government ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members;-   federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; and -   analogous state and non-U.S. laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical and device companies to comply with the industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing information; and state and non-U.S. laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities may conclude that our business practices, including our consulting and advisory board arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom receive stock options as compensation for services provided, do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these or any other health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. healthcare programs, reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the above occur, it could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

In the U.S. and some non-U.S. jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively the Affordable Care Act, was enacted in the United States to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The law has continued the downward pressure on the pricing of medical items and services, especially under the Medicare program, and increased the industry's regulatory burdens and operating costs. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to our potential product candidates are the following: -   an annual, nondeductible fee payable by any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents;-   an annual excise tax of 2.3% on any entity that manufactures or imports medical devices offered for sale in the United States which, due to subsequent legislative amendments, has been suspended through December 31, 2019, and, absent further legislative action, will be reinstated starting January 1, 2020;-   an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program;-   a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;-   a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts, which, through subsequent legislative amendments, was increased to 70%, off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer's outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;-   extension of manufacturers' Medicaid rebate liability to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;-   expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs in certain states;-   expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program;-   a new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians; and -   a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the Affordable Care Act in the future. For example, the Tax Act was enacted, which, among other things, removes penalties for not complying with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to carry health insurance. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. While the Trump Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, if any, will impact the law. The current Presidential Administration and U.S. Congress will likely continue to seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act. It is uncertain the extent to which any such changes may impact our business or financial condition. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, resulted in reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and will remain in effect through 2027, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product and medical device pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and medical devices to purchase and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. We expect that the Affordable Care Act, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved or cleared product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

The time required to obtain approval or other marketing authorizations by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate's clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval or any other marketing authorization for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval or clearance. Neither we nor any future collaborator is permitted to market SNA-120, SNA-125 or any future drug product candidates in the United States until we receive regulatory approval of an NDA from the FDA, nor can we or any future collaborator market SNA-001 or any future product candidates under the 510(k) clearance process in the United States until we receive clearance or marketing authorization from the FDA. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize SNA-120, SNA-125 and any other drug product candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from nonclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program. In addition, the FDA may refer applications for novel drugs, like SNA-120 and potentially other of our future product candidates,to an advisory committee comprised of outside experts. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of the advisory committee, but it considers such recommendation when making its decision. We have announced our intent to seek a strategic partner for SNA-001, but may concurrently pursue FDA clearance of SNA-001 for the reduction of light-pigmented hair and the treatment of acne under the FDA's 510(k) premarket notification process. Before we or our partner can market SNA-001 in the United States, we are required to obtain clearance from the FDA under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. In the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is "substantially equivalent" to a device legally on the market, known as a "predicate" device, with respect to intended use, technology and safety and effectiveness, in order to clear the proposed device for marketing. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. Under certain conditions, a medical device is required to be received under pre-market approval, or PMA, application from the FDA. The PMA pathway requires an applicant to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, nonclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. The PMA process is typically required for devices that are deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices. However, some devices are automatically subject to the PMA pathway regardless of the level of risk they pose because they have not previously been classified into a lower risk class by the FDA. Manufacturers of these devices may request that FDA review such devices in accordance with the de novo classification procedure, which allows a manufacturer whose novel device would otherwise require the submission and approval of a PMA prior to marketing to request down-classification of the device on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk. If the FDA agrees with the down classification based on a de novo submission, the FDA will authorize the device for marketing. This device type can then be used as a predicate device for future 510(k) submissions. The process of obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals, or completing the de novo classification process, to market a medical device can be costly and time consuming, and we may not be able to successfully obtain pre-market reviews on a timely basis, if at all. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for our products than we expect, our product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could cause our sales to decline. In addition, the FDA may determine that SNA-001 or other future medical device product candidates for which we pursue 510(k) clearance will require us to obtain approval through the PMA process, which is generally more costly and uncertain and can take from one to three years, or longer, from the time the application is submitted to the FDA until an approval is obtained. Further, even where a PMA is not required, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain 510(k) clearances with respect to such product candidates or modifications to previously cleared products. The FDA or any foreign regulatory bodies can delay, limit or deny approval or clearance of our product candidates or require us to conduct additional nonclinical or clinical testing or abandon a program for many reasons, including: -   the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency's disagreement with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;-   negative or ambiguous results from our clinical trials or results that may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies for approval;-   serious and unexpected drug-related side effects experienced by participants in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs similar to our product candidates;-   our inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory body that our product candidates are safe and effective for the proposed indication, or in the case of the 510(k) clearance process, that our product candidate is substantially equivalent to a predicate device;-   the FDA's or the applicable foreign regulatory agency's disagreement with the interpretation of data from nonclinical studies or clinical trials;-   our inability to demonstrate the clinical and other benefits of our product candidates outweigh any safety or other perceived risks;-   the FDA's or the applicable foreign regulatory agency's requirement for additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials;-   the FDA's or the applicable foreign regulatory agency's disagreement regarding the formulation, labeling or the specifications of our product candidates;-   the FDA's or the applicable foreign regulatory agency's failure to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract; or -   the potential for approval policies or regulations of the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agencies to significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval. Of the large number of products in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval or marketing authorization process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval or marketing authorization to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval or clearance of an FDA or foreign marketing application for our product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval or other marketing authorization contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including post-market clinical trials, and/or the implementation of a REMS, in the case of SNA-120, SNA-125 and any other drug product candidates, which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency also may approve or authorize for marketing a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agency may not approve or authorize the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval or other marketing authorization would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects. Moreover, obtaining FDA clearance under the FDA's 510(k) clearance process can be expensive and uncertain, and generally takes from several months to several years, and generally requires detailed and comprehensive scientific and clinical data. Notwithstanding the expense, these efforts may never result in marketing authorization. Even if we were to obtain the requisite marketing authorization, it may not be for the uses we believe are important or commercially attractive, in which case we would not be permitted to market our product for those uses. In order to market any product in the European Economic Area (which is composed of the 28 Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), or EEA, and many other foreign jurisdictions, separate regulatory approvals are required. In the EEA, medicinal products, such as SNA-120 and SNA-125, can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. Before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. There is currently no premarket government review of medical devices in the EEA. However, all medical devices placed on the market in the EEA must meet the relevant essential requirements laid down in Annex I of Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices (the "Medical Devices Directive"). Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix the Conformité Européene, or CE, mark to such products, without which they cannot be sold or marketed in the EEA. To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements for such product candidates, we must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. Except for low-risk medical devices (Class I with no measuring function and which are not sterile), where the manufacturer can issue an EC Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its product candidates with the essential requirements of the EU Medical Device Directive, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of an organization accredited by a Member State of the EEA to conduct conformity assessments, or a Notified Body. Depending on the relevant conformity assessment procedure, the Notified Body would typically audit and examine the technical file and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of our devices. The Notified Body issues a CE Certificate of Conformity following successful completion of a conformity assessment procedure conducted in relation to the medical device and its manufacturer and their conformity with the essential requirements. This certificate entitles the manufacturer to affix the CE mark to its medical devices after having prepared and signed a related EC Declaration of Conformity. As a general rule, demonstration of conformity of medical devices and their manufacturers with the essential requirements must be based, among other things, on the evaluation of clinical data supporting the safety and performance of the products during normal conditions of use. Specifically, a manufacturer must demonstrate that the device achieves its intended performance during normal conditions of use, that the known and foreseeable risks, and any adverse events, are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended performance, and that any claims made about the performance and safety of the device (e.g., product labeling and instructions for use) are supported by suitable evidence. On April 5, 2017, the European Parliament passed the Medical Devices Regulation which repeals and replaces the EU Medical Devices Directive. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the EEA member states, a regulation is directly applicable, i.e., without the need for adoption of EEA member state laws implementing them, in all EEA member states. The Medical Devices Regulation, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EEA for medical devices and ensure a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation. The Medical Devices Regulation will not become fully applicable until three years following its entry into force but medical device manufacturers, including our company, are already adjusting their conformity assessment procedures and working with their Notified Bodies to meet the more stringent requirements of the EU Medical Devices Regulation with respect to their product candidates. The EU Medical Devices Regulation explicitly provides that high intensity electromagnetic radiation (e.g., infra-red, visible light and ultra-violet) emitting equipment intended for use on the human body, including coherent and non-coherent sources, monochromatic and broad spectrum, such as lasers and intense pulsed light equipment, for skin resurfacing, tattoo or hair removal or other skin treatment, falls under its scope. This affects the regulatory approval pathway of candidate SNA-001 which would thus need to comply with the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulation before it can be commercialized for removal of light-pigmented hair in the EEA. If we are unable to demonstrate conformity of SNA-001 and our manufacturers with the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulation, or otherwise fail to remain in compliance with applicable European laws and directives, we would be unable to affix (or continue to affix) the CE mark to SNA-001, which would prevent us from selling SNA-001 within the EEA. The approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional clinical testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more foreign regulatory authorities does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals or to do so on a timely basis, and even if we do file we may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may change their policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval or clearance or other marketing authorizations of our future products under development on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain approvals or marketing authorizations, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained. For example, as part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act enacted in 2012, Congress enacted several "Medical Device Regulatory Improvements" and miscellaneous reforms, which are intended to clarify and improve medical device regulation both pre- and post-clearance and approval.

Even if we obtain FDA or other regulatory approvals or clearances, the commercial success of any of our current or future product candidates will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians and patients for approved indications. Our product candidates may not be commercially successful. For a variety of reasons, including among other things, competitive factors, pricing or physician preference, the degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of our current or future product candidates, if approved or cleared, will depend on a number of factors, including: -   the clinical indications for which the product is approved or cleared and patient demand for approved or cleared products that treat those indications;-   the safety and efficacy of our product as compared to other available therapies;-   the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from managed care plans and other healthcare payors for any of our product candidates that may be approved;-   acceptance by physicians, operators of clinics and patients of the product as a safe and effective treatment;-   physician and patient willingness to adopt a new therapy over other available therapies to treat approved indications;-   overcoming any biases physicians or patients may have toward particular therapies for the treatment of approved indications;-   proper training and administration of our product candidates by physicians and medical staff;-   patient satisfaction with the results and administration of our products and overall treatment experience, including, for example, a smaller or no effect on the visual symptoms of psoriasis while relieving the associated pruritus;-   the cost of treatment with our product candidates in relation to alternative treatments and reimbursement levels, if any, and willingness to pay for the product, if approved or cleared, on the part of insurance companies and other third-party payers, physicians and patients;-   the willingness of patients to pay for certain of our products, particularly our aesthetic products, such as SNA-001, if approved or cleared, especially during economically challenging times;-   the revenue and profitability that our products may offer a physician as compared to alternative therapies;-   the prevalence and severity of side effects;-   limitations or warnings contained in the FDA-approved or cleared labeling for our products;-   the compatibility, or clearance for use, of our SNA-001 product with the lasers available in aesthetic professionals' offices;-   the willingness of physicians, operators of clinics and patients to utilize or adopt SNA-001 as a procedural solution;-   any FDA requirement to undertake a REMS;-   the effectiveness of our sales, marketing and distribution efforts;-   adverse publicity about our products or favorable publicity about competitive products; and -   potential product liability claims. We cannot assure you that our current or future product candidates, if approved, will achieve broad market acceptance among physicians and patients. Any failure by our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval or clearance to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our results of operations.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. If unacceptable side effects arise in the development of our product candidates, we, the FDA, the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted, or the DSMB could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We expect to have to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: -   regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product;-   we may be required to recall a product or change the way such product is administered to patients;-   additional restrictions may be imposed on the marketing of the particular product or the manufacturing processes for the product or any component thereof;-   regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, such as a "black box" warning or a contraindication;-   we may be required to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or create a Medication Guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;-   we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients;-   the product may become less competitive; and -   our reputation may suffer. Any of the foregoing events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved or cleared, and result in the loss of significant revenues to us, which would materially and adversely affect our results of operations and business.

