BioMarin Pharmaceutical (BMRN) Risk Factors

We must obtain regulatory approval to market and sell our product candidates. For example, in the U.S., we must obtain FDA approval for each product candidate that we intend to commercialize, and in the EU, we must obtain approval from the EC, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The FDA and EC approval processes are typically lengthy and expensive, and approval is never certain. To obtain regulatory approval, we must first show that our product candidates are safe and effective for target indications through preclinical studies and clinical trials. Preclinical studies and clinical development are long, expensive and uncertain processes. Completion of clinical trials may take several years, and failure may occur at any stage of development. The length of time required varies substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of a product candidate. Interim results of a preclinical test or clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results, and acceptable results in early clinical trials may not be repeated in later clinical trials. Accordingly, there are no assurances that we will obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that approval of one of our product candidates by one regulatory authority will mean that other authorities will also approve the same product candidate. Similarly, in the EU, a positive CHMP opinion for approval of a product candidate does not guarantee that the EC will approve the product candidate. Moreover, regulatory authorities may approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. We have had fewer interactions with regulatory authorities outside the U.S. and the EU as compared to our interactions with the FDA, the EC and the EMA. The approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional clinical testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA or EC approval. Moreover, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Approval by the FDA or EC does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more non-U.S. regulatory authorities does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other non-U.S. countries or by the FDA or EC. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. The non-U.S. regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA or EC approval. We may not obtain non-U.S. regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and even if we file, we may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our product candidates in any market. We also rely on independent third-party Contract Research Organizations (CROs) to file some of our non-U.S. marketing applications, and while we keep a close oversight on the activities we delegate to CROs, important aspects of the services performed for us by the CROs are out of our direct control. If we fail to adequately manage our CROs, if the CRO elects to prioritize work on our projects below other projects or if there is any dispute or disruption in our relationship with our CROs, the filing of our applications may be delayed. Although the FDA, the EC and the EMA have programs to facilitate expedited development and accelerated approval processes, the timelines agreed under legislative goals or mandated by regulations are subject to the possibility of substantial delays. Accordingly, even if any of our applications receives a designation to facilitate expedited development and accelerated approval processes, these designations may not result in faster review or approval for our product candidates compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional procedures and, in any event, do not assure ultimate approval of our product candidates by regulatory authorities. In addition, the FDA, the EC, the EMA and other comparable international regulatory authorities have substantial discretion over the approval process for pharmaceutical products. These regulatory authorities may not agree that we have demonstrated the requisite level of product safety and efficacy to warrant approval and may require, and in the past have required, additional data. If we fail to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to market and sell those product candidates, which would have a negative effect on our business and financial condition. Regulatory authorities and the new requirements and guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional or larger studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval studies, limitations or restrictions. For example, on August 18, 2020, the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter (CRL) to our BLA for ROCTAVIAN for the treatment of adults with severe hemophilia A. In the CRL, the FDA introduced a new request for two-year follow-up safety and efficacy data on all study participants from our ongoing Phase 3 study of ROCTAVIAN. In January 2022, we announced results from the requested two-year data analysis from our Phase 3 study. In the third quarter of 2022, we resubmitted our BLA, and the FDA subsequently accepted our submission with an original Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date of March 31, 2023. In early 2023, we supplemented our BLA by submitting our three-year analysis of the global Phase 3 study of ROCTAVIAN, which the FDA deemed to be a Major Amendment to our BLA due to the substantial amount of additional data, and extended the PDUFA target action date by three months. The FDA approved ROCTAVIAN for the treatment of adults with severe hemophilia A on June 29, 2023. Further, on April 26, 2023, the EC adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation. If adopted in the form proposed, the recent EC proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a decrease in data and market exclusivity for our product candidates in the EU. In addition, some of our product candidates are intended to be used in combination with a medical device, such as an injector or other delivery system. Some of these products intended to be used with a medical device may be regulated as "combination products" in the U.S. and the EU, which are generally defined as products consisting of components from two or more regulatory categories (e.g., drug/device, device/biologic, drug/biologic). In the U.S., each component of a combination product is subject to the requirements established by the FDA for that type of component, whether a new drug, biologic or device. In order to facilitate pre-market review of combination products, the FDA designates one of its centers to have primary jurisdiction for the pre-market review and regulation of the overall product based upon a determination by the FDA of the primary