PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. (PBYI) Business

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Company Overview

Unless otherwise provided in this Annual Report, references to the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Puma Biotechnology, Inc. and our wholly owned subsidiary.

We are a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes innovative products to enhance cancer care and improve treatment outcomes for patients. We are currently commercializing NERLYNX, an oral version of neratinib, for the treatment of certain HER2-positive breast cancers. Additionally, we have in-licensed, and are responsible for global development and commercialization of, alisertib. Alisertib is a selective, small-molecule inhibitor of Aurora Kinase A that is designed to disrupt mitosis leading to apoptosis of rapidly proliferating tumor cells that are dependent on Aurora Kinase A. Prior to our licensing alisertib from a subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (“Takeda”), alisertib was tested in over 1,300 patients who were treated across 22 company-sponsored trials resulting in a large, well-characterized clinical safety database. Based on information in this database, we believe alisertib has potential application in the treatment of a range of different cancer types, including hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer and small cell lung cancer. We intend to pursue development of alisertib initially in small cell lung cancer and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

The following figure provides an overview of our commercial product and drug candidates.

Neratinib

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide, with approximately 2.3 million new cases reported each year and more than 670,000 deaths globally per year. Up to 20% of breast cancer tumors show over-expression of the HER2 protein. Women with breast cancer that over-expresses HER2, referred to as HER2-positive breast cancer, are at greater risk for disease progression and death than women whose tumors do not over-express HER2. Therapeutic strategies have been developed to block HER2 in order to improve the treatment of this type of breast cancer. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, lapatinib, T-DM1, fam‐trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib are all drugs that are used as single agents, in combination with other drugs and in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with HER2-positive breast cancer at various stages.

3

Table of Contents

Neratinib is a potent irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor (“TKI”) that blocks signal transduction through the epidermal growth factor receptors, HER1, HER2 and HER4. Based on pre-clinical studies and clinical trials to date, we believe that neratinib may offer an advantage over existing treatments that are used in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. We believe that by more potently inhibiting HER2 at a different site and acting via a mechanism different from other agents, neratinib may have therapeutic benefits in breast cancer patients who have been previously treated with these existing treatments, most notably due to its irreversible inhibition of the HER2 target enzyme.

NERLYNX, the commercial name for neratinib, is currently approved in the United States for two indications: the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer following adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy and for use in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of adult patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. We also believe neratinib has potential clinical application in the treatment of several other cancers as well, including other tumor types that over-express or have a mutation in HER2 or epidermal growth factor receptor (“EGFR”), such as cervical cancer, lung cancer or other solid tumors.

We currently market NERLYNX in the United States using our direct specialty sales force consisting of approximately 35 sales specialists as of December 31, 2025. Our sales specialists are supported by an experienced sales leadership team consisting of regional managers and directors, as well as a commercial team of experienced professionals in marketing, access and reimbursement, managed markets, marketing research, commercial operations and sales force planning and management. Outside the United States, we have entered into exclusive sub-license agreements with third parties to pursue regulatory approval, if necessary, and commercialize NERLYNX, if approved. As of December 31, 2025, NERLYNX has received approval for the treatment of certain patients with extended adjuvant and/or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in more than 40 countries outside the United States, including the European Union (“EU”), China, Latin America, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong. We are currently party to several sub-licenses in various regions outside the United States, including Europe (excluding Ukraine), Australia, Canada, China, Southeast Asia, Israel, South Korea, Russia and various countries and territories in Central America, South America, Africa and the Middle East.

Alisertib

In September 2022, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Takeda to license the worldwide research and development and commercial rights to alisertib. Alisertib is an investigational, reversible, ATP-competitive inhibitor that is designed to be highly selective for Aurora Kinase A. Inhibition of Aurora Kinase A leads to disruption of mitotic spindle apparatus assembly, disruption of chromosome segregation, and inhibition of cell proliferation. In clinical trials to date, alisertib had shown single agent activity and activity in combination with other cancer drugs in the treatment of many different types of cancers, including hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer, small cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer. Alisertib has also shown activity in previous clinical trials in peripheral T cell lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Prior to our licensing alisertib from Takeda, the drug was tested in over 1,300 patients who were treated across 22 company-sponsored trials resulting in a large well-characterized clinical safety database.

Strategy

Our goal is to become a leading provider of advanced therapies for the treatment of various forms of cancer. The following elements comprise our strategy to achieve this objective:

4

Table of Contents

Neratinib

HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Overview

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. In 2022, an estimated 2.3 million new cases and 670,000 breast cancer-related deaths occurred. Up to 20% of breast cancer tumors show over-expression of the HER2 protein and HER2 status is an important prognostic and predictive factor of breast cancer. Therapeutic strategies have been developed to block HER2 in order to improve the treatment of this type of breast cancer.

Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, lapatinib, T-DM1, fam‐trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib are all drugs that are used as single agents, in combination with other drugs and in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with HER2-positive breast cancer at various stages.

Currently, the only treatment approved by the FDA for the treatment of neoadjuvant (newly diagnosed) HER2-positive breast cancer is the combination of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and taxane chemotherapy. The FDA-approved treatments for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer are the combination of trastuzumab and chemotherapy, the combination of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy, or KADCYLA®, which is approved specifically in patients with HER2-positive early stage breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment. In addition, we are aware of numerous additional ongoing clinical trials involving other drug candidates used alone or in combination with existing drugs to treat patients with breast cancer. In addition, we are also aware of a Phase III trial in patients with high risk HER2-positive early stage breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment that is testing the combination of KADCYLA plus tucatinib versus KADCYLA alone (the “CompassHER2 RD Trial”), and the data from the completed Phase III trial in patients with high risk HER2-positive early stage breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment that evaluated fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan versus KADCYLA alone (the “DESTINY-Breast05 Trial”).

We believe that there are approximately 30,000 patients in the United States and 37,000 patients in the EU with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer who are treated with adjuvant therapy. We also believe that there are approximately 6,400 patients in the United States with third-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. The number of patients with third-line or later HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer may decrease in future years as the introduction of new neoadjuvant, adjuvant and extended adjuvant treatments may reduce the number of patients with recurrence of HER2-positive breast cancer and therefore reduce the number of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Background on Neratinib

Neratinib is a potent irreversible TKI that blocks signal transduction through the epidermal growth factor receptors, HER1, HER2 and HER4. Based on pre-clinical studies and clinical trials to date, we believe that neratinib may offer an advantage over existing treatments that are used in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. We believe that by more potently inhibiting HER2 at a different site and acting via a mechanism different from other agents, neratinib may have therapeutic benefits in patients who have been previously treated with these existing treatments, most notably due to its irreversible inhibition of the HER2 target enzyme.

In addition, we believe neratinib has clinical application in the treatment of several other cancers as well, including other tumor types that over-express or have a mutation in HER2 or EGFR, such as breast cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer or other solid tumors.

Neratinib—Early Stage Breast Cancer

Extended Adjuvant Breast Cancer

In 2017, the FDA approved NERLYNX (neratinib) for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer following adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. In 2018, the EC granted marketing authorization for NERLYNX in the EU for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage hormone receptor-positive HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer and who are less than one year from the completion of prior adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. These approvals were obtained based on the two-year data obtained in our ExteNET trial.

Two-Year ExteNET Data. In July 2014, we announced top line results from our ExteNET trial, a Phase III clinical trial of neratinib for the extended adjuvant treatment of early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. The data from this trial were presented in an oral presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) Annual Meeting in June 2015 and were published online in The Lancet Oncology in February 2016. The ExteNET trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial of neratinib versus placebo after adjuvant treatment with Herceptin in women with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. More specifically, the ExteNET trial enrolled 2,840 patients in 41 countries with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer who had undergone surgery and adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab. After completion of adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab, patients were randomized to receive extended adjuvant treatment with either neratinib or placebo for a period of one year. Patients were then followed for recurrent disease, ductal carcinoma in situ (“DCIS”), or death for a period of two years after randomization in the trial.

The safety results of the study showed that the most frequently observed adverse event for the neratinib-treated patients was diarrhea, with approximately 39.9% of the neratinib-treated patients experiencing grade 3 or higher diarrhea (one patient, 0.1%, had grade 4 diarrhea). Patients who received neratinib in this trial did not receive any prophylaxis with antidiarrheal agents to prevent the neratinib-related diarrhea.

The primary endpoint of the ExteNET trial was invasive disease-free survival (“DFS”). The results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 33% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.67, p = 0.009). The two-year DFS rate for the neratinib arm was 93.9% and the two-year DFS rate for the placebo arm was 91.6%. The secondary endpoint of the trial was disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ (“DFS-DCIS”). The results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 37% reduction of risk of disease recurrence including DCIS or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.63, p = 0.002). The two-year DFS-DCIS rate for the neratinib arm was 93.9% and the two-year DFS-DCIS rate for the placebo arm was 91.0%.

5

Table of Contents

As an inclusion criteria for the ExteNET trial, patients needed to have tumors that were HER2-positive using local assessment. In addition, as a pre-defined subgroup in the trial, patients had centralized HER2 testing performed on their tumor as well. At the time the two-year data was compiled, centralized HER2 testing had been performed on 1,704 (60%) of the patients in the ExteNET trial and further central testing on available samples was ongoing. For the 1,463 patients whose tumors were HER2-positive by central confirmation, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 49% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.51, p = 0.002). The two-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 94.7% and the 2-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 90.6%. For the patients in the trial whose tumors were HER2-positive by central confirmation, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 51% reduction of risk of disease recurrence including DCIS or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.49, p 0.001). The two-year DFS-DCIS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 94.7% and the two-year DFS rate for centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 90.2%.

For the pre-defined subgroup of patients with hormone receptor-positive disease, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 49% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.51, p = 0.001). The two-year DFS rate for the neratinib arm was 95.4% and the two-year DFS rate for the placebo arm was 91.2%. For the patients in the trial whose tumors were HER2-positive by central confirmation, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 75% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death (hazard ratio = 0.25, p 0.001). The two-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 97.0% and the two-year DFS rate for centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 88.4%.

Five-Year ExteNET Data. In September 2017, we presented updated data from the ExteNET trial at the European Society of Medical Oncology (“ESMO”) 2017 Congress in Madrid, Spain. The data represented a predefined five-year invasive disease-free survival (“iDFS”) analysis as a follow-up to the primary two-year iDFS analysis of the Phase III ExteNET trial. The results of the trial demonstrated that after a median follow up of 5.2 years, treatment with neratinib resulted in a 27% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.73, p = 0.008). The five-year iDFS rate for the neratinib arm was 90.2% and the 5-year iDFS rate for the placebo arm was 87.7%. The secondary endpoint of the trial was invasive disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ (“iDFS-DCIS”). The results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 29% reduction of risk of disease recurrence, including DCIS or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.71, p = 0.004). The five-year iDFS-DCIS rate for the neratinib arm was 89.7% and the five-year iDFS-DCIS rate for the placebo arm was 86.8%.

For the pre-defined subgroup of patients with hormone receptor-positive disease, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 40% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.60, p = 0.002). The five-year iDFS rate for the neratinib arm was 91.2% and the five-year iDFS rate for the placebo arm was 86.8%. For the pre-defined subgroup of patients with hormone receptor-negative disease, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.95 (p = 0.762).

The results of the ExteNET trial showed that after two years of follow-up, for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive early stage breast cancer who were treated within one year after the completion of trastuzumab based adjuvant therapy, iDFS was 95.3% in the patients treated with neratinib compared with 90.8% in those receiving placebo (hazard ratio = 0.49; 95% CI: (0.30, 0.78); p=0.002).

The safety results were unchanged from the primary two-year iDFS analysis of the study that showed the most frequently observed adverse event for the neratinib-treated patients was diarrhea, with approximately 39.9% of the neratinib-treated patients experiencing grade 3 or higher diarrhea (one patient, or 0.1%, had grade 4 diarrhea). Patients who received neratinib in this trial did not receive any prophylaxis with antidiarrheal agents to prevent the neratinib-related diarrhea.

In October 2020, we announced that efficacy results of neratinib in HER2-positive, hormone receptor-positive (“HR+”), early stage breast cancer from the Phase III ExteNET trial were published in Clinical Breast Cancer. The manuscript presented data focusing on hormone receptor-positive patients who initiated treatment within a year of completing an adjuvant trastuzumab containing treatment (HR+ / 1 yr) and subgroups of clinical interest including patients who did not achieve a pathological complete response (no pCR) after neoadjuvant treatment and therefore were at a high risk of disease recurrence (HR+/ 1 yr, no pCR). In the HR+ / 1 yr patient population, the absolute 5-year invasive disease-free survival benefit versus placebo was 5.1% (HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.41–0.82) and absolute 8-year overall survival benefit was 2.1%. (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.55–1.13). The 5-year cumulative incidence of central nervous system (“CNS”) metastases was 0.7% in the neratinib arm and 2.1% in the placebo arm.