On September 16, 2019, we filed a voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") seeking relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). Additionally, on October 16, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Final Order (I) Authorizing Postpetition Use of Cash Collateral, (II) Granting Adequate Protection, and (III) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 127] (the "Cash Collateral Order"), which provides, among other things, certain milestone deadlines relating to a sale process, including with respect to (i) filing a sale motion establishing bid procedures with the Bankruptcy Court, (ii) receipt of bids, (iii) obtaining Bankruptcy Court approval of a sale transaction, and (iv) closing a sale transaction. For the duration of the proceedings under Chapter 11 (the "Chapter 11 Proceeding"), our operations and our ability to execute our business strategy will be subject to the risks and uncertainties associated with bankruptcy. These risks include: -   our ability to obtain Bankruptcy Court approval with respect to motions filed in the Chapter 11 Proceeding from time to time;-   our ability to comply with and operate under any cash management orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court from time to time;-   our ability to comply with the Cash Collateral Order;-   our ability to consummate a strategic transaction, including a sale of all or substantially all of our assets;-   our ability to fund and execute our business plan; and -   our ability to continue as a going concern. These risks and uncertainties could affect our business and operations in various ways. For example, negative events or publicity associated with the Chapter 11 Proceeding could adversely affect our relationships with our vendors and employees. In particular, critical vendors may determine not to do business with us due to our Chapter 11 filing and we may not be successful in securing alternative vendors, or we may not be able to retain employees critical to the consummation of a strategic transaction. Our employees face considerable distraction and uncertainty during this process and we have and may continue to experience increased levels of employee attrition. The failure to retain members of our management team and other key personnel could impair our ability to a strategic transaction, thereby having a material adverse effect on the value of our common stock. Also, transactions outside the ordinary course of business are subject to the prior approval of the Bankruptcy Court and compliance with the Cash Collateral Order, which may limit our ability to take certain actions. Because of the risks and uncertainties associated with the Chapter 11 Proceeding, we cannot predict or quantify the ultimate impact that events occurring during the Chapter 11 Proceeding may have on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and there is no certainty as to our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provide that we will indemnify our directors and officers, in each case to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated bylaws and the indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that: -   We will indemnify our directors and officers for serving us in those capacities or for serving other business enterprises at our request, to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. Delaware law provides that a corporation may indemnify such person if such person acted in good faith and in a manner such person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the registrant and, with respect to any criminal proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe such person's conduct was unlawful. -   We may, in our discretion, indemnify employees and agents in those circumstances where indemnification is permitted by applicable law. -   We are required to advance expenses, as incurred, to our directors and officers in connection with defending a proceeding, except that such directors or officers shall undertake to repay such advances if it is ultimately determined that such person is not entitled to indemnification. -   We will not be obligated pursuant to our amended and restated bylaws to indemnify a person with respect to proceedings initiated by that person against us or our other indemnitees, except with respect to proceedings authorized by our board of directors or brought to enforce a right to indemnification. -   The rights conferred in our amended and restated bylaws are not exclusive, and we are authorized to enter into indemnification agreements with our directors, officers, employees and agents and to obtain insurance to indemnify such persons. -   We may not retroactively amend our amended and restated bylaw provisions to reduce our indemnification obligations to directors, officers, employees and agents.

Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared product or a device authorized for marketing that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design or manufacture, requires a new 510(k) clearance or, possibly, approval of a PMA. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer's decision. The FDA may not agree with our decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. We may make modifications or add features to any of our product candidates that are cleared under the 510(k) clearance process in the future that we believe do not require a new 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA. If the FDA disagrees with our determination and requires us to submit new 510(k) notifications or PMA applications for modifications to our products for which we have concluded that new clearances or approvals are unnecessary, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified product until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. In addition, the FDA may not approve or clear our products for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization or could require clinical trials to support any modifications. Any delay or failure in obtaining required clearances or approvals for such changes would adversely affect our ability to introduce new or enhanced products in a timely manner, which in turn would harm our future growth. Any of these actions would harm our operating results.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in nonclinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after positive results in earlier nonclinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, nonclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. The results of nonclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies and trials, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. Although our lead product candidates, SNA-120 and SNA-125 are in nonclinical and clinical development, we may experience delays in completing ongoing studies or trials and initiating planned studies or trials, and we cannot be certain that studies or trials for our product candidates will begin on time, not require redesign, enroll an adequate number of subjects on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed or terminated for a variety of reasons, including delays or failures related to: -   the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities disagreeing as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials;-   obtaining regulatory approval to commence a trial;-   reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;-   obtaining institutional review board, or IRB, approval at each site;-   recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;-   having subjects complete a trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;-   clinical sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial;-   addressing subject safety concerns that arise during the course of a trial;-   adding a sufficient number of clinical trial sites; or -   obtaining sufficient quantities of product candidate for use in nonclinical studies or clinical trials from third-party suppliers. We may experience numerous adverse or unforeseen events during, or as a result of, nonclinical studies and clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including: -   we may receive feedback from regulatory authorities that requires us to modify the design of our clinical trials;-   clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon drug development programs;-   the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate, or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;-   our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements, fail to maintain adequate quality controls, or simply be unable to provide us with sufficient product supply to conduct and complete nonclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all;-   we or our investigators might have to suspend or terminate clinical trials of our product candidates for various reasons, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements, a finding that our product candidates have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;-   the cost of clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate;-   the quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct nonclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate;-   regulators may revise the requirements for approving our product candidates, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate; and -   future collaborators may conduct clinical trials in ways they view as advantageous to them but that are suboptimal for us. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may: -   incur unplanned costs;-   be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates or not obtain marketing approval at all;-   obtain marketing approval in some countries and not in others;-   obtain marketing approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired;-   obtain marketing approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings, including boxed warnings;-   be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements; or -   have the treatment removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval or clearance. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for certain of our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries. Principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or a regulatory authority concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection of the marketing application we submit. Any such delay or rejection could prevent or delay us from commercializing our current or future product candidates. If we experience delays in the completion, or termination, of any nonclinical study or clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials may increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval or clearance process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval or clearance of our product candidates.

The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including: -   the patient eligibility criteria defined in the protocol;-   the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial's primary endpoints;-   the proximity of patients to study sites;-   the design of the trial;-   our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;-   clinicians' and patients' perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating; and -   our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents. In addition, our clinical trials may compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