mode of action of the combination product. The determination whether a product is a combination product or two separately regulated products is made by the FDA on a case-by-case basis. In the EU, medical devices and medicinal products are regulated separately, through different legislative instruments. The related applicable requirements will vary depending on the type of drug-device combination product. If, for example, a device intended to administer a medicinal product is sold together with such medicinal product in such a way that they form a single integral product which is intended exclusively for use in the given combination and which is not reusable, that single integral product is regulated as a medicinal product. In addition, the relevant general safety and performance requirements (GSPRs) established for medical devices by EU medical devices legislation apply to the device component of such combination products. In addition, some of our products require use with an in vitro companion diagnostic. For example, ROCTAVIAN is approved with a companion diagnostic test intended to detect pre-existing anti-AAV5 antibodies, which may render the gene therapy less effective or ineffective. Our other products and product candidates may also require use with an in vitro companion diagnostic if the FDA determines that the companion diagnostic is essential for safe and effective use of the product candidate. The FDA generally will require approval or clearance of the diagnostic, known as a companion diagnostic, at the same time that the FDA approves the therapeutic product. Most companion diagnostics require approval of a premarket approval application. In the EU, companion diagnostics are deemed to be in vitro diagnostic medical devices and must conform with the applicable GSPRs. To demonstrate compliance with the GSPRs, companion diagnostics must undergo a conformity assessment by a Notified Body. If the related medicinal product has been, or is in the process of being, authorized through the centralized procedure for the authorization of medicinal products, the Notified Body will, before it can issue a CE Certificate of Conformity, be required to seek a scientific opinion from the EMA on the suitability of the companion diagnostic for use in relation to the medicinal product concerned. For medicinal products that have been or are in the process of authorization through any other route provided in EU legislation, the Notified Body must seek the opinion of the national competent authority of an EU Member State. Our product candidates intended for use with separately regulated devices, such as companion diagnostics, or expanded indications that we may seek for our products used with such devices, may not be approved or may be substantially delayed in receiving approval if the devices do not gain and/or maintain their own regulatory approvals, clearances, or certifications. Where approval of the drug or biologic product and device is sought under a single application, such as a drug with an injector or delivery system, the increased complexity of the review process may delay approval. The FDA and EU review processes and related criteria are complex, which could also lead to delays in the approval process. In addition, because these devices are provided by unaffiliated third-party companies, we are dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of those third-party companies both to obtain regulatory approval and to maintain their own regulatory compliance. Failure of third-party companies to assist in the approval process or to maintain their own regulatory compliance could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates, or limit our ability to sell a product once it is approved. Furthermore, despite our recent success obtaining regulatory approval for ROCTAVIAN in the U.S. and conditional approval in the EU, we may experience regulatory challenges for other gene therapy product candidates that cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that cannot be solved. Although numerous companies are currently advancing gene therapy product candidates through clinical trials, the FDA and EC have only approved a relatively small number of vector-based gene therapy products thus far. As a result, it is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our future gene therapy product candidates in any jurisdiction. Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products are still evolving and may continue to change in the future. Further, the FDA continues to develop and publish new guidance and policies, generally, by releasing one or more gene therapy-specific guidance documents each year. These guidance documents and other recent policy statements demonstrate that regulatory requirements for gene therapies are likely to continue to evolve based upon factors such as the intended disease or class of diseases, product type or mechanism of action, broader considerations such as the kinds of evidence that will be required for gene therapy products to take advantage of expedited development programs, and the experiences obtained by FDA when applying their legal and regulatory authorities to an evolving field, like gene therapy products. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring our gene therapy product candidates to market could have a negative effect on our business and financial condition. From time to time during the development and regulatory approval process for our products and product candidates, we engage in discussions with the FDA, the EC, the EMA and other comparable international regulatory authorities regarding our development programs, including discussions about the regulatory requirements for approval. As part of these discussions, we sometimes seek advice in the design of our clinical programs from various regulatory authorities globally, but we do not always follow such guidance. This increases the chance of adverse regulatory actions, but we try to always provide appropriate scientific evidence to support approval. Moreover, sometimes different regulatory authorities provide different or conflicting advice. While we attempt to harmonize the advice we receive from multiple regulatory authorities, it is not always practical to do so. Also, we may choose not to harmonize conflicting advice when harmonization would significantly delay clinical trial data or is otherwise inappropriate. If we are unable to effectively and efficiently resolve and comply with the inquiries and requests of the FDA, the EC, the EMA and other comparable international regulatory authorities, the approval of our product candidates may be delayed and their value may be reduced.