In the HR+/ 1 yr, no pCR subgroup of patients that were at a high risk of disease recurrence the absolute 5-year iDFS benefit in the neratinib arm versus placebo was 7.4% (HR=0.60; 95% CI 0.33–1.07) and the 8-year overall survival benefit was 9.1% (HR=0.47; 95% CI 0.23– 0.92).

NERLYNX is included in the body of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (“NCCN”) Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer for the treatment of adjuvant HER2-positive Breast Cancer (BINV-16 & BINV-L) under the heading Useful in Certain Circumstances, with a recommendation for considering extended adjuvant neratinib for patients with HR-positive, HER2-positive disease with a perceived high risk of recurrence. Dose escalation of neratinib is included as an approach to improve the tolerability of neratinib in the treatment of adjuvant HER2-positive breast cancer.

CONTROL. In February 2015, we initiated the CONTROL trial, which is an international, open-label, Phase II study investigating the use of antidiarrheal prophylaxis or dose escalation in the prevention and reduction of neratinib-associated diarrhea and, more specifically, grade 3 diarrhea. In the CONTROL trial, patients with HER2-positive early stage breast cancer who had completed trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy received neratinib daily for a period of one year.

6

Table of Contents

In December 2021, final results from the CONTROL trial were presented at the CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Final results showed the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 137 patients who received the loperamide prophylaxis was 31%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 64 patients who received the combination of loperamide plus budesonide was 28%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 136 patients who received the combination of loperamide plus colestipol was 21%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 104 patients who received colestipol alone with loperamide as needed was 33%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 60 patients who used the dose escalation 1 regimen (DE 1) was 13%, and the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 62 patients who used dose escalation regimen 2 (DE 2) was 27%. Further information is provided in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Diarrhea

Adoption of neratinib dose escalation at the initiation of treatment, particularly the 2-week DE schedule (“DE1”), most markedly reduced the incidence, severity, and duration of neratinib-associated grade 3 diarrhea in CONTROL compared to other treatment cohorts. Both DE strategies showed a lower incidence of grade 3 diarrhea (DE1 13%; DE2 27%) compared with that observed in the ExteNET trial (historical control: 39.8%). No grade 4 diarrhea was reported in any cohort. The median cumulative duration of grade 3 diarrhea ranged from 2 – 2.5 days across the CONTROL DE study cohorts for the entire 12-month treatment period (compared with 5.0 days for ExteNET). The proportion of patients discontinuing neratinib because of diarrhea was lower in both DE cohorts (DE1 3%; DE2 6%) compared with ExteNET (17%). The adoption of neratinib DE + loperamide PRN during the first 2 weeks of treatment (DE1 cohort) was associated with the lowest rate of grade 3 diarrhea during the trial compared with all other anti-diarrheal strategies investigated in CONTROL. These final findings from the CONTROL study showed improved tolerability of neratinib with all diarrhea prophylaxis strategies and suggest that neratinib DE1 with loperamide PRN may allow patients to stay on treatment longer and receive the full benefit of neratinib therapy. This study is complete, and the results have been submitted to multiple global Health Authorities to support the addition of a dose escalation regimen to approved package inserts.

Dose escalation as an approach to improve the tolerability of neratinib in the treatment of adjuvant HER2-positive Breast Cancer (BINV-L) is included in the NCCN treatment guidelines. This inclusion aligns with the labeling supplement to the U.S. Prescribing Information approved by the FDA in June 2021, which incorporated the use of NERLYNX dose escalation as evaluated in the Phase II CONTROL study.

Neratinib—Metastatic Breast Cancer

In February 2020, the FDA approved our supplemental New Drug Application (“NDA”) for the use of neratinib in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of adult patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. This approval was based on the results from our NALA trial.

NALA. In February 2013, we reached agreement with the FDA under a Special Protocol Assessment (“SPA”) for our Phase III clinical trial (PUMA-NER-1301 or the NALA trial) of neratinib in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have failed two or more prior treatments (third-line disease). An SPA is a written agreement between the trial’s sponsor and the FDA regarding the design, endpoints, and planned statistical analysis of the Phase III trial with respect to the effectiveness of neratinib for the indication to be studied to support an NDA. The European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) also provided follow-on Scientific Advice (“SA”) consistent with that of the FDA regarding our Phase III trial design and endpoints used for such design to support the submission of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) in the EU.

Pursuant to the SPA and SA, the Phase III NALA trial was designed as a randomized controlled trial of neratinib plus capecitabine versus Tykerb® (lapatinib) plus capecitabine in patients with third-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. The trial enrolled 621 patients who were randomized (1:1) to receive either neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine. The trial was conducted globally at sites in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and South America. The co-primary endpoints of the trial were centrally confirmed PFS and overall survival (“OS”). An alpha level of 1% was allocated to the PFS and 4% allocated to OS.

In June 2019, we announced that results from the Phase III NALA trial were presented at the ASCO 2019 Annual Meeting in Chicago. For the primary analysis of centrally confirmed PFS, treatment with neratinib plus capecitabine resulted in a statistically significant improvement in centrally confirmed PFS (hazard ratio=0.76, p=0.0059) compared to treatment with lapatinib plus capecitabine. Because the hazard ratio was found to not be constant over time (i.e., the proportional hazard assumption did not hold), the statistical analysis plan for the NALA trial prespecified that a restricted means survival analysis at 24 months would be performed. In this prespecified analysis, the mean PFS for the patients treated with neratinib plus capecitabine was 8.8 months and the mean PFS for the patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine was 6.6 months.

7

Table of Contents

For the primary analyses of OS, neratinib plus capecitabine resulted in an improvement in OS that, although not statistically significant, trended numerically in favor of the neratinib plus capecitabine arm of the study (hazard ratio = 0.88, p=0.21). The median OS for the patients treated with neratinib plus capecitabine was 21.0 months and the median OS for the patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine was 18.7 months. In the prespecified restricted means analysis, the mean OS at 48 months for the patients treated with neratinib plus capecitabine was 24.0 months and the mean OS for the patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine was 22.2 months.

For the secondary endpoint of time to intervention for symptomatic central nervous system disease (also referred to as brain metastases), the results of the trial showed that treatment with neratinib plus capecitabine led to an improvement over the combination of lapatinib plus capecitabine. The overall cumulative incidence of CNS metastases was 22.8% for the neratinib plus capecitabine arm and 29.2% for the lapatinib plus capecitabine arm (p=0.043). For the secondary endpoint of duration of response, neratinib plus capecitabine treatment resulted in a longer duration of response compared to lapatinib and capecitabine treatment, with a median response of 8.54 months compared to a median response of 5.55 months (HR = 0.495, p = 0.0004).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) were similar between arms: TEAEs leading to neratinib/lapatinib discontinuation were lower with neratinib (10.9%) than with lapatinib (14.5%). There was a higher rate of grade 3 diarrhea with neratinib plus capecitabine compared to lapatinib plus capecitabine (24.4% vs 12.5%); however, the discontinuations due to diarrhea (neratinib plus capecitabine: 2.6%, lapatinib plus capecitabine: 2.3%) were similar in both arms.

NERLYNX plus capecitabine is included in the body of the NCCN Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer for the treatment of recurrent unresectable (local or regional) or stage IV (M1) HER2-positive Breast Cancer (BINV-Q), with a recommendation for Fourth Line and Beyond (optimal sequence is not known). Dose escalation of neratinib is included as an approach to improve the tolerability of neratinib in the treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

Metastatic Breast Cancer with Brain Metastases

Approximately one-half of the patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer develop metastases that spread to their brain. The current antibody-based treatments, including trastuzumab and pertuzumab, do not enter the brain and therefore are not believed to be effective in treating these patients.

Neratinib was evaluated in a clinical trial with the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, referred to as TBCRC 022. The purpose of the study was to determine how well neratinib worked in treating breast cancer that had spread to the brain. In this research study, the investigators looked to see how well neratinib worked to decrease the size of or stabilize breast cancer that had metastasized to the brain.

In June 2017, we presented interim data from TBCRC 022 at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting. The multicenter Phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had brain metastases. The trial initially enrolled three cohorts of patients. Patients in the second cohort (n=5) represent patients who had brain metastases that were amenable to surgery and who were administered neratinib monotherapy prior to and after surgical resection. The third cohort (target enrollment=60) enrolled two sub-groups of patients (prior lapatinib-treated and no prior lapatinib) with progressive brain metastases who were administered neratinib in combination with the chemotherapy drug capecitabine. The oral presentation reflected only the patients in the third cohort of patients without prior lapatinib exposure (cohort 3A, n=37), who all had progressive brain metastases at the time of enrollment and who received the combination of capecitabine plus neratinib.

In cohort 3A, 30% of the patients had received prior craniotomy, 65% of the patients had received prior whole brain radiotherapy, and 35% had received prior stereotactic radiosurgery to the brain. No patients had received prior treatment with lapatinib.

The primary endpoint of the trial was CNS Objective Response Rate according to composite criteria that included volumetric brain MRI measurements, steroid use, neurological signs and symptoms, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (“RECIST”) evaluation for non-CNS sites. The secondary endpoint of the trial was CNS response by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Brain Metastases (“RANO-BM”) criteria. The efficacy results from the trial showed that 49% of patients experienced a CNS Objective Response by the composite criteria. The results also showed that the CNS response rate using the RANO-BM criteria was 24%. The median time to CNS progression was 5.5 months and the median overall survival was 13.5 months, though 49% of patients remain alive and survival data are immature.

The results for cohort 3A showed that the most frequently observed severe adverse event for the 37 patients evaluable for safety was diarrhea. Patients received antidiarrheal prophylaxis consisting of high dose loperamide, given together with the combination of capecitabine plus neratinib for the first cycle of treatment in order to try to reduce the neratinib-related diarrhea. Among the 37 patients evaluable for safety, 32% of the patients had grade 3 diarrhea and 41% had grade 2 diarrhea.

Updated results from an additional TBCRC 022 cohort were presented in December 2022 at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. This presentation outlined updates from three sub-cohorts of cohort 4: 4A – patients with previously untreated Breast Cancer Brain Metastases (“BCBM”); 4B – patients with BCBM progressing after prior local CNS-directed therapy without prior T-DM1 exposure; and 4C – patients with BCBM progressing after prior local CNS-directed therapy with previous T-DM1 exposure. Patients with measurable HER2-positive BCBM received neratinib 160 mg orally once daily plus T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days in the three parallel-enrolling cohorts. Diarrhea prophylaxis with colestipol and loperamide was required during cycle 1. All enrolled patients underwent a brain MRI plus CT scan of the chest/abdomen/pelvis every six weeks for 18 weeks, followed by every nine weeks thereafter.

The primary endpoint, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Brain Metastases (“RANO-BM”), was evaluated in each cohort separately. The efficacy results from the trial showed that CNS Objective Response Rate by RANO-BM was 33.3% of patients in cohort 4A, 29.4% in cohort 4B, and 28.6% in cohort 4C. Rates of response + stable disease greater than or equal to six months were 50% in cohort 4A, 35.3% in cohort 4B, and 33.3% in cohort 4C.

8

Table of Contents

Intracranial activity was observed for the combination of neratinib plus T-DM1 in all three cohorts, including in patients with prior T-DM1 exposure, suggesting a reversal of resistance to T-DM1. Overall, the most frequently observed adverse event was diarrhea, grade 2 (32%) and grade 3 (23%).

In April 2018, we announced that NERLYNX has been included as a recommended treatment option in the latest NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Central Nervous System Cancers (“CNS Guidelines”) for patients with breast cancer and brain metastases. The NCCN designated NERLYNX in combination with capecitabine as a category 2A treatment option and NERLYNX in combination with paclitaxel as a category 2B treatment option. Use of NERLYNX for breast cancer patients with brain metastases is outside the FDA-approved indication for NERLYNX and considered investigational, and we do not market or promote NERLYNX for these uses.

Based upon data from the TBCRC 022 study, NERLYNX plus KADCYLA (T-DM1) was added in June 2025 to the NCCN CNS Guidelines for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with brain metastases as a category 2A recommendation.

Neratinib—Other Potential Applications

While we believe neratinib has potential applications in other diseases, such as HER2-mutated solid tumors, as well as EGFR exon 18-mutated non-small cell lung cancer, we are not currently pursuing additional development in these indications at this time.