We have not pursued or maintained, and may not pursue or maintain in the future, patent protection for our products in every country or territory in which we may sell our products. In addition, we cannot be sure that any of our pending patent applications or pending trademark applications will issue or that, if issued, they will issue in a form that will be advantageous to us. The USPTO, international patent offices or judicial bodies may deny or significantly narrow claims made under our patent applications and our issued patents may be successfully challenged, may be designed around, or may otherwise be of insufficient scope to provide us with protection for our commercial products. Further, the USPTO, international trademark offices or judicial bodies may deny our trademark applications and, even if published or registered, these trademarks may not effectively protect our brand and goodwill. Like patents, trademarks also may be successfully opposed or challenged. We cannot be certain that the steps we have taken will prevent unauthorized use or unauthorized reverse engineering of our technology. Moreover, third parties may independently develop technologies that are competitive with ours and such competitive technologies may or may not infringe our intellectual property. The enforcement of our intellectual property rights also depends on the success of our legal actions against these infringers in the respective country or forum, but these actions may not be successful. As with all granted intellectual property, such intellectual property may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, may not provide specific protection and/or may not prove to be enforceable in actions against specific alleged infringers. The market for biopharmaceuticals and dermatological treatments is highly competitive and subject to rapid technological change. Our success depends, in part, upon our ability to maintain a competitive position in the development and protection of technologies and products for use in these fields and upon our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights in connection therewith. We seek to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property rights to restrict the ability of others to market products that misappropriate our technology and/or infringe our intellectual property to unfairly and illegally compete with our products. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, our competitive position and our business could be harmed, as third parties may be able to make, use, or sell products that are substantially the same as ours without incurring the sizeable development and licensing costs that we have incurred, which would adversely affect our ability to compete in the market. With respect to our Topical Photopartical TherapyTM technology, under our exclusive supply and license agreement with nanoComposix, we are solely responsible for the prosecution of the licensed patent rights throughout the world, at our expense, and we have the first right to enforce within our licensed field and defend the licensed patent rights throughout the world, at our expense. We use a combination of patents, trademarks, know-how, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our proprietary technology. However, these protections may not be adequate and may not provide us with any competitive advantage. For example, patents may not issue from any of our currently pending or any future patent applications, and our issued patents and any future patents that may issue may not survive legal challenges to their scope, validity or enforceability, or provide significant protection for us. If we or one of our current or future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our lead product candidates or future product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO, even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business. Even if our patents are determined by a court to be valid and enforceable, they may not be interpreted sufficiently broadly to prevent others from marketing products similar to ours or designing around our patents. For example, third parties may be able to make product that are similar to ours but that are not covered by the claims of our patents. Third parties may assert that we or our licensors were not the first to make the inventions covered by our issued patents or pending patent applications. The claims of our issued patents or patent applications when issued may not cover our proposed commercial technologies or the future products that we develop. We may not have freedom to commercialize unimpeded by the patent rights of others. Third parties may have dominating, blocking, or other patents relevant to our technology of which we are not aware. There may be prior public disclosures or art that could be deemed to invalidate one or more of our patent claims. Further, we may not develop additional proprietary technologies in the future, and, if we do, they may not be patentable. Patent law can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important principles remain unresolved. In the United States and in many international jurisdictions, policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in patents can be inconsistent. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws of the United States are interpreted. Similarly, international courts have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws in their respective jurisdictions are interpreted. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by U.S. and international legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect our patents, our ability to obtain patents or the patents and patent applications of our licensors. Patent reform legislation in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, may affect patent litigation, and switch the U.S. patent system from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-to-file" system. Under a "first-to-file" system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The United States Patent and Trademark Office recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first-to-file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. In addition, we have a number of international patents and patent applications and expect to continue to pursue patent protection in many of the significant markets in which we intend to do business. The laws of some international jurisdictions may not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in obtaining, protecting, and defending such rights in international jurisdictions. If we encounter such difficulties or we are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting our intellectual property rights in international jurisdictions, our business prospects could be substantially harmed. Varying filing dates in international countries may also permit intervening third parties to allege priority to certain technology. Patent terms may be shortened or lengthened by, for example, terminal disclaimers, patent term adjustments, supplemental protection certificates, and patent term extensions. Patent term extensions and supplemental protection certificates, and the like, may be impacted by the regulatory process and may not significantly lengthen patent term. Non-payment or delay in payment of patent fees or annuities, delay in patent filings or delay in extension filing (including any patent term extension or adjustment filing), whether intentional or unintentional, may also result in the loss of patent rights important to our business. Certain countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to other parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against other parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of any patents. In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on confidentiality agreements to protect confidential information and proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our confidential information or proprietary technology and processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and other confidential information 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 detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of confidential information and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated confidential information