Changes in funding levels of regulatory authorities and government agencies can affect their ability to hire and retain key personnel and carry out their normal functions that support our business. For example, the ability of the FDA or the EMA to timely review and approve INDs or MAAs for our product candidates may be hindered by a lack of resources and qualified personnel. In addition, funding of other regulatory authorities and government agencies on which our operations rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political budget process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Government shutdowns could also impact the ability of regulatory authorities and government agencies to function normally and support our operations. For example, the U.S. federal government has shut down repeatedly since 1980, including for a period of 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018. During a shutdown, certain regulatory authorities and agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough key personnel and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our ALDURAZYME, BRINEURA, NAGLAZYME, PALYNZIQ, ROCTAVIAN and VIMIZIM products are regulated by the FDA as biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act). Biologics require the submission of a BLA and licensure by the FDA prior to being marketed in the U.S. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) created a regulatory pathway under the PHS Act for the abbreviated licensure of biological products that are demonstrated to be "biosimilar" to or "interchangeable" with an FDA-licensed biological product. A similar abridged MA process is available to biosimilar products in the EU. In particular, applicants for MAs of biosimilars are required to demonstrate through comprehensive comparability studies with the reference biological medicine that: a) their biological medicine is highly similar to the reference medicine, notwithstanding natural variability inherent to all biological medicines; and b) there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference medicine in terms of safety, quality and efficacy. In the U.S., in order to meet the standard of interchangeability, a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient, and for a product that is administered more than once, that the risk of switching in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the reference product and biosimilar product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product. The BPCIA establishes a period of 12 years of data exclusivity for reference products but such data exclusivity only blocks licensure of biosimilars relying on the product as a reference product; it will not prevent the licensure of the same product for the same or different indications that does not seek to rely on reference product data. In the EU, a medicinal product containing a new active substance benefits from eight years of data exclusivity, during which biosimilar applications referring to the data of that product may not be accepted by the regulatory authorities, and a further two years of market exclusivity, during which biosimilar applications may be submitted and the reference product's data may be referenced but biosimilar products may not be placed on the market. The two-year period may be extended to three years if during the first eight years a new therapeutic indication with significant clinical benefit over existing therapies is approved. Our products approved under BLAs in the U.S. or as a result of Marketing Authorization Applications (MAAs) in the EU, as well as our product candidates that may be approved in the future, could be reference products for biosimilar marketing applications.

Even if our product candidates are approved, if doctors elect a course of treatment which does not include our products, this decision would reduce demand for our products and adversely affect revenues. For example, if gene therapy becomes widely used as a treatment of genetic diseases, the use of enzyme replacement therapy, such as ALDURAZYME, NAGLAZYME, and VIMIZIM in MPS diseases, could be greatly reduced. Changes in treatment method can be caused by the introduction of other companies' products or the development of new technologies or surgical procedures which may not directly compete with ours, but which have the effect of changing how doctors decide to treat a disease.

Our product sales to government-owned or supported customers in various countries outside of the U.S. are subject to significant payment delays due to government funding and reimbursement practices. This has resulted and may continue to result in an increase in days sales outstanding due to the average length of time that we have accounts receivable outstanding. If significant changes were to occur in the reimbursement practices of these governments or if government funding becomes unavailable, we may not be able to collect on amounts due to us from these customers and our results of operations would be adversely affected.

Our industry is highly regulated and changes in law may adversely impact our business, operations or financial results. In the U.S., there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. In the U.S., there have been several recent congressional inquiries, proposed and enacted federal and state legislation and executive action designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. Recently, several healthcare reform initiatives culminated in the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, which allows, among other things, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate the selling price of a statutorily specified number of drugs and biologics each year that the CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for biologics) can be selected by CMS for negotiation. The IRA permits the Secretary of 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. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA's provisions are taking effect progressively starting in 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. Thus, while it is unclear how the IRA will be implemented, it will likely have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Prior to the IRA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the PPACA) is a sweeping measure intended to, among other things, expand healthcare coverage within the U.S., primarily through the imposition of health insurance mandates on employers and individuals and expansion of the Medicaid program. Several provisions of the law have affected us and increased certain of our costs. Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA. Although the PPACA has generally been upheld thus far, it is unclear how continued challenges to the law may impact the PPACA and our business. In addition, other legislative changes have been adopted since the PPACA was enacted. Some of these changes have resulted in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and, accordingly, our financial operations. In addition, individual states in the U.S. have also increasingly enacted laws and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, price disclosure and reporting requirements, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Moreover, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. Likewise, in many EU Member States, legislators and other policymakers continue to propose and implement healthcare cost-containing measures in response to the increased attention being paid to healthcare costs in the EU. Certain of these changes could impose limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for our commercial products and any product candidates or the amounts of reimbursement available for these products from governmental and private third-party payers, may increase the tax obligations on pharmaceutical companies or may facilitate the introduction of generic competition with respect to our products. Further, an increasing number of EU Member States and other non-U.S. countries use prices for medicinal products established in other countries as "reference prices" to help determine the price of the product in their own territory. If the price of one of our products decreases substantially in a reference price country, it could impact the price for that product in other countries. Consequently, a downward trend in prices of our products in some countries could contribute to similar downward trends elsewhere, which would have a material adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations. Moreover, some EU Member States require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular medicinal product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process, which is currently governed by the national laws of the individual EU Member States, is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. In 2022, the EC adopted the HTA regulation, which is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in evaluating new medicinal products. The HTA regulation will apply starting in 2025 and may result in increased downward pricing pressure in the EU. We anticipate that the IRA, PPACA and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future in the U.S. or abroad, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and an additional downward pressure on the reimbursement our customers may receive for our products. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by governmental and private third-party payers or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products.

For planning purposes, we estimate the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials and the submission of regulatory filings. From time to time, we publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All of these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary dramatically compared to our estimates or the milestones may never be achieved, in many cases for reasons beyond our control. For example, in 2021 and early 2022, we announced that we planned to resubmit our Biologics License Application (BLA) for ROCTAVIAN to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the first half of 2022; however, we did not file the BLA until the third quarter of 2022 due to the additional time we needed to include supplemental information and analyses of data requested by the FDA. If we do not meet development milestones as publicly announced, the commercialization of our products may be delayed or never occur and the credibility of our management may be adversely affected and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

Where appropriate, we seek patent protection for certain aspects of our technology. Patent protection may not be available for some of the products we are developing. If we must spend significant time and money protecting or enforcing our patents, designing around patents held by others or licensing, potentially for large fees, patents or other proprietary rights held by others, our business and financial prospects may be harmed. The patent positions of biopharmaceutical products are complex and uncertain. The scope and extent of patent protection for some of our products and product candidates are particularly uncertain because key information on some of our product candidates has existed in the public domain for many years. The composition and genetic sequences of animal and/or human versions of ALDURAZYME, NAGLAZYME and many of our product candidates have been published and are believed to be in the public domain. The chemical structure of 6R-BH4 (the active ingredient in KUVAN) has also been published. Publication of this information may prevent us from obtaining or enforcing patents relating to our products and product candidates, including without limitation composition-of-matter patents, which are generally believed to offer the strongest patent protection. We own or have licensed patents and patent applications related to our products. However, these patents and patent applications do not ensure the protection of our intellectual property for a number of reasons, including without limitation the following: - With respect to pending patent applications, unless and until actually issued, the protective value of these applications is impossible to determine. We do not know whether our patent applications will result in issued patents. - Patents have limited duration and expire. - Enforcing patents is expensive and may absorb significant time of our management. Management would spend less time and resources on developing products, which could increase our operating expenses and delay product programs. - Receipt of a patent may not provide much, if any, practical protection. For example, if we receive a patent with a narrow scope, then it will be easier for competitors to design products that do not infringe on our patent. - The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, which reformed certain patent laws in the U.S., may create additional uncertainty. Among the significant changes are switching from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-to-file" system, and the implementation of new procedures that permit competitors to challenge our patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after grant. Our current and former employees, consultants or contractors may unintentionally or willfully disclose trade secrets to competitors. Enforcing a claim that someone else illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets, as with patent litigation, is expensive and time consuming, requires significant resources and has an unpredictable outcome. In addition, courts outside of the U.S. are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, in which case we would not be able to enforce our trade secret rights against such competitors. In the EU, materials we submit to the EMA in connection with our clinical trials that were traditionally regarded as confidential, proprietary information, such as study protocols, information regarding manufacturing methods and controls, and intermediate data analyses, are now subject to public disclosure. Moreover, clinical trial data submitted to the EMA in our MAAs are also available to the public. We are only permitted to redact from public disclosures commercially confidential information, a standard which is construed narrowly and subject to the interpretation and final decision of the EU regulatory authorities. EU regulations have resulted and will continue to result in the EMA's public disclosure of certain of our proprietary information related to recently completed and future clinical trials and MAA submissions. The move toward public disclosure of such development information could adversely affect our business in many ways, including, for example, resulting in the disclosure of our confidential methodologies for development of our products, preventing us from obtaining intellectual property right protection for innovations, requiring us to allocate significant resources to prevent other companies from violating our intellectual property rights, adding even more complexity to processing health data from clinical trials consistent with applicable data privacy regulations, increasing scrutiny of our product candidates and products, and enabling competitors to use our clinical trial information and data to gain approvals for their own products. Competitors or other third parties may interfere with our patent process in a variety of ways. Competitors or other third parties may claim that they invented the claimed invention prior to us or that they filed their application for a patent on a claimed invention before we did. Competitors or other third parties may also claim that we are infringing on their patents and therefore we cannot practice our technology. Competitors or other third parties may also contest our patents by showing the patent examiner or a court that the invention was not original, was not novel or was obvious, for example. In litigation, any such party could claim that our issued patents are not valid or are unenforceable for a number of reasons. If a court agrees, we would not be able to enforce that patent. Moreover, follow-on manufacturers, including generic and biosimilar manufacturers, may use litigation and regulatory means to obtain approval for generic, biosimilar, or other follow-on versions of our products notwithstanding our filed patents or patent applications. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, third parties could develop competing products, which could adversely affect our revenues and financial results generally.

Due to the complexity of manufacturing our product candidates and products, we may not be able to manufacture sufficient quantities. Our inability to produce enough of our product candidate at acceptable costs may result in the delay or termination of development programs. With respect to our commercial portfolio, we may not be able to manufacture our products successfully with a commercially viable process or at a scale large enough to support their respective commercial markets or at acceptable margins. For example, strong demand for VOXZOGO in certain markets outpaced our projections in recent quarters, and we have previously faced challenges meeting demand despite sufficient materials. While supply constraints have eased and we expect to have the ability to meet estimated demand and support ongoing clinical programs, we may face challenges meeting demand in the future, requiring us to postpone planned entry into additional markets until VOXZOGO inventory levels increase or delay certain VOXZOGO development activities. As a result of such inventory constraints, we have lost, and may in the future lose, potential VOXZOGO revenues that may never be recouped and our VOXZOGO development program could be adversely impacted. The development of commercially viable manufacturing processes typically is very difficult to achieve and is often very expensive and may require extended periods of time. Changes in manufacturing processes (including manufacturing cell lines), equipment or facilities (including moving manufacturing from one of our facilities to another one of our facilities or a third-party facility, or from a third-party facility to one of our facilities) may require us to complete clinical trials to receive regulatory approval of any manufacturing modifications. Our gene therapy product and product candidates are based on relatively novel technology, which presents additional manufacturing risks in relation to our other, more traditional drug development programs. Gene therapy products are complex and have only in limited cases been manufactured at scales sufficient for pivotal trials and commercialization. Few pharmaceutical contract manufacturers specialize in gene therapy products and those that do are still developing appropriate processes and facilities for large-scale production. We invested a considerable amount of capital building our own commercial gene therapy manufacturing facility, which may be subject to significant impairment if our gene therapy programs are unsuccessful. As we develop, seek to optimize and operate the gene therapy manufacturing process, we will likely face technical and scientific challenges, considerable capital costs, and potential difficulty in recruiting and hiring experienced, qualified personnel. There may also be unexpected technical or operational issues during clinical or commercial manufacturing campaigns. As a result, we could experience manufacturing delays that prevent us from completing our gene therapy clinical studies in a timely manner, if at all, or commercializing our gene therapy products on a profitable basis, if at all. Also, we may be required to demonstrate product comparability between a biological product made after a manufacturing change and the product made before implementation of the change through additional types of analytical and functional testing or may have to complete additional clinical studies. If we contract for manufacturing services with an unproven process, our contractor is subject to the same uncertainties, high standards and regulatory controls, and may therefore experience difficulty if further process development is necessary. Even a developed manufacturing process can encounter difficulties. Problems may arise during manufacturing for a variety of reasons, including human error, mechanical breakdowns, problems with raw materials and cell banks, malfunctions of internal information technology systems, and other events that cannot always be prevented or anticipated. Many of the processes include biological systems, which add significant complexity, as compared to chemical synthesis. We expect that, from time to time, consistent with biotechnology industry expectations, certain production lots will fail to produce product that meets our quality control release acceptance criteria. To date, our historical failure rates for all of our product programs have been within our expectations, which are based on industry norms. If the failure rate increased substantially, we could experience increased costs, lost revenue,damage to customer relations, time and expense investigating the cause and, depending upon the cause, similar losses with respect to other lots or products. If problems are not discovered before the product is released to the market, recall and product liability costs may also be incurred. In order to produce product within our time and cost parameters, we must continue to produce product within our expected success rate and yield expectations. Because of the complexity of our manufacturing processes, it may be difficult or impossible for us to determine the cause of any particular lot failure and we must effectively take corrective action in response to any failure in a timely manner. We currently rely on third parties for portions of the manufacture of each of our products. If those manufacturers are unwilling or unable to fulfill their contractual obligations or satisfy demand outside of or in excess of the contractual obligations, we may be unable to meet demand for these products or sell these products at all and we may lose potential revenue. Further, the availability of suitable contract manufacturing capacity at scheduled or optimum times is not certain. In addition, our manufacturing processes subject us to a variety of federal, state, supranational, national, and local laws and regulations governing the use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes resulting from their use. We incur significant costs in complying with these laws and regulations.