NERLYNX combinations are included in the body of the NCCN Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer for patients with HER2-negative metastatic (stage IV) breast cancer and activating mutations in the HER2 gene as detected by next generation sequencing of tumor tissue or ctDNA under the heading Useful in Certain Circumstances (BINV-Q). NERLYNX is included (i) with or without fulvestrant and (ii) with or without trastuzumab/fulvestrant. This inclusion is described in a table entitled, “Emerging Biomarkers to Identify Novel Therapies for Patients with Stage IV (M1) Disease,” within the NCCN Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer. Dose escalation of neratinib is included as an approach to improve the tolerability of neratinib in the treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

NERLYNX monotherapy is also included in the body of the NCCN Practice Guidelines for Cervical Cancer for use as a second-line or subsequent therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer and a mutation in the HER2 gene. NERLYNX is included in CERV-F under the heading Useful in Certain Circumstances and designated as a category 2A treatment option. Use of NERLYNX in cervical cancer patients is outside the FDA-approved indication for NERLYNX and considered investigational, and we may not market or promote NERLYNX for these uses.

Neratinib is also being investigated in an ongoing Phase 1 trial (NCT05372614) that is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute to evaluate the combination of neratinib and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan (ENHERTU®) in patients with metastatic solid tumors. The Phase 1 trial includes patients with metastatic solid tumors harboring HER2-overexpression (immunohistochemistry 3+), ERBB2 amplifications, or activating HER2 mutations. The primary objectives are to assess safety and tolerability of the combination, and the secondary objectives include evaluating pharmacokinetics, preliminary efficacy, and potential biomarkers of response.

Alisertib

Alisertib is an investigational reversible, ATP-competitive inhibitor that is designed to be highly selective for Aurora Kinase A. Inhibition of Aurora Kinase A leads to disruption of mitotic spindle apparatus assembly, disruption of chromosome segregation, and inhibition of cell proliferation. In clinical trials to date, alisertib had shown single agent activity and activity in combination with other cancer drugs in the treatment of many different types of cancers, including hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer, small cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer. The drug has also shown activity in previous clinical trials in peripheral T cell lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Prior to our licensing alisertib from Takeda the drug was tested in over 1,300 patients who were treated across 22 company sponsored trials resulting in a large well characterized clinical safety database.

We intend to pursue the development of alisertib in hormone receptor-positive. HER2-negative, breast cancer as well as small cell lung cancer based on the prior clinical data that has been generated. We also plan to evaluate alisertib in biomarker focused populations where it has shown a higher degree of activity, such as patients with c-Myc amplification and RB1 loss/RB1 mutations, as we believe that this may provide a point of differentiation from the other drugs being developed in the treatment of these diseases. During 2023, we met with the FDA to discuss our alisertib clinical development plan in both proposed indications and discussed potential dosing schedules for alisertib. Following comments from the FDA on the proposed clinical development plans, we initiated clinical trials for both small cell lung cancer and breast cancer in 2024 and completed enrollment in the breast cancer clinical trial in February 2026.

Alisertib in Small Cell Lung Cancer

In a Phase II trial that was published in Lancet Oncology in 2015, alisertib was tested as a single agent in several cohorts of patients with solid tumors. These included small cell lung cancer as well as breast cancer. In small cell lung cancer, the study design involved the administration of alisertib to patients who had previously received up to two prior cytotoxic regimens in the metastatic setting. Patients were administered alisertib monotherapy at a dose of 50 mg twice a day (“BID”) for seven days followed by a 14-day break.

In patients with chemotherapy sensitive disease, alisertib resulted in a response rate of 19% and a duration of response of 3.1 months. For the patients with chemotherapy refractory disease or chemotherapy resistant disease, alisertib resulted in a response rate of 25% and a duration of response of 4.3 months. The main grade 3 or higher adverse events (“AEs”) seen in the trial were neutropenia, anemia, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia.

9

Table of Contents

Alisertib was also tested in a randomized Phase II trial of paclitaxel plus alisertib versus paclitaxel plus placebo in patients with second line small cell lung cancer, the results of which were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology in 2020. In the trial, alisertib was dosed at 40 mg BID for 3 weeks on days 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 plus paclitaxel (60 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15) whereas the comparator arm received placebo plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15) in 28-day cycles.

Randomization was stratified by type of relapse after primary treatment, based on the common definition for each type (with sensitive defined as relapsed greater than 90 but less than 180 days after primary treatment and resistant or refractory defined as relapsed less than or equal to 90 days after primary treatment). The protocol was initially written by the sponsor to record relapse type as the time from initial response. The protocol was corrected approximately midway through the trial to correct the stratification definition of relapse type after primary treatment so that relapses were recorded “from last administration of platinum-based chemotherapy,” which is in line with the NCCN treatment guidelines and clinical treatment practice rather than “from initial response.” To maintain balance, the primary end point of PFS was analyzed by using the original stratification definition of relapse type. However, a sensitivity analysis that used the corrected stratification definition was also performed. The trial also incorporated an extensive biomarker analysis with a prespecified analysis of c-Myc expression and an exploratory, retrospective analysis of genetic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (“ctDNA”) with clinical outcome.

The primary endpoint in the trial was PFS. For the intent to treat (“ITT”) population the hazard ratio using the original definition was 0.77 with a p value of 0.113. Using the corrected definition of relapse type, the hazard ratio was 0.71 with a p value of 0.038. For the patients with chemotherapy resistant or refractory relapse the hazard ratio was 0.66 with a p value of 0.037. For the ITT population the OS data showed a hazard ratio of 0.87 with a p value of 0.714 and using the corrected definition the hazard ratio was 0.79 with a p value of 0.209. Higher rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were seen in the alisertib arm for neutropenia, anemia and decreased neutrophil count.

For the patients in the trial who were found to be positive for c-Myc expression by immunohistochemistry the hazard ratio in the trial was 0.29 with a median PFS for the paclitaxel plus alisertib arm of 4.64 months and a median PFS for the placebo plus paclitaxel arm of 2.27 months. The trial also incorporated an analysis of patients with alterations in cell cycle genes including cyclin-dependent kinase 6 gene (CDK6), retinoblastoma-like 1 gene (RBL1), retinoblastoma-like 2 gene (RBL2), and retinoblastoma 1 gene (RB1). Of note RB1 mutations were the most frequent mutation with approximately 60% of the patients having RB1 mutations while CDK6, RBL1 and RBL2 mutations were found with very low frequency. For patients with cell cycles mutations (RB1, CDK6, RBL1 and RBL2), the PFS in the paclitaxel plus alisertib arm was 3.68 months while the placebo plus paclitaxel arm was 1.8 months and the hazard ratio was 0.395 with a p value of 0.003. The overall survival in this subgroup of patients was 7.2 months for the alisertib arm and 4.47 months for the placebo arm with a hazard ratio of 0.427 and a p value of 0.00085.

Development plan. In the United States, approximately 31,000 to 33,000 individuals are newly diagnosed with small cell lung cancer each year and approximately 16,000 to 17,000 patients die from the disease annually. There are two biomarkers of interest, c-Myc expression and RB1 mutations, that we intend to study with alisertib based on prior clinical trial results which may provide differentiation from other drugs in development. According to published biomarker data from an alisertib clinical trial, approximately 72% of samples from patients with small cell lung cancer had c-Myc expression and approximately 60-80% had RB1 mutations.

In August 2023, we announced that we had been notified by the FDA that we can proceed under our Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) with the clinical development of alisertib monotherapy for the treatment of patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. Our Phase II trial ALISertib in CAncer (ALISCA™-Lung1) Phase II trial (PUMA-ALI-4201)) will enroll up to 60 patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer who have progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Patients must provide tissue-based biopsies so that biomarkers can be analyzed. Alisertib will be dosed at 50 mg BID on days 1-7 of every 21-day cycle. In February 2024 we announced that we initiated the Phase II ALISCATM-Lung1 trial. This trial was amended in August 2025 to evaluate a higher dose of 60mg BID. This study is ongoing and actively recruiting patients.

The primary endpoint of the trial is objective response rate with secondary endpoints of duration of response, disease control rate, PFS and overall survival. We will look at each of these endpoints within selected pre-specified biomarker subgroups to assess whether there is enhanced efficacy in any biomarker subgroup. We will perform a biomarker analysis of the ALI-4201 trial in parallel with the execution of the clinical trial. We plan to perform an initial interim analysis for the evaluation of the biomarkers as well as an evaluation of the efficacy. Based upon the outcomes of the study, we anticipate meeting with the FDA to explore the potential for an accelerated approval pathway for alisertib in small cell lung cancer.

Alisertib in Breast Cancer

In the same Phase II trial of alisertib monotherapy that was published in Lancet Oncology in 2015, alisertib was also tested in patients with HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, HER2-positive breast cancer and triple negative breast cancer. Patients were administered alisertib monotherapy at a dose of 50 mg BID for seven days followed by a 14-day break. In the cohort of patients with HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, treatment with alisertib resulted in a response rate of 23% with a PFS of 7.9 months. The main grade 3/4 AEs seen were neutropenia, leukopenia, stomatitis and fatigue.

Alisertib was also tested in a randomized Phase II trial in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients that was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in 2020 and published in JAMA Oncology in March 2023. In this trial alisertib was dosed at 50 mg BID on days 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 on a 28 day cycle while fulvestrant was dosed at its approved dose of 500 mg IM on days 1 and 15. The baseline characteristics from the trial were well balanced although a higher percentage of patients with prior chemotherapy given in the metastatic setting were present in the alisertib plus fulvestrant arm. Of note, patients were required to have been treated with prior fulvestrant as an inclusion criteria for the trial.

The results from the trial showed a response rate of 19.6% in the alisertib alone arm and 20.0% in the alisertib plus fulvestrant arm. The median duration of response was 15.1 months for the alisertib alone arm and 8.5 months for the alisertib plus fulvestrant arm. The PFS was 5.6 months in the alisertib alone arm and 5.4 months in the alisertib plus fulvestrant arm. The main AEs seen in the trial were similar to the prior monotherapy trial with incidences of neutropenia, anemia, and decreases in white blood cells and lymphocytes seen.

Alisertib was also tested in a randomized Phase II trial in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and triple negative breast cancer patients, which was published in JAMA Network Open in 2021, in which patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel plus alisertib or paclitaxel alone. In this trial alisertib was dosed at 40 mg BID on days 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 on a 28-day cycle while paclitaxel was dosed at 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In the control arm paclitaxel was dosed at 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle.

10

Table of Contents

The combination of paclitaxel plus alisertib resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS with a hazard ratio of 0.56 and a p value of 0.005. The median PFS in the paclitaxel plus alisertib arm was 10.2 months and the median PFS in the paclitaxel alone arm was 7.1 months. Treatment with paclitaxel plus alisertib resulted in a numerically higher but not statistically significant improvement in overall survival where the median OS for the paclitaxel plus alisertib arm was 26.3 months versus 25.1 months for the single agent paclitaxel arm of the trial, which resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.89 and a p value of 0.61.

The standard of care for the first line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the United States is treatment with Cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors (CDK 4/6 inhibitors). In the cohort of patients in the trial who were treated with CDK 4/6 inhibitors, the combination of paclitaxel plus alisertib resulted in a median PFS of 13.9 months while paclitaxel alone resulted in a median PFS of 5.6 months. The hazard ratio was 0.59 with a p value of 0.19.

In the cohort of patients with triple negative breast cancer, the combination of paclitaxel plus alisertib resulted in an improvement in PFS with a hazard ratio of 0.35 and a p value of 0.022. The median PFS in the paclitaxel plus alisertib arm was 9.6 months and the median PFS in the paclitaxel plus placebo arm was 5.7 months. Treatment with paclitaxel plus alisertib resulted in a higher but not statistically significant improvement in overall survival where the median OS for the paclitaxel plus alisertib arm was 16 months versus 12.7 months for the paclitaxel alone arm of the trial, which resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.51 and a p value of 0.09.

Higher rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were seen in the paclitaxel plus alisertib arm for neutropenia, leukopenia, diarrhea, mucositis and stomatitis.

Archival tissue samples from patients enrolled in the clinical study were analyzed as part of a biomarker evaluation strategy. Of the 140 patients enrolled in the trial, 45 from the alisertib plus paclitaxel arm and 51 from the paclitaxel arm had sufficient tissue available for next generation sequencing, and 31 from the alisertib plus paclitaxel arm and 35 from the paclitaxel arm had enough for RNA sequencing/gene set enrichment analysis. The most frequently mutated genes were PIK3CA (45%) and TP53 (44%). No mutations were significantly associated with response or resistance to alisertib plus paclitaxel, including those in PIK3CA, TP53, AKT1, HER2, and CDH1.

Increased MYC RNA expression was observed in tumors from patients who did not derive clinical benefit from paclitaxel alone (defined as PFS less than six months) compared to those with benefit from paclitaxel alone (defined as PFS greater than or equal to six months). Increased MYC RNA expression was not observed in patients who did not appear to benefit from alisertib plus paclitaxel. Elevated expression of genes involved in MYC activation and in unfolded protein response (a pro- survival mechanism) were enriched in alisertib plus paclitaxel responders compared to paclitaxel responders and were associated with poor response to paclitaxel alone. In 12 patients with exceptional response to alisertib plus paclitaxel (defined as PFS greater than or equal to 12 months), increased expression of genes involved in MYC activation and in epithelial to mesenchymal transition (a hallmark of cancer progression and metastasis) was observed in comparison to cancers from patients whose disease progressed within six months of initiating alisertib + paclitaxel (n=11) or those with exceptional response to paclitaxel alone (n=4).

Development plan. In the United States the incidence of hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer is 40,000 patients per year with 29,700 deaths per year. There are two biomarkers of interest that we intend to study with alisertib, c-Myc amplifications and RB1 mutations/deletions. According to biomarker analyses from clinical trials, approximately 50% of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer tumors may have c-Myc amplifications and approximately 2-9% of hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer samples have RB1 mutations detected at the time of resistance to CDK 4/6 inhibitors.

Based on our interactions with the FDA, we initiated a Phase II trial of alisertib in combination with endocrine treatment (consisting of either anastrozole, exemestane, letrozole, fulvestrant or tamoxifen) in patients with chemotherapy-naïve HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (ALISCA™-Breast1). Patients must have been previously treated with CDK 4/6 inhibitors and received at least two prior lines of endocrine therapy in the recurrent or metastatic setting to be eligible for the trial. In November 2024, we announced that we initiated the Phase II ALISCATM-Breast1 trial, and the study is actively enrolling patients.

The ALISCATM-Breast1 trial is designed to dose patients with alisertib given at either 30 mg, 40 mg or 50 mg twice daily (BID) on days 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 on a 28-day cycle in combination with the endocrine therapy of the investigator’s choice. Patients must not have been previously treated with the endocrine treatment that will be given in combination with alisertib in the trial. Each dose level is expected to enroll up to 50 patients. Patients must provide blood samples and tissue-based biopsies so that biomarkers can be evaluated. The primary objective is to determine the optimal alisertib dose level administered in combination with selected endocrine therapy to be used in future studies. The primary efficacy end points include objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate and PFS. As a secondary objective, we will evaluate each of these efficacy endpoints within biomarker subgroups in order to determine whether any biomarker subgroup correlates with more favorable efficacy results, such as those observed in preclinical and clinical studies in other cancers including breast cancer and small cell lung cancer. Pending the outcome of this study, we may then look to focus the future clinical development of alisertib in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in patients with any potential biomarkers. The trial was designed to enroll a total of 150 patients, which was achieved in February 2026. Due to the larger number of patients in screening, we anticipate that the trial will enroll more than 150 patients.

Clinical Testing of Our Drug Candidates

Any drug candidates we seek to develop will require extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing to determine its safety and efficacy in the potential applications before seeking and obtaining regulatory approval. This process is expensive and time consuming. In completing these trials, we are dependent upon third-party consultants, consisting mainly of investigators and collaborators, who will conduct such trials.

We and our third-party consultants conduct pre-clinical testing in accordance with Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) and clinical testing in accordance with Good Clinical Practice standards (“GCP”), which are international ethical and scientific quality standards utilized for pre-clinical and clinical testing, respectively. GCP is the standard for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording, analysis and reporting of clinical trials and the FDA requires compliance with GCP regulations in the conduct of clinical trials. Additionally, our pre-clinical and clinical testing completed in the EU is conducted in accordance with applicable EU standards, such as the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of April 16, 2014), and applicable national laws of the 27 EU member states.

We have entered into, and may enter into in the future, master service agreements with CROs with respect to initiating, managing and conducting the clinical trials of our products. These contracts contain standard terms for the type of services provided that contain cancellation clauses requiring between 30 and 45 days written notice and that obligate us to pay for any services previously rendered with prepaid, unused funds being returned to us.

11

Table of Contents

Competition

The development and commercialization of new products to treat cancer is highly competitive. Significant financial resources are invested in research, development and commercialization of new cancer products. We have faced and will likely continue to face considerable competition from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty cancer companies. Our competitors include, but are not limited to, Genentech, Novartis, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, AbbVie, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz and Seagen. Merck, AbbVie, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo and Jazz are developing their drugs for the treatment of small cell lung cancer. All of the other competitors are developing their drugs for the treatment of early stage and/or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and/or for cancers that have a HER2 mutation or HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. We are aware of the results of the DESTINY-Breast11 neoadjuvant trial, which showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly increased pathologic complete response rates over standard therapy. We are also aware of the results of the DESTINY-Breast05 adjuvant trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan in early stage HER2-positive breast cancer, which showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with high-risk HER2-positive early breast cancer following neoadjuvant therapy. Lastly, we are aware of the CompassHER2 RD trial of tucatinib in early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. In addition, we are also competing with academic institutions, governmental agencies and private organizations that are conducting research in the field of cancer.

We are a small biotechnology company with a limited history of sales, marketing, operations and commercial manufacturing. Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling subjects for our clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We could see a reduction or elimination of our commercial opportunity if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we or our collaborators are able to enter the market.

We anticipate that we will continue to face significant competition in the ongoing commercialization of NERLYNX and the commercialization of any of our drug candidates that receive marketing approval. Our competition will be determined by several factors including but not limited to the specific indications approved, the timing of any approvals as well as competitive activity and entrants within this space. We expect that competition among products approved for sale will be based on various factors, including safety, efficacy, pricing and contracting, patient support services, access and reimbursement, formulary and pathway adoption as well as patent position.

Sales and Marketing

United States

We currently have an oncology sales force in the United States comprised of approximately 35 sales specialists, four clinical nurse educators, five strategic account managers and one national strategic account director who are focused on promoting NERLYNX to oncologists and the oncology care team. This sales force is supported by an experienced leadership team consisting of five regional business leaders, a Senior Vice President of Sales and a Senior Vice President of Marketing. In addition, the broader commercial team is comprised of experienced professionals in marketing, training, sales operations, global product strategy as well as access and reimbursement. Our commercial infrastructure includes capabilities in manufacturing, regulatory, quality control, and compliance. It is also supported from a clinical and cancer landscape perspective by our medical affairs group.

We launched NERLYNX in the United States in July 2017 with the goal of establishing NERLYNX as the standard of care for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer to follow adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. In February 2020, NERLYNX was also approved in the United States in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of adult patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

We believe that the key commercial priorities for NERLYNX include:

12

Table of Contents

In the United States, we sell our products through a specialty pharmacy network and special distributor network. The specialty pharmacy network sells directly to patients and consists of Accredo, CVS, ONCO 360, Optum and Biologics. Our specialty distributor network sells to hospitals, physician practices and other sites of care and consists of McKesson, ASD/Oncology Supply, Cardinal Health, DMS Pharmaceutical Group and Bio Care.

International

Outside the United States, we seek to enter into exclusive sub-license agreements with third parties to pursue regulatory approval, if necessary, and commercialize NERLYNX, if approved. In 2018, the EC granted a marketing authorization for NERLYNX in the EU for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage hormone receptor-positive HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer and who completed adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy less than one year ago. In December 2021, NERLYNX was included in the updated National Reimbursement Drug List (“NRDL”) by the China National Healthcare Security Administration for patients with early stage hormone receptor-positive HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer after adjuvant trastuzumab based therapy. The addition of NERLYNX to the China NRDL now enables broad access to neratinib to more women throughout China. We continue to pursue commercialization of NERLYNX in Europe and other countries outside the United States, where approved. The following table shows the HER2-positive breast cancer approvals for NERLYNX by disease and country:

We currently have sub-licenses in each of these regions with third parties that are commercializing NERLYNX in their respective geography.

Intellectual Property and License Agreements

Neratinib Patent Portfolio

We hold a worldwide exclusive license under our license agreement with Pfizer, as amended (the “Pfizer Agreement”) to 21 granted U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent applications, as well as foreign counterparts thereof, and other patent applications and patents claiming priority therefrom to develop and commercialize certain compounds, including neratinib.

In the United States, we have a license to an issued patent, which is set to expire in 2030, for the composition of matter of neratinib, our lead compound. We also have a license to an issued U.S. patent for the use of neratinib in the extended adjuvant treatment of early stage HER2-positive breast cancer that has previously been treated with a trastuzumab containing regimen that expires in 2030, two issued patents for the use of neratinib in combination with capecitabine, the latter of which is set to expire in 2031, and two issued patents for the formulation of NERLYNX® that are set to expire in 2030; two issued patents for the polymorphic forms of neratinib which are set to expire in 2028; one issued patent for the preparation of the polymorphic forms of neratinib which is set to expire in 2028; and three issued patents for the use of the polymorphic forms of neratinib in the treatment of breast cancer which are set to expire in 2028. In jurisdictions which permit such, we will seek patent term extensions where possible for certain of our patents (discussed further below, including in “Government Regulation”). We plan to pursue additional patents in and outside the United States, based on our existing neratinib patent portfolio, that covers neratinib composition, formulations, and combinations and uses thereof, and additional therapeutic uses of neratinib. In addition, we will pursue patent protection for any new discoveries or inventions made in the course of our development of neratinib.

13

Table of Contents

In the United States, marketing approval for neratinib was obtained on July 17, 2017, which provided five years of regulatory exclusivity. Marketing approval in the United States for neratinib in combination with capecitabine was obtained on February 25, 2020, which provided three years of regulatory exclusivity. Requests for patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act have been filed for two patents in the United States: U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865 and U.S. Patent No. 9,211,291. We elected to apply patent term extension to U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has determined that U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865 is eligible for five years of patent term extension. U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865 Patent Term Extension (“PTE”) Certificate was issued on November 19, 2021. U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865 will expire December 29, 2030. See “Government Regulation” below. If we obtain marketing approval in the United States for new uses or combination therapies for neratinib, we may be eligible for additional periods of regulatory exclusivity, such as three-year market exclusivity covering the new use. If we obtain market approval for neratinib or other drug candidates or in certain jurisdictions outside the United States, we may be eligible for regulatory protection, such as eight to eleven years of data and marketing exclusivity potentially available for new drugs in the EU; up to five years of patent extension potentially available in Europe (Supplemental Protection Certificate), and eight years of data exclusivity potentially available in Japan. In Europe, marketing approval for neratinib was obtained on August 31, 2018, which provided 10 years of regulatory exclusivity. Between 2019 and 2024, marketing approval for neratinib was obtained in Argentina, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, Brazil and Thailand. Where available and eligible, regulatory or data exclusivity has been obtained, or is currently being pursued in these jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe. Patent term extension or supplemental protection certificate are being, or will be, pursued in jurisdictions where available and eligible, including Chile, Europe and Taiwan. We are pursuing patent term extension in the form of patent term adjustment (“PTA”), in market approved jurisdictions where PTA is available. Where PTA requests require proceedings in a court setting, there is no guarantee that such PTA requests will be granted. Current market approved jurisdictions where patent term extensions or supplemental protection certificates are not available, not eligible, or not pursued, include Argentina, Brunei, Canada, China, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia and Singapore. There can be no assurance that we will qualify for any such regulatory exclusivity, or that any such exclusivity will prevent competitors from seeking approval solely on the basis of their own studies. See “Government Regulation” below.

On November 28, 2011, a Boehringer Ingelheim entity filed an opposition to European Patent No. EP1848414, which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which included specific claims to a pharmaceutical composition for use in treating cancer in a subject with a cancer having a mutation in epidermal growth factor receptor with a T790M mutation. Oral proceedings were held before the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office in Munich, Germany on February 4, 2014. The decision of the Opposition Division was to uphold the granted claims of the European patent that relate to the T790M mutation without any modification. This included specific claims to a pharmaceutical composition comprising an irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor for use in treating cancer in a subject having a T790M mutation and claims for the pharmaceutical composition for use in the treatment of numerous cancers, including lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Both parties appealed this decision. The opposition was rejected as inadmissible by the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office on December 1, 2020, and the EP1848414 patent was upheld as originally granted. We have filed Supplemental Protection Certificate applications in the countries where the EP1848414 patent was validated. Of these Supplemental Protection Certificate applications, seven have been granted, two are undergoing appeal proceedings, ten have been abandoned, two proceedings have been stayed, and the remaining four are in active prosecution.

An opposition was filed by Hexal AG (“Hexal”) on August 3, 2016 against European Patent No. EP2416774, which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims neratinib for use in a method for treating HER-2/neu overexpressed/amplified cancer and improving IDFS, wherein the method comprises delivering neratinib therapy to HER-2/neu overexpressed/amplified cancer patients following the completion of at least one year of trastuzumab adjuvant therapy, and wherein the neratinib therapy comprises treating the cancer patients with neratinib for at least twelve months. An oral hearing was held on December 8, 2017, wherein the patent was maintained as granted. Following an appeal filed by Hexal, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office rejected the claims as granted and all pending auxiliary requests during the oral hearing of September 2, 2021. Before issuance of a decision, we withdrew approval of the text in which the patent was granted and all pending auxiliary requests, thereby revoking the patent and concluding the appeal. One European divisional application, namely EP15188350.1, was granted with the European patent number EP3000467 on March 1, 2023. Oppositions against EP3000467 were filed by Hexal on November 3, 2023, by Alfred E. Tiefenbacher (GmbH & Co. KG) on November 28, 2023 and by Generics (UK) Limited (“Generics”) on December 1, 2023. EP3000467 is used as the basic patent for Supplementary Protection Certificate applications for the EMA-approved NERLYNX® product, of which 18 have been granted, three proceedings have been stayed, and 10 are in active prosecution. The patentee response to the notice of opposition was filed on April 15, 2024, following which, all three opponents filed additional arguments in reply to the patentee’s submission. On February 6, 2025, we filed our response to the summons to attend oral proceedings, including six auxiliary requests. Alfred E. Tiefenbacher and Hexal AG filed their responses to the summons to oral proceedings on February 6 and 7, 2025, respectively. Hexal filed a further brief on March 19, 2025. Oral proceedings took place on April 9 and 10, 2025. EP3000467 was upheld as amended after the first instance hearing based on Auxiliary Request 1, which covers the EMA approved indication for NERLYNX® as an extended adjuvant therapy for treating early-stage hormone receptor-positive HER-2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer. The first instance decision may be appealed. Hexal filed an appeal on June 6, 2025, Generics filed an appeal on June 20, 2025 and Wyeth filed an appeal on June 30, 2025. On September 5, 2025, Wyeth filed its grounds of appeal, including nine auxiliary requests. One the same day, Hexal filed its grounds of appeal. Generics filed its grounds of appeal on September 4, 2025, and Alfred E. Tiefenbacher filed its grounds of appeal on September 1, 2025. On December 16, 2025, Alfred E. Tiefenbacher withdrew its appeal. Wyeth responded to the opponents’ grounds of appeal on January 12, 2026. One European divisional application is pending in the same family, namely EP 23157078.8. A response to the European Search Opinion (“ESO”) for this application was filed February 14, 2024.  The first office action was issued on January 28, 2025 with a response to the first office action filed on July 22, 2025.

On October 6, 2017, Hexal also filed an opposition against European Patent No. EP2326329 which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims a combination of neratinib and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof with capecitabine for use in a method of treating an Erb-2 positive metastatic breast cancer. An oral hearing was held on February 13, 2019, wherein the patent was maintained as granted. Hexal then appealed, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office rejected the claims as granted and the pending auxiliary request during the oral hearing of November 16, 2022. Before issuance of a decision, we withdrew approval of the text in which the patent was granted and the pending auxiliary request, thereby revoking the patent and concluding the appeal. A divisional application, EP16203986.1 was granted with the patent number EP3175853 on November 1, 2023. This patent was also opposed by Sandoz AG on July 2, 2024. The patentee’s response was filed on December 12, 2024. On December 19, 2024, Sandoz AG requested the opposition division to delay issuance of their preliminary opinion by two months since they intend to respond to the patentee’s submission. Oral proceedings are scheduled for April 16, 2026. The patentee filed its written submission on February 16, 2026. A divisional application, EP23206402.2, remains pending in this family. Substantive examination has commenced and a response to the European Search Opinion (ESO) was filed on May 20, 2025.

On May 21, 2020, Dr. Richard Cooke at the firm Elkington and Fife LLP filed an opposition against European Patent No. EP2498756, which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims, inter alia, tablet formulations of neratinib maleate comprising intragranular and extragranular components. An oral hearing was held on April 6, 2022, wherein the patent has been maintained in amended form. The Interlocutory Decision of the Opposition Division was issued on July 25, 2022. Hexal, has not appealed the decision within the prescribed time and the Interlocutory Decision became final. A divisional application for EP19154710.8 has been granted as EP3566697, and EP22169771.7 has received a decision to grant, taking effect on March 5, 2025.

14

Table of Contents

An opposition was filed by Generics on September 3, 2015 against European Patent No. EP2656844, which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims, inter alia, a pharmaceutical pack containing 50 to 300 mg of neratinib and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof and vinorelbine for use in a method of treating a neoplasm. An oral hearing was held July 3, 2017, wherein the patent was maintained as granted. Generics then appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office on August 11, 2020, and the EP2656844 patent was upheld as originally granted.

Unipharm filed a pre-grant opposition to Israeli Patent Application No. IL210616 on January 31, 2016. This application was licensed from Pfizer in 2011. An oral hearing was held in Jerusalem before the Israeli Patent Office on January 22, 2018. The patent was granted by the Israeli Patent Office upon filing of amendments to the claims. No opposition to the patent has been filed within the allowed opposition period. The granted claims are directed to use of a combination of neratinib and capecitabine in the manufacture of a medicament for treating a neoplasm.

Alisertib Patent Portfolio

We hold a worldwide exclusive license under our license agreement with Takeda (the “Takeda Agreement”), to 22 granted U.S. patents and five pending U.S. patent applications, as well as foreign counterparts thereof, and other patent applications and patents claiming priority thereof for a total of approximately 368 foreign patents and patent applications to develop and commercialize alisertib.

We have a license to issued U.S. patents that include species claims and genus claims to the composition of matter of alisertib which are set to expire in 2029 and 2027, respectively, not including any extension for Hatch-Waxman exclusivity. We also have issued U.S. patents for the use of alisertib in combination with certain other agents in the treatment of certain proliferative disorders, small-cell lung cancer and breast cancer, which are currently set to expire in 2032, 2033 and 2034, respectively, not including any extension for Hatch-Waxman exclusivity.

We plan to pursue additional patents in and outside the United States, based on our existing alisertib patent portfolio, that covers alisertib composition, formulations, combinations and uses thereof, and additional therapeutic uses of alisertib. In addition, we will pursue patent protection for any new discoveries or inventions made in the course of our development of alisertib.

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our products, formulations, processes, methods and other proprietary technologies, preserve our trade secrets, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our current drug candidates and any future drug candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents, both in the United States and abroad. However, even patent protection may not always provide us with complete protection against competitors who seek to circumvent our patents. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property—Our proprietary rights may not adequately protect our intellectual property and potential products, and if we cannot obtain adequate protection of our intellectual property and potential products, we may not be able to successfully market our potential products.”

We depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors, none of which is patentable. To help protect our proprietary know-how, which is not patentable, and inventions for which patents may be difficult to obtain or enforce, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

In-License Agreements

Pfizer License Agreement

We license the worldwide exclusive rights for the development, manufacture and commercialization of neratinib (oral), neratinib (intravenous), PB357, and certain related compounds from Pfizer. Under the Pfizer Agreement, Pfizer was obligated to transfer to us certain information, records, regulatory filings, materials and inventory controlled by Pfizer and relating to or useful for developing these compounds and to continue to conduct certain ongoing clinical studies until a certain time. After that time, we were obligated to continue such studies pursuant to an approved development plan, including after the license agreement terminates for reasons unrelated to Pfizer’s breach of the license agreement, subject to certain specified exceptions. We were also obligated to commence a new clinical trial for a product containing one of these compounds within a specified period of time and use commercially reasonable efforts to complete such trial and achieve certain milestones as provided in a development plan. If certain of our out-of-pocket costs in completing such studies exceeded a mutually agreed amount, Pfizer was obligated to pay for certain additional out-of-pocket costs to complete such studies. We must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize products containing these compounds in specified major-market countries and other countries in which we believe it is commercially reasonable to develop and commercialize such products. In July 2021, we entered into a confirmatory agreement with Pfizer and Wyeth LLC (“Wyeth”), confirming that the rights granted to us by Pfizer under the Pfizer Agreement included Wyeth's rights in neratinib (oral), neratinib (intravenous), PB357, and certain related compounds.

As consideration for the license, we are required to make payments upon the achievement of certain milestones totaling approximately $187.5 million if all such milestones are achieved. In connection with the FDA approval of NERLYNX in July 2017, we triggered a one-time milestone payment pursuant to the agreement. In June 2020, we entered into a letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Pfizer relating to the method of payment associated with a one-time milestone payment under the license agreement with Pfizer. The Letter Agreement permitted us to make the milestone payment in installments with the remaining amount payable to Pfizer (including interest). The milestone payment accrued interest at 6.25% per annum. The milestone payment including accrued interest of $1.8 million was paid in full in September 2021. In addition, we reached a commercial milestone by achieving aggregate worldwide net sales of $250.0 million in calendar year 2022, resulting in a payment to Pfizer of $12.5 million during the three months ended March 31, 2023. We capitalized the milestones as intangible assets and are amortizing the assets to cost of sales on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life of the licensed patent through 2030. Should we commercialize additional compounds licensed from Pfizer or any products containing any of these compounds, we will be obligated to pay Pfizer annual royalties at a fixed rate in the low-to-mid teens of net sales of all such products, subject to certain reductions and offsets in some circumstances. Our royalty obligation continues on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the later of (1) the last to expire licensed patent covering the applicable licensed product in such country, or (2) the earlier of generic competition for such licensed product reaching a certain level in such country or expiration of a certain time period after first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. In the event that we sub-license the rights granted to us under the license agreement with Pfizer to a third party, the same milestone and royalty payments are required. We can terminate the license agreement at will, or for safety concerns, in each case upon specified advance notice.

15

Table of Contents

The Pfizer Agreement originally stipulated that should we commercialize any of the compounds licensed from Pfizer or any products containing any of these compounds, we will be obligated to pay to Pfizer incremental annual royalties between approximately 10% and 20% of net sales of all such products, subject, in some circumstances, to certain reductions.

In July 2014, we signed an amendment to the Pfizer Agreement that, among other things reduced the annual royalties to be paid on net sales of licensed products from a tiered royalty rate structure ranging between 10% to 20% to a fixed rate in the low to mid-teens.

Our royalty obligation continues, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the later of (i) the last to expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering the applicable licensed product in such country, or (ii) the earlier of generic competition for such licensed product reaching a certain level of sales in such country or expiration of a certain time period after first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. We can terminate the Pfizer Agreement at will at any time or for safety concerns, in each case upon specified advance notice. Each party may terminate the Pfizer Agreement if the other party fails to cure any breach of a material obligation by such other party within a specified time period. Pfizer may terminate the Pfizer Agreement in the event of our bankruptcy, receivership, insolvency or similar proceeding. The Pfizer Agreement contains other customary clauses and terms as are common in similar agreements in the industry.

Takeda License Agreement

In September 2022, we entered an exclusive license agreement with Takeda to license from Takeda the worldwide right to research, develop, commercialize and otherwise exploit alisertib, also referred to as MLN-8237, a selective, small-molecule, orally administered inhibitor of Aurora Kinase A. Under the terms of the Takeda Agreement, we assumed sole responsibility for the global development and commercialization of alisertib. We paid Takeda an upfront license fee of $7.0 million in October 2022 and Takeda is eligible to receive potential future milestone payments of up to $287.3 million upon our achievement of certain regulatory and commercial milestones during the term of the exclusive license agreement, as well as tiered royalty payments for any net sales of alisertib.

Under the Takeda Agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize one product containing alisertib in specified major-market countries. We may terminate the Takeda Agreement at will at any time upon specified advance notice. Each party may terminate the Takeda Agreement if the other party fails to cure any material breach of the Takeda Agreement by such other party within a specified time period. In addition, each party may terminate the Takeda Agreement following the other party’s bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, receivership, dissolution, liquidation or similar events. The Takeda Agreement contains other customary clauses and terms as are common in similar agreements in the industry.

Sub-License Agreements

The following summary describes our material sub-license agreements. Because the following is only a summary, it does not contain all of the information that may be important to you. For a complete description, you should refer to each of these agreements, copies of which have been filed as exhibits to this Annual Report.

Specialised Therapeutics Agreement

On November 20, 2017, we entered into a sub-license agreement (the “Specialised Therapeutics Agreement”) with Specialised Therapeutics Asia Pte Ltd. (“STA”). Pursuant to the Specialised Therapeutics Agreement, we granted to STA, under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive, sublicensable (under certain circumstances) license to commercialize any pharmaceutical product containing neratinib in finished form for the extended adjuvant treatment of patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vietnam (the ”STA Territory”).

The Specialised Therapeutics Agreement sets forth the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the development, commercialization, and supply of the licensed product. Within the STA Territory, STA will be generally responsible for regulatory and commercialization activities, and we will be solely responsible for the manufacturing and supply of the licensed product under a supply agreement entered into between the parties.

Pursuant to the Specialised Therapeutics Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory milestone payments. In addition, we will receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products throughout the STA Territory.

The term of the Specialised Therapeutics Agreement continues, on a country-by-country basis, until the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last patent covering the licensed product or (ii) the earlier of (a) the date upon which sales of generic versions of licensed product reach a specified level in such country, or (b) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of the licensed product in such country. The Specialised Therapeutics Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a customary cure period, or if the other party is insolvent. The Specialised Therapeutics Agreement will also terminate upon the termination of the supply agreement for licensed products between the parties.

Medison Agreement

During the first quarter of 2018, we entered into a sub-license agreement (the “Medison Agreement”), with Medison Pharma Ltd. (“Medison”). Pursuant to the Medison Agreement, we granted to Medison, under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive license to commercialize neratinib and certain related compounds and participate in the named patient supply in Israel (the “Medison Territory”), subject to the terms of the Medison Agreement and the related supply agreement. Pursuant to the Medison Agreement, we will potentially receive milestone payments due to us upon successful completion of certain separate, distinct performance obligations. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products in the Medison Territory.

Pint Agreement

On March 30, 2018, we entered into a sub-license agreement (the “Pint Agreement”), with Pint Pharma International SA (“Pint”). Pursuant to the Pint Agreement, we granted to Pint, under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive, sublicensable (under certain circumstances) license to develop and commercialize any product containing neratinib and certain related compounds in Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela, French Guiana, the Falkland Islands and Mexico (the “Pint Territory”).

16

Table of Contents

The Pint Agreement sets forth the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the development, commercialization, and supply of the licensed product. Pint will, at its expense, develop the licensed product for the purpose of obtaining regulatory approval in the Pint Territory, subject to our consent to conduct such development activities and approval of certain aspects of clinical studies conducted by Pint. Within the Pint Territory, Pint will also be responsible for regulatory and commercialization activities. We will be solely responsible for the manufacturing and supply of the licensed product under a supply agreement that will be entered into between the parties, subject to certain exceptions therein.

Pursuant to the Pint Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory and sales-based milestone payments. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products throughout the Pint Territory.

The term of the Pint Agreement continues, on a country-by-country basis, until the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last licensed patent covering the licensed product in such country, or (ii) the earlier of (a) the date upon which sales of generic versions of licensed product reach a specified level in such country, or (b) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of the licensed product in such country. The Pint Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a customary cure period, or if the other party is insolvent. Pint may also terminate the Pint Agreement at will, for certain safety concerns.

Knight Agreement

On January 9, 2019, we entered into a sub-license agreement (the “Knight Agreement”), with Knight Therapeutics, Inc. (“Knight”). Pursuant to the Knight Agreement, we granted to Knight, under certain of the our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive, sublicensable (under certain circumstances) license (i) to commercialize any product containing neratinib and certain related compounds in Canada (the “Knight Territory”), (ii) to seek and maintain regulatory approvals for the licensed products in the Knight Territory and (iii) to manufacture the licensed products anywhere in the world solely for the development and commercialization of the licensed products in the Knight Territory for human use, subject to the terms of the Knight Agreement and a supply agreement to be negotiated and executed by the parties.

Under the terms of the Knight Agreement, we will be solely responsible for the manufacturing and supply of the licensed products to Knight, but under limited circumstances Knight may obtain the right to manufacture the licensed products under the supply agreement.

The Knight Agreement sets forth the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the commercialization of the licensed products. Within the Knight Territory, we will be solely responsible for obtaining the regulatory approval for the indication of extended adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer (the “Initial Indication”), and Knight will use commercially reasonable efforts to prepare, file and manage regulatory filings for any other indications in the field of human use. Promptly after obtaining the regulatory approval for the Initial Indication in the Knight Territory, we will transfer such regulatory approval to Knight, and Knight will own and hold any regulatory approvals for the licensed products in the Knight Territory in its name.

Pursuant to the Knight Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory and commercial milestone payments. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products in the Knight Territory.

The term of the Knight Agreement continues, on a licensed product-by-licensed product basis, until the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last valid claim of the licensed patents that covers such licensed product in the Territory, or (ii) the earlier of (a) the time when generic competitors to such licensed product have achieved a specified level in such country, or (b) ten (10) years following the date of first commercial sale of such licensed product in the Territory. The Knight Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a customary cure period, or if the other party is insolvent.

Pierre Fabre Agreement

On March 29, 2019, we entered into a sub-license agreement (the “Pierre Fabre Agreement”), with Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS (“Pierre Fabre”). Pursuant to the Pierre Fabre Agreement, we granted to Pierre Fabre under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib an exclusive, sub-licensable (under certain circumstances) license to develop, manufacture and commercialize any pharmaceutical product containing neratinib for therapeutic and prophylactic indications for human or veterinary use in European countries (excluding Ukraine), along with countries in North Africa and francophone countries of West Africa (the “Pierre Fabre Territory”). On November 25, 2019, we entered into a license amendment (the “First Pierre Fabre Amendment”), with Pierre Fabre to extend the Pierre Fabre Territory to the Middle East, South Africa, Sudan and Turkey (as extended, the “First Pierre Fabre Territory”).

On February 24, 2021, we resolved a dispute with our former partner CANbridge Biomed Limited and terminated our sub-license agreement. Simultaneous to the termination of this agreement, we entered into a third license amendment (the “Third Pierre Fabre Amendment”) with Pierre Fabre to further extend Pierre Fabre’s licensed territory to Greater China, (the “Third Pierre Fabre Territory”) which includes mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao (each a “China Region”).

Pursuant to the Pierre Fabre Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory and sales-based milestone payments based on regulatory and sales activities in the Licensee Territory (as such term is defined in the Third Pierre Fabre Amendment). Pursuant to the Third Pierre Fabre Amendment, we received an upfront payment of $50.0 million and will potentially receive additional regulatory and sales-based milestone payments up to $240.0 million based solely on regulatory and sales activities in the Third Pierre Fabre Territory. In addition, we will receive double-digit royalties based on net sales of the licensed products in the Licensee Territory, and double-digit royalties based on net sales of the licensed products in the Third Pierre Fabre Territory. For the purposes of calculating royalties, sales of the licensed products in the Third Pierre Fabre Territory will be excluded from the sales of licensed products made in the Licensee Territory.

17

Table of Contents

Under the terms of the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, we are obligated to supply Pierre Fabre with the licensed products in accordance with the related supply agreement. Pierre Fabre will be responsible for conducting additional clinical studies and leading regulatory activities in connection with the EMA, and Greater China.

The term of the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, continues until, on a country-by-country basis, the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last licensed patent covering the licensed product in such country and (ii) the earlier of (a) the date upon which sales of generic versions of the licensed product reach a specified level in such country, or (b) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of a licensed product in such country.

The Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, may be terminated by either party, in its entirety, if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a cure period, or if the other party is insolvent, and Pierre Fabre may terminate the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, at its convenience or if there is evidence of safety issues with the licensed product. Pierre Fabre may terminate the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, on a territory-by-territory basis, by terminating only the Licensee Territory or the Third Pierre Fabre Territory, for any of the foregoing reasons. We may terminate the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, on a China Region-by-China Region basis or, under certain circumstances, in the entire Third Pierre Fabre Territory if Pierre Fabre is in material violation of certain anti-corruption laws.

Bixink Agreement

During the second quarter of 2020, we entered into a sub-license agreement (the “Bixink Agreement”) with Bixink Therapeutics Co., Ltd. (“Bixink”). The Bixink Agreement granted intellectual property rights and set forth the respective obligations with respect to development, commercialization and supply of NERLYNX in South Korea (the “Bixink Territory”). The Bixink Agreement includes potential milestone payments due to us upon successful completion of certain performance obligations, such as achieving regulatory approvals. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products throughout the Bixink Territory.

Manufacturing

We do not currently have our own manufacturing facilities. We intend to continue to use our financial resources to support commercialization of NERLYNX and development of our drug candidates, including alisertib, rather than diverting resources to establish our own manufacturing facilities. While our drug candidates were developed by Pfizer and Takeda, both the drug substance and drug product are manufactured by third-party contractors. We are currently using third-party contractors to manufacture, supply, store and distribute our neratinib products (including NERLYNX) in clinical trials and commercial quantities as well as for alisertib in clinical trials.

Should alisertib or any of our other drug candidates obtain marketing approval, we anticipate establishing relationships with third-party manufacturers and other service providers in connection with commercial production of our products. We have some flexibility in securing other manufacturers to produce our drug candidates; however, our alternatives may be limited due to proprietary technologies or methods used in the manufacture of some of our drug candidates.

Government Regulation

United States—FDA Process

The research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, promotion, advertising, distribution and marketing, among other things, of drug products are extensively regulated by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and its implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements may subject us to administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs, warning letters, fines, civil penalties, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions and/or criminal prosecution.

Drug Approval Process. None of our drug candidates may be marketed in the United States until the drug has received FDA approval. The steps required before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally include the following:

18

Table of Contents

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. An IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trial, such as whether human research subjects will be exposed to an unreasonable health risk. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical trials can proceed. Therefore, submission of an IND may not necessarily result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin.

Clinical trials involve administration of the investigational drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be provided to the FDA as part of a separate submission to the IND. Further, an IRB for each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the study protocol and informed consent information for study subjects for any clinical trial before it commences at that center, and the IRB must monitor the study until it is completed. There are also requirements governing reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries. Study subjects must sign an informed consent form before participating in a clinical trial.

Clinical trials necessary for product approval typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. Phase I usually involves the initial introduction of the investigational drug into a limited population, typically healthy humans, to evaluate its short-term safety, dosage tolerance, metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic actions, and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. Phase II usually involves trials in a limited patient population to (i) evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage; (ii) identify possible adverse effects and safety risks; and (iii) evaluate preliminarily the efficacy of the drug for specific targeted indications. Multiple Phase II clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase III clinical trials. Phase III trials are undertaken in an expanded patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial centers to further evaluate clinical efficacy and test further for safety by using the drug in its final form in order to establish the risk/benefit profile of the drug and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase IV clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Furthermore, the sponsor, the FDA or an IRB may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, such as in the circumstances where 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. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given an opportunity to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase II clinical testing, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach consensus on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end of a Phase II meeting to discuss their Phase II clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase III clinical trial that they believe will support submission of an NDA.

A sponsor may request an SPA to reach an agreement with the FDA that the protocol design, clinical endpoints, and statistical analyses are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the drug candidate with respect to effectiveness in the indication studied. If such an agreement is reached, it will be documented and made part of the administrative record, and it will be binding on the FDA except in limited circumstances, such as if the FDA identifies a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the product after clinical studies begin, if the relevant data, assumptions, or information provided by the sponsor in a request for SPA change are found to be false statements or misstatements or omit relevant facts, or if the sponsor fails to follow the protocol that was agreed upon with the FDA. A documented SPA may be modified, and such modification will be deemed binding on the FDA review division, except under the circumstances described above, if FDA and the sponsor agree in writing to modify the protocol and such modification is intended to improve the study. There is no guarantee that a study will ultimately be adequate to support an approval, even if the study is subject to an SPA.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal safety studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the final drugs. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of pre-clinical studies and of clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture and composition of the drug, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, which may be waived in circumstances, such as where the drug is approved for an orphan-designated indication, or for the first NDA submitted by a qualifying small business.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to a filing review before the FDA accepts it for filing and substantive review. Once filed, the FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of 10 months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted.

The FDA also 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.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA inspects the facility or the facilities at which the drug and/or its API is manufactured and will not approve the product unless the manufacturing is in compliance with cGMPs 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 sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

19

Table of Contents

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data and/or additional clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, pre-clinical studies or manufacturing. Even if such additional information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA could approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to mitigate risks of the drug, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. Once the FDA approves a drug, the FDA may withdraw product approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market. In addition, the FDA may require testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance programs to monitor the safety effects of approved products that have been commercialized. The FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs or other information. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Orphan Drug Designation. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same approved indication or use within such disease or condition for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity within the relevant indication or inability to manufacture the product in sufficient quantities to meet the needs relating to the approved use or indication of patients with the relevant rare disease or condition. The designation of such drug also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. However, competitors, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of a competing product for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the “same drug,” as defined by the FDA with respect to the relevant indication or use, or if a drug candidate is determined to be contained within a competitor’s product approved for the same indication or use. In addition, if an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an disease or condition broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity.

Expedited Review and Approval Programs. The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for reviewing certain drugs and in the case of accelerated approval, provide for approval on the basis of surrogate or intermediate endpoints. Even if a drug qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Generally, drugs that may be eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs, and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

For example, fast track designation is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs designed to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and which demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for such diseases or conditions. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the drug candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track drug candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team during development. With regard to a fast track-designated drug candidate, the FDA may also consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete 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.

A drug candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A drug candidate can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug candidate, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase I and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the drug candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

Any drug candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation or breakthrough therapy designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review. An NDA is eligible for priority review if the drug candidate is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to 10 months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

20

Table of Contents

Depending on the design of the applicable clinical studies, drug candidates intended for serious or life threatening conditions may also be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the drug candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint, which is a laboratory measurement or physical sign used as an indirect or substitute measurement representing a clinically meaningful outcome, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA generally requires that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled confirmatory clinical trials to verify or characterize the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit and may require that such confirmatory trials be well underway prior to granting any accelerated approval. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required clinical trials in a timely manner, or if such trials fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval.

Post-Approval Requirements. After a drug has been approved by the FDA for sale, the FDA may require that certain post-approval requirements be satisfied, including the conduct of additional clinical studies. In addition, certain changes to an approved product, such as adding new indications, making certain manufacturing changes, or making certain additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Before a company can market products for additional indications, it must obtain additional approvals from the FDA. Obtaining approval for a new indication generally requires that additional clinical studies be conducted. A company cannot be sure that any additional approval for new indications for any drug candidate will be approved on a timely basis, or at all.

If post-approval conditions are not satisfied, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug. In addition, holders of an approved NDA are required to (i) report certain adverse reactions to the FDA and maintain pharmacovigilance programs to proactively look for these adverse events; (ii) comply with certain requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling for their products; and (iii) continue to have quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs after approval. The FDA periodically inspects the sponsor’s records related to safety reporting and/or manufacturing facilities; this latter effort includes assessment of ongoing compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers and their subcontractors must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. In addition, discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things:

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drugs. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Marketing Exclusivity

Data and market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant 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 action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”), or an NDA submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the holder of the NDA for the reference drug.

The FDCA also provides three years of non-patent exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the original active agent or from accepting and reviewing an application referencing the approved drug’s application. 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 pre-clinical studies and clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

21

Table of Contents

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization (“MA”), commercial sales and distribution of our products. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with FDA approval set forth above, as well as additional country-specific regulation.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials and approval of regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we may market products in those countries. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The approval process varies from country to country, can involve additional testing beyond that required by FDA, and may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement also vary greatly from country to country.

Non-Clinical Studies and Clinical Trials

As in the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of GLP as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products, e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on GCP as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”) which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for EU member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application (“CTA”) to be submitted in each EU member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025, and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR.

Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with GMP. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

Marketing Authorization

In order to market our drug candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal drug candidates can only be placed on the market after obtaining an MA. To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit an MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

22

Table of Contents

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EU member states assess the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed for an unlimited period on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of an MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment, but this is not guaranteed. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a CHMP rapporteur before submission of an MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

Data and Marketing Exclusivity

As in the United States, it may be possible in foreign countries to obtain a period of market and/or data exclusivity that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic or biosimilar product.

For example, in the EU, new products authorized for marketing (“reference products”) generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

In Japan, our products may be eligible for eight years of data exclusivity. There can be no assurance that we will qualify for such regulatory exclusivity, or that such exclusivity will prevent competitors from seeking approval solely on the basis of their own studies.

Orphan Medicinal Products

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. A medicinal product can be designated as an orphan if its sponsor can establish that: (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life threatening or chronically debilitating condition (ii) either (a) such condition affects not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from the orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an MAA. An EU orphan designation entitles a party to incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized procedure. Upon grant of an MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity for the approved indication, which means that the competent authorities cannot accept another MAA, or grant an MA, or accept an application to extend an MA for a similar medicinal product for the same indication for a period of 10 years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The orphan exclusivity period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for which it received orphan destination, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

23

Table of Contents

Post-Approval Requirements

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the member states. The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance (“QPPV”) who is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of that system, and oversees the safety profiles of medicinal products and any emerging safety concerns. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”).

All new MAA must include a risk management plan (“RMP”), describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.

Failure to comply with the aforementioned EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

For other countries outside of the EU and the United States, the requirements governing product development, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing, distribution, marketing approval, advertising and promotion, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. Further, to the extent that any of our drug candidates, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

Following the end of the Brexit transition period on January 1, 2021, and the implementation of the Windsor Framework on January 1, 2025, the United Kingdom (“UK”) is not generally subject to EU laws in respect of medicines. The EU laws that have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation remain applicable in the UK; however, new legislation such as the (EU) CTR is not applicable in the UK.

Under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, the Secretary of State or an ‘appropriate authority’ has delegated powers to amend or supplement existing regulations in the area of medicinal products and medical devices. This allows new rules to be introduced in the future by way of secondary legislation, which aims to allow flexibility in addressing regulatory gaps and future changes in the fields of human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices.

Since January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) is the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, different rules applied in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland, together, Great Britain (“GB”), which continued to follow the EU regulatory regime. However, on January 1, 2025, a new arrangement called the “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labelling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a UK-wide licensing process for medicines.

The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is governed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, as amended, which is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). In April 2025, the UK adopted the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Amendment Regulations. The amendment, which will take full effect from April 2026, aims to provide a more flexible regime to make it easier to conduct clinical trials in the UK, increase the transparency of clinical trials conducted in the UK and make clinical trials more patient centered.

24

Table of Contents

MAs in the UK are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916), as amended. All existing EU MAs for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into UK MAs, effective in GB (only), free of charge on January 1, 2021, unless the MA holder opted-out. Under the terms of the Windsor Framework, these MAs became valid for the whole of the UK from January 1, 2025. In order to use the centralized procedure to obtain an MA that will be valid throughout the EEA, companies must be established in the EEA. Therefore, since Brexit, companies established in the UK can no longer use the EU centralized procedure and instead an EEA entity must hold any centralized MAs. In order to obtain a UK MA to commercialize products in the UK, an applicant must be established in the UK and must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures. Applications are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916) and are made electronically through the MHRA Submissions Portal. The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, a 150-day assessment (subject to clock-stops) and a rolling review procedure. In addition, since January 1, 2024, the MHRA may rely on the International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”), when reviewing certain types of MAAs. Pursuant to the IRP, the MHRA will take into account the expertise and decision-making of trusted regulatory partners (e.g., the regulatory authorities in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, the United States. and the EU). The MHRA will conduct a targeted assessment of IRP applications but retain the authority to reject applications if the evidence provided is considered insufficiently robust. The IRP allows medicinal products approved by such trusted regulatory partners that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update an MA in the UK. Applications should be decided within a maximum of 60 days if there are no major objections identified that cannot be resolved within such 60-day period and the approval from the trusted regulatory partner selected has been granted within the previous two years or if there are such major objections identified or such approval hasn’t been granted within the previous two years within 110 days. Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals. In the UK, the initial duration of an MA is five years and following renewal will be valid for an unlimited period unless the MHRA decides on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance to proceed with only one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the market in the UK within three years shall cease to be in force.

There is no pre-MA orphan designation in the UK. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding MA application. The criteria are essentially the same, but have been tailored for the market, i.e., the prevalence of the condition in the UK, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Should an orphan designation be granted, the period or market exclusivity will be set from the date of first approval of the product in the UK.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and internationally, sales of NERLYNX and any other products that we market in the future, and our ability to generate revenues on such sales, are dependent, in significant part, on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, such as state and federal governments, managed care providers and private insurance plans. Private insurers, such as health maintenance organizations and managed care providers, have implemented cost-cutting and reimbursement initiatives and likely will continue to do so in the future. These include establishing formularies that govern the drugs and biologics that will be offered and the out-of-pocket obligations of member patients for such products. We may need to conduct pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products for formulary coverage and reimbursement. Even with such studies, our products may be considered less safe, less effective or less cost-effective than existing or future products, and third-party payors may not provide limits or deny coverage and reimbursement for our drug candidates, in whole or in part.

In many countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. In the EU, governments influence the price of products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Member states are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed to by the government. Member states may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the pharmaceutical product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross border imports from low‑priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

In addition, particularly in the United States and increasingly in other countries, we are required to provide discounts and pay rebates under federal programs we participate in. For example, we pay rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”) and offer discounts under the 340B drug pricing program in order for reimbursement to be available for our products. It is possible that future legislation in the United States and other jurisdictions could be enacted to potentially impact reimbursement rates for the products we are developing and may develop in the future. This legislation could increase the levels of discounts and rebates paid to federal and state government entities and significantly impact our ability to generate revenues.

Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry in the United States to fundamental changes. There have been, and we expect there will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could significantly affect our future business. For example, the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) was enacted in 2010 and substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other provisions, the ACA included an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents and a new formula that increases the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the MDRP. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form.

25

Table of Contents

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, led to reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which will remain in effect through 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price.

Most significantly, the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) was enacted in 2022. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit (beginning in 2024); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new manufacturer discount program (which began in 2025). U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has published the negotiated prices for the initial 10 drugs, which went into effect in January 2026, and the subsequent 15 drugs, which will first be effective in 2027. CMS has also published the next set of 15 drugs that will be subject to negotiation. The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. The impact of the IRA on us and the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, but is likely to be significant.

Under the IRA manufacturer discount program that replaced the coverage gap discount program as of January 1, 2025, manufacturers must give a 10 percent discount on Part D drugs in the initial coverage phase, and a 20 percent discount on Part D drugs in the so-called “catastrophic phase” (the phase after the patient incurs costs above the initial phase out-of-pocket threshold, which was $2,000 beginning in 2025). The IRA allows the 10 and 20 percent discounts to be phased in over time for certain drugs for “specified manufacturers.” In April 2024, CMS informed us that we are deemed a specified small manufacturer and the discount will be phased in over several years and will increase over time. We are continuing to evaluate the potential impact of this status on our future revenues.

NERLYNX is reimbursed under Medicare Part D, and we have incurred IRA inflation rebates. We may incur additional Part D inflation rebates in subsequent periods. Such rebate liability could be significant. The reimbursement amount for NERLYNX under Medicare Part D will be impacted by the 10 and 20 percent discounts under the IRA’s new discounting program (as noted above). We anticipate that these increased discounts will impact NERLYNX revenues over time, while also having an industry-wide impact on the patient out of pocket costs of Part D drugs. The impact on NERLYNX revenues could be offset because the IRA’s redesign of certain Part D components, some of which went into effect in 2024, resulted in an increase in the number of patients able to afford this therapy. The amount of the offset, if any, is inherently uncertain and difficult to predict.

The IRA manufacturer discount program also increases financial obligations of Part D prescription drug plans with respect to beneficiaries in the catastrophic coverage phase. This may incentivize Part D prescription drug plans to seek greater price concessions from us in order to include NERLYNX on their formularies.

More recently, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted in July 2025, imposes significant reductions in the funding of the Medicaid program. Such reductions are expected to decrease the number of persons enrolled in Medicaid and reduce the services covered by Medicaid, which could adversely affect our sales of NERLYNX and any other product candidate that we commercialize.

The Trump administration is pursuing a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the United States. While it is unclear whether and how the Trump proposals will be implemented, the Trump policies are likely to have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry and on our ability to receive adequate revenues for our products. On the one hand, President Trump has threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most favored nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the United States to the lowest price in a group of other countries. In response, multiple manufacturers have entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. On the other hand, the Trump administration is pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies and published two proposed regulations in December 2025, referred to as Globe and Guard. If finalized, these regulations would implement mandatory payment models under which manufacturers of eligible drugs would be required to pay rebates to the federal government on a portion of the units of their drugs that are reimbursed by Medicare, with the rebate amount based on most favored nation pricing. Imposing a rebate in the United States that is based on drug prices outside the United States would mark a drastic and unprecedented shift in the United States pharmaceutical market, and while the impact of the Globe and Guard proposed regulations, if finalized, cannot yet be determined, it is likely to be significant. Even regulatory proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business.

The cost of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States continues to be the subject of considerable discussion. There have been several Congressional inquiries, as well as legislative and regulatory initiatives and executive orders 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 drug products.

In the United States, individual states have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing. These actions include but are not limited to price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. In some cases, these actions have been designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states, and at least one state board is imposing an upper payment limit. States are also seeking to implement general, across the board price caps for pharmaceuticals, or are seeking to regulate drug distribution.

Similar political, economic and regulatory developments are occurring in the EU and may affect the ability of pharmaceutical companies to profitably commercialize their products. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the EU or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles. The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect the ability of pharmaceutical companies to commercialize their products. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

26

Table of Contents

In the EU, potential reductions in prices and changes in reimbursement levels could be the result of different factors, including reference pricing systems, parallel distribution and parallel trade. It could also result from the application of external reference pricing mechanisms, which consist of arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries. Reductions in the pricing of our medicinal products in one EU member state could affect the price in other EU member states and, thus, have a negative impact on our financial results.

Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) of medicinal products in the EU is an essential element of the pricing and reimbursement decision-making process in a number of EU member states. The outcome of HTA has a direct impact on the pricing and reimbursement status granted to the medicinal product. A negative HTA by a leading and recognized HTA body concerning a medicinal product could undermine the prospects to obtain reimbursement for such product not only in the EU member state in which the negative assessment was issued, but also in other EU member states.

In 2011, Directive 2011/24/EU was adopted at the EU level. This Directive establishes a voluntary network of national authorities or bodies responsible for HTA in the individual EU member states. The network facilitates and supports the exchange of scientific information concerning HTAs. Further to this, in December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. The Regulation entered into force in January 2022 and has been applicable since January 2025, with phased implementation based on the type of product, i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

In the future, there may continue to be additional proposals relating to the reform of the U.S. and international healthcare systems. Future legislation, or regulatory actions implementing recent or future legislation may have a significant effect on our business. Our ability to successfully commercialize products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for the costs of our products and related treatments will be available in the United States and worldwide from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. The adoption of certain proposals could limit the prices we are able to charge for our products, the amounts of reimbursement available for our products, and limit the acceptance and availability of our products. Therefore, substantial uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved health care products by third-party payors.

Government Price Reporting

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program for low-income and disabled beneficiaries. Medicare is a federal program covering individuals aged 65 and over as well as those with certain disabilities. As a condition of having federal funds being made available for covered outpatient drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B, we have enrolled in the MDRP, which requires us to pay a rebate to state Medicaid programs for each unit of our covered outpatient drugs dispensed to a Medicaid beneficiary and paid for by a state Medicaid program. Medicaid rebates are based on pricing data that we must report on a monthly and quarterly basis to the CMS, the federal agency that administers the MDRP and Medicare programs. For the MDRP, these data include the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) for each drug and, in the case of our innovator products, the best price (“BP”). If we become aware that our MDRP price reporting submission for a prior period was incorrect or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we must resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. If we fail to provide information timely or are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties and other sanctions, including termination from the MDRP.

Federal law requires that a manufacturer that participates in the MDRP also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program (the “340B program”) in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. We participate in the 340B program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) that requires us to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for our covered outpatient drugs used in an outpatient setting. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP. In general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. We must report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA publishes them to 340B covered entities. HRSA has finalized regulations regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities for 340B-eligible drugs. HRSA has also finalized a revised regulation implementing an administrative dispute resolution process through which 340B covered entities may pursue claims against participating manufacturers for overcharges, and through which manufacturers may pursue claims against 340B covered entities for engaging in unlawful diversion or duplicate discounting of 340B drugs.

In order to be eligible to have drug products paid for with federal funds under Medicaid and Medicare Part B and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we also must participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program. Under the VA/FSS program, we must report the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”) for our covered drugs to the VA and charge certain federal agencies no more than the Federal Ceiling Price, which is calculated based on Non-FAMP using a statutory formula. These four agencies are the VA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service). We must also pay rebates on products purchased by military personnel and dependents through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. If we fail to provide timely information or are found to have knowingly submitted false information, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties.

Individual states continue to consider and have enacted legislation to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs and combination products. A number of states have either implemented or are considering implementation of drug price transparency legislation. Requirements under such laws include advance notice of planned price increases, reporting price increase amounts and factors considered in taking such increases, wholesale acquisition cost information disclosure to prescribers, purchasers, and state agencies, and new product notice and reporting. Such legislation could limit the price or payment for certain drugs, and a number of states are authorized to impose civil monetary penalties or pursue other enforcement mechanisms against manufacturers who fail to comply with drug price transparency reporting requirements, including the untimely, inaccurate, or incomplete reporting of drug pricing information. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states.

27

Table of Contents

Sales and Marketing

The FDA regulates all advertising and promotion activities for products under its jurisdiction prior to and after approval, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, dissemination of off-label information, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, we may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new or supplemental NDA, which may require us to collect additional data or conduct additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements may subject a company to adverse publicity, enforcement action by the FDA, corrective advertising, consent decrees and the full range of civil and criminal penalties available to the FDA.

Physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for uses that are not described in the drug’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties, and often reflect a physician’s belief that the off-label use is the best treatment for the patient. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice to prescribe treatments, but FDA regulations do impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements may subject a company to adverse publicity, enforcement action by the FDA and other regulatory agencies, corrective advertising, consent decrees and the full range of civil and criminal penalties available to the FDA. In addition to the FDA, a company can be subject to legal claims from other governmental agencies and private parties relating to marketing practices such as the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), competitors, patients, and other third parties.

Outside the United States, our ability to market a product is contingent upon obtaining marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory authorities and similar requirements to the ones described above may apply in foreign jurisdictions. The requirements governing, among other things, marketing authorization and pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country.

Other Healthcare Laws

We are also subject to various federal, state and foreign laws pertaining to health care “fraud and abuse,” including anti-kickback laws, false claims laws and transparency laws.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution; however, these are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Additionally, 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.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, such as the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented false, fictitious or fraudulent claims for payment or approval by the federal government, including federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly making a false statement to improperly avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Private individuals can bring “qui tam” actions under the FCA, on behalf of the government and such individuals, commonly known as “whistleblowers,” may share in amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.

The federal Civil Monetary Penalties law prohibits, among other things, offering or transferring remuneration to a federal healthcare beneficiary that a person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s decision to order or receive items or services reimbursable by the government from a particular provider or supplier.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the AKS, 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.

The federal transparency requirements under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, requires, among other things, certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies reimbursed under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to annually report to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician practitioners (nurse practitioners, certified nurse anesthetists, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiology assistants and certified nurse midwives), and teaching hospitals and physician ownership and investment interests, including such ownership and investment interests held by a physician’s immediate family members.

Violations of these laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including fines and civil monetary penalties, the possibility of exclusion from federal health care programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) and corporate integrity agreements, which impose, among other things, rigorous operational and monitoring requirements on companies. Similar sanctions and penalties also may be imposed upon executive officers and employees, including criminal sanctions against executive officers under the so-called “responsible corporate officer” doctrine, even in situations where the executive officer did not intend to violate the law and was unaware of any wrongdoing. Given the penalties that may be imposed on companies and individuals if convicted, allegations of such violations often result in settlements even if the company or individual being investigated admits no wrongdoing. Settlements often include significant civil sanctions, including fines and civil monetary penalties, and corporate integrity agreements.

28

Table of Contents

There are also state and foreign law and regulations equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may impose similar or more prohibitive restrictions, and may apply to items or services reimbursed by any non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. These laws and regulations may differ from one another in significant ways, thus further complicating compliance efforts. For instance, in the EU, many EU member states have adopted specific anti-gift statutes that further limit commercial practices for medicinal products, in particular vis-à-vis healthcare professionals and organizations. Additionally, there has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities and many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements (often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the United States, on pharmaceutical companies. Certain countries also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs or require disclosure of marketing expenditures and pricing information. Violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply may result in penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, additional reporting obligations and oversight if a manufacturer becomes subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in governmental healthcare programs and imprisonment.

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, regulations, and standards govern the collection, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related and other personal information and could apply now or in the future to our operations or the operations of our partners. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and consumer protection laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Other Laws and Regulatory Processes

We are subject to a variety of financial disclosure and securities trading regulations as a public company in the United States with securities traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, including laws relating to the oversight activities of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and the rules and regulations of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. In addition, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), the SEC, and other bodies that have jurisdiction over the form and content of our accounts, our financial statements and other public disclosure are constantly discussing and interpreting proposals and existing pronouncements designed to ensure that companies best display relevant and transparent information relating to their respective businesses.

Our present and future business has been and will continue to be subject to various other laws and regulations. Various laws, regulations and recommendations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory practices, experimental use of animals, and the purchase, storage, movement, import and export, and use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances used in connection with our research work are or may be applicable to our activities. Certain agreements entered into by us involving exclusive license rights or acquisitions may be subject to national or supranational antitrust regulatory control, the effect of which cannot be predicted. The extent of government regulation that might result from future legislation or administrative action cannot accurately be predicted.

Human Capital

Employees

As of December 31, 2025, our workforce consisted of 179 full-time employees. Throughout 2025, the size of our employee population was fairly consistent, ending with headcount slightly higher at the end of the year due to additional positions being added in multiple functions and replacement positions which were open at the beginning of 2025 being filled. Our largest employee population is the field-based commercial team, working from home offices and visiting customers in their territories. Our second largest employee population is located in the greater Los Angeles area, aligned with our corporate headquarters in Los Angeles, California. The majority of our non-field sales employees work remotely from home on a consistent basis. We operate in a virtual work environment, allowing functional management and employees to determine when working virtually is more efficient and productive, and when in-office collaboration is beneficial. This work model allows us to attract and hire employees from across the country, which contributes to increased employee engagement, satisfaction and retention. We are an equal opportunity employer and believe strongly in hiring and maintaining a diverse, equitable and inclusive workforce. This is reflected in our numbers with our total workforce being approximately 46% women and 39% ethnically diverse. The following table summarizes our workforce by location for the years ended December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024:

We believe that the safety and health of our employees and their families are essential to our business. Our goal is to support the well-being of our employees. We believe that our employees and their families need to be healthy to be the most productive and engaged at work. Our financial, health and wellness benefits are designed to assist employees with financial planning, preventative health care and support when unexpected circumstances arise.

We continue to support employee wellbeing, work flexibility, and work efficiency by offering the following:

29

Table of Contents

Compensation & Benefits

We know that attracting, developing and retaining the best employees is a critical part of our competitive edge, future success, and a key component to delivering the best care for patients. We offer a competitive and robust total compensation package to maintain the most qualified employee population.

Our total rewards package consists of competitive salaries benchmarked to market data, cash bonuses and equity grants. Bonus opportunities and equity compensation increase as a percentage of total compensation based on level of responsibility, with actual bonus payout based on performance. In addition to competitive salaries and performance incentives, we offer employees 100% employer-paid premiums for medical, dental, vision, mental health services, and life insurance. In addition, we offer a 401(k) plan with employer match, paid time off, various leave of absence options, fertility benefits, fitness/wellness benefits, volunteer days and more. Our benefit programs are constantly evolving to meet our employees’ needs and are reviewed and modified each year as part of our commitment to employee wellness and success. Total compensation represents a broad spectrum of plans and programs designed to reward and motivate employees throughout their careers at Puma.

Culture and Communication

Our core values are the principles that guide our company strategy and our individual actions. Our positive and supportive culture is continuously referenced by employees as a reason they enjoy working at Puma. We maintain a work environment that is collaborative, friendly, supportive and encourages our employees to focus on patient outcomes as a key motivator. We host employee events with medical and scientific presentations given by experts in the field, patient ambassadors, thought leaders and functional leaders to foster employee education. At all times we strive to distinguish ourselves as a respected biopharmaceutical company that is differentiated by top talent and innovative products to enhance cancer care.

All employees are responsible for upholding our core values, including to be patient-centric, to communicate, collaborate, innovate, and be respectful, as well as for adhering to our Code of Ethics. These values nurture an inclusive workforce striving for excellence that puts the well-being of our patients first. The majority of our employees have obtained advanced degrees in their professions, and we support their continued development with individualized development plans and objectives, mentoring, coaching, training and conference attendance. In addition, we offer an Educational Reimbursement Program to assist employees who want to further their education.

Communication is critical in our ability to continuously enhance our company culture and create a more inclusive environment. We conduct virtual town hall meetings to share information about our business activities, company performance, and other topics of interest to our employees. We continue to publish a quarterly newsletter to share interesting and useful information through our involvement in cancer-related conferences and causes, such as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We also introduce new employees to the organization in our Welcome to Puma section, and profile existing employees in our Get Connected section, where we share information about their roles, motivations to be with Puma, backgrounds, and interests.

Corporate Information and History

Our principal executive offices are located at 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90024 and our telephone number is (424) 248-6500. Our internet address is https://www.pumabiotechnology.com. Our annual, quarterly and current reports, and any amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act may be accessed free of charge through our website after we have electronically filed or furnished such material with the SEC. We also make available free of charge on or through our website our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Corporate Governance Guidelines, Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter and Research and Development Committee Charter. We will disclose on a current report on Form 8-K or on our website any amendment or waiver of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for our executive officers and directors. Any amendment or waiver disclosed on our website will remain available on our website for at least 12 months after the initial disclosure.

The reference to https://www.pumabiotechnology.com (including any other reference to such address in this Annual Report) is an inactive textual reference only, meaning that the information contained on or accessible from the website is not part of this Annual Report and is not incorporated in this report by reference.

We were originally incorporated in the State of Delaware in April 2007 under the name Innovative Acquisitions Corp. We were a “shell” company registered under the Exchange Act with no specific business plan or purpose until we acquired Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a privately held Delaware corporation formed on September 15, 2010 (“Former Puma”), in October 2011. As a result of this transaction, Former Puma became our wholly owned subsidiary and subsequently merged with and into us, at which time we adopted Former Puma’s business plan and changed our name to “Puma Biotechnology, Inc.”