is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Further, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our confidential information may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors, in which case we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. We may in the future rely on trade secret protection, which would be subject to the risks identified above with respect to confidential information. Monitoring unauthorized use of our intellectual property is difficult and costly. From time to time, we review our competitors' products, and may in the future seek to enforce our patents or other rights against potential infringement. However, the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property. We may not be able to detect unauthorized use of, or take appropriate steps to enforce, our intellectual property rights. Our competitors may also independently develop similar technology. Any inability to meaningfully protect our intellectual property could result in competitors offering products that incorporate our product or service features, which could reduce demand for our products. In addition, we may need to defend our patents from third-party challenges, such as (but not limited to) interferences, derivation proceedings, re-examination proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, third-party submissions, oppositions, nullity actions, or other patent proceedings. We may need to initiate infringement claims or litigation. Adverse proceedings such as litigation can be expensive, time consuming and may divert the efforts of our technical and managerial personnel, which could in turn harm our business, whether or not we receive a determination favorable to us. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court or other judicial body may decide that the patent we seek to enforce is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that the patent in question does not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Some of our competitors may be able to devote significantly more resources to intellectual property litigation and may have significantly broader patent portfolios to assert against us if we assert our rights against them. Further, because of the substantial discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be disclosed or otherwise compromised during litigation. We may not be able to correctly estimate or control our future operating expenses in relation to obtaining intellectual property, enforcing intellectual property and/or defending intellectual property, which could affect operating expenses. Our operating expenses may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, including the costs of preparing, filing, prosecuting, defending, and enforcing patent and trademark claims and other intellectual property-related costs, including adverse proceedings (such as litigation) costs. With respect to our proprietary platform technology, if we do not obtain rights to commercialize certain compounds, there is a risk that such rights will be exploited by another entity. As with all licenses to third parties in specific fields of use, there is a risk of impermissible exploitation by such third parties outside the licensed field. With respect to our Topical Photoparticle TherapyTM technology, if the nanoComposix agreement is terminated or narrowed, we could lose intellectual property rights that may be material to our Topical Photoparticle TherapyTM products. This agreement may be terminated by nanoComposix for our nonpayment or material breach, in either case, after the opportunity to cure and final determination in arbitration, or for our failure to receive FDA regulatory approval to sell a licensed product by August 2022, or for our insolvency or bankruptcy, or if we or our affiliate or future sublicensee initiates or voluntarily joins as a party to any legal action that challenges the validity or enforceability of the nanoComposix licensed patent rights, or nanoComposix's title thereto, or by joint written agreement. We may enter into additional licenses and agreements in the future and, as with all such arrangements, if we do not comply with obligations, we may suffer adverse consequences. Likewise, we are party to several agreements that although do not currently have a material impact on intellectual property, may become material if certain obligations are not fulfilled by any of the contracting parties.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distraction to management and other employees.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates, including all of the licensed rights under our exclusive supply and license agreement with nanoComposix, in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or conflict with third-party rights. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. In addition, third parties may file first for our trademarks in certain countries. If they succeeded in registering such trademarks, and if we were not successful in challenging such third-party rights, we may not be able to use these trademarks to market our products in those countries. In such cases, over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then our marketing abilities may be impacted.

We have not yet registered trademarks for a commercial trade name for our lead product candidates in the United States or any foreign jurisdiction, if approved. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we are given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. Moreover, any name we propose to use with our product candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

As of December 31, 2018, we had 58 full-time employees. On January 2, 2019, we implemented a corporate restructuring to focus our resources on our lead product candidate, SNA-120 for psoriasis and the associated pruritus, resulting in a reduction in force to reduce operational costs and preserve capital. The restructuring resulted in an elimination of 20 positions, or approximately 34% of our workforce. We will need to retain and maintain our existing managerial, operational, finance and other personnel and other resources in order to manage our operations, clinical trials, and continue our development activities, including our Phase 3 clinical trial program for SNA-120. Our management and personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support our strategy. Our need to effectively execute our strategy requires that we: -   manage our clinical trials effectively;-   identify, recruit, retain, incentivize and integrate additional employees, including sales personnel;-   manage our internal development and operational efforts effectively while carrying out our contractual obligations to third parties; and -   continue to maintain and improve our operational, financial and management controls, reports systems and procedures.

We currently do not have a sales organization. In order to commercialize our product candidates in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we expect to establish a sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product candidate, which will be expensive and time consuming. We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products or medical devices and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain, and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel, and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates or any future product candidates, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses.