Daré Bioscience (DARE) Risk Factors

If our clinical-stage product candidates, including Ovaprene and Sildenafil Cream, are successful in their clinical development, we expect that women of child-bearing age will use them, and potentially for many months or years. To date, human clinical studies of these product candidates have been for relatively short periods of time and these product candidates lack safety data over longer periods of use. For example, while we believe the risk of adverse fetal development from using these product candidates is low, the impact of these product candidates on fetal development has not been studied and there are no adequate or well-controlled studies of these product candidates in pregnant women. Thus, the risk of adverse fetal development from any one or more of these product candidates may be greater than expected. Should any of these product candidates be shown to increase the risk of adverse fetal development, our ability to develop those or other product candidates would be substantially impaired, our business prospects and operations would be materially harmed, and we could also be subject to potential claims and lawsuits.

We intend to develop and seek approval for many of our product candidates, including Sildenafil Cream, pursuant to the FDA's 505(b)(2) pathway. If the FDA determines that we may not use this regulatory pathway, then we would need to seek regulatory approval via a "full" or "stand-alone" NDA under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. This would require us to conduct additional clinical trials and nonclinical testing, provide additional safety and efficacy data and other information, and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval, as well as the development complexity and risk associated with these programs, would likely substantially increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies and information that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us under the FDCA, would allow an NDA we submit to the FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA's prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved compounds, which could expedite our development programs relative to seeking approval under the 505(b)(1) regulatory pathway. If the FDA changes its 505(b)(2) policies and practices or if Congress were to amend the statute to alter the currently available regulatory pathway, it could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA we submit under Section 505(b)(2). In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. Even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for one or more of our candidates, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to faster product development or earlier approval. Moreover, any delay resulting from our inability to pursue the FDA's 505(b)(2) pathway could result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which may have a material adverse impact on our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the FDA's 505(b)(2) pathway, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, preliminary or topline data from our clinical studies, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analysis of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline results of clinical trials we report may differ from final results reported for those studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline data should be viewed with caution until the final, complete data are available. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. There can be no guarantee that a favorable interim analysis will result in a favorable final result at the completion of the clinical trial. Further, others, including regulatory authorities, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of study data differently than we do, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically an extensive set of data and analyses, and investors and others may disagree with the information we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our public disclosure. Information we determine not to publicly disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate, product or our business. If the topline data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

There are currently no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments for female sexual arousal disorder, or FSAD, and there is no precedent program to reference in the design of our clinical trials for Sildenafil Cream. Female sexual dysfunction disorders in women vary in nature and may be the result of a variety of physiological and psychological factors. Given the variability of factors contributing to the underlying condition, and the product candidates' attributes, clinical studies to evaluate effectiveness in any subset of the conditions under the umbrella of Sexual Dysfunction, such as FSAD, are complex. While we worked with experts to develop novel patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments for our exploratory Phase 2b RESPOND study of Sildenafil Cream, tested the potential PRO instruments in a content validity study, reviewed the results of that study with the FDA and aligned with the FDA on the Phase 2b study design, the Phase 2b RESPOND study proved more difficult to enroll than anticipated given the enrollment criteria for the study, particularly the requirement that the partner be enrolled in the study. Moreover, the Phase 2b RESPOND study did not demonstrate statistical significance for the co-primary or secondary efficacy endpoints, although we determined that topline data supported continued clinical development of Sildenafil Cream and further analysis of the study data identified certain subsets of participants that achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in certain items relating to the co-primary efficacy endpoints and data from the RESPOND study enabled successful completion of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA and ongoing feedback from the FDA to align on key elements of the Phase 3 program for Sildenafil Cream. Sildenafil Cream is designed to work primarily by increasing blood flow to the genital tissue. Therefore, identifying and enrolling patients in our clinical trials of Sildenafil Cream for whom inadequate blood flow to the genital tissue is the primary contributor to their arousal disorder is critical. If we fail to screen properly, and instead enroll patients with different contributing factors, the results of our clinical trials are unlikely to demonstrate effectiveness of Sildenafil Cream. Conversely, trying to screen out patients with different contributing factors may slow enrollment in a study, delay its completion and increase its costs. In our exploratory Phase 2b RESPOND study, we experienced a slower than anticipated pace of enrollment given the enrollment criteria for the study, which lengthened our original estimated timeline for the study. We may experience delays in future clinical studies of Sildenafil Cream relative to our communicated expectations due to the novel nature of the studies and the complexities of the condition it is intended to treat, which may significantly lengthen clinical study timelines, increase overall costs, and may lead to unfavorable results. With respect to any clinical study of Sildenafil Cream, even if we can identify and enroll a sufficient number of women for whom inadequate blood flow to the genital tissue is the primary contributing factor to their arousal disorder, there is no guaranty that the use of Sildenafil Cream will improve their general feelings of arousal or that the PRO instruments we utilize to measure the effectiveness of Sildenafil Cream in the study will adequately capture their genital arousal response. We expect to conduct two Phase 3 studies to support an NDA for Sildenafil Cream. Given the multiple factors contributing to arousal disorders and the novelty of the clinical endpoints that may be utilized to measure effectiveness of Sildenafil Cream in treating FSAD, we may be required to conduct multiple clinical trials in large patient populations, extending the timeline and increasing the cost of development for Sildenafil Cream, without any guarantee of positive results. If we are unable to efficiently and successfully advance Sildenafil Cream through clinical development, our business, operating results and financial conditional, as well as our stock price, could suffer.

Clinical trials of our product candidates may not commence, progress or be completed as expected. Delays could significantly impact our product development costs and timelines, as well as a product candidate's market potential, if ultimately approved. The timing of initiation, conduct and completion of clinical trials and other development activities for our product candidates may vary dramatically due to factors within and outside of our control and is difficult to predict accurately. We may make statements regarding anticipated timing for commencement, completion of enrollment, and/or availability of results from our clinical studies, but those statements are predictions based on significant assumptions and the actual timing of achievement of development milestones may differ materially from our predictions for a variety of reasons. The commencement of clinical trials of our product candidates can be delayed for many reasons, including: - lack of adequate capital and the need to obtain additional funding;- delays in obtaining guidance or authorizations from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities;- delays in obtaining approval from the institutional review boards, or IRBs, of prospective clinical study sites;- delays in finalizing the trial design as a result of discussions with the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities, prospective clinical trial investigators or IRBs;- delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites; or - inability to obtain sufficient quantities of clinical product supplies from our contract manufacturers and suppliers. Once a clinical trial has begun, it may be delayed, suspended or terminated by us, an IRB, the FDA or other regulatory authorities as a result of the occurrence of any of a number of events or circumstances, including: - lack of adequate capital and the need to obtain additional funding;- failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory or IRB requirements;- slower than expected rates of participant recruitment and enrollment;- higher than anticipated participant drop-out rates;- failure of participants to use the investigational product as directed or to report data as per trial protocols;- inspection of the clinical trial operations or clinical trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold;- failure to achieve certain efficacy and/or safety standards;- participants experiencing severe undesirable side effects or other unexpected adverse events related to the investigational product;- disruptions in or insufficient supply of clinical trial material or inadequate quality of such materials;- failure of our CROs or other third-party service providers to meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all; or - delays in quality control/quality assurance procedures necessary for study database lock and analysis of unblinded data. Unexpected serious adverse events or other undesirable side effects could arise during clinical development and interrupt, delay, or cause the termination of clinical trials, and require us to conduct additional clinical and nonclinical studies that were not part of our development plan, which could significantly increase the development costs and timeline for a program and adversely impact its value and our ability to continue product development. These events may also cause our reputation to suffer and subject us to lawsuits. As discussed elsewhere in this Risk Factors section, macroeconomic factors and events also have the potential to cause or contribute to significant delays in commencement and completion of our clinical trials. Global supply chain disruptions and the subsequent effects thereof may adversely affect the ability of contract manufacturers to manufacture and supply our clinical trial material. Our prospective or contracted clinical trial sites may experience resource constraints, including staffing shortages, stemming from global or regional issues, such as a pandemic or other public health emergency, and become unable to allocate adequate resources to reach agreements necessary to commence our clinical trials at their facilities or, even if agreements are in place, to conduct our clinical trials. For ongoing clinical trials, macroeconomic factors or events, such as a global pandemic, may result in lower than anticipated subject enrollment and completion rates, including because clinical trial sites may temporarily close or reallocate resources away from clinical research, or study participants may withdraw prior to receiving study treatment or discontinue their treatment or follow up visits to avoid medical settings or because they become sick or must care for a sick family member. Significant clinical trial delays could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations by substantially increasing the costs of our development programs. Significant clinical trial delays also could jeopardize our ability to meet obligations under agreements under which we license our rights to our product candidates, allow other companies to bring competitive products to market before we do, shorten any period of market exclusivity we may otherwise have under our patent rights, and weaken our negotiating position in discussions with potential collaborators, any of which could impair our ability to successfully complete development of or commercialize our product candidates, if ultimately approved. Any significant delays in commencement or completion of clinical trials of our product candidates, or the suspension or termination of a clinical trial, could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Ovaprene is one of our lead product candidates. If the results of our pivotal Phase 3 clinical study of Ovaprene are not positive or are perceived by third parties, including financial market participants, as not positive, our business, prospects and stock price could suffer significantly. If Ovaprene fails to demonstrate adequate safety or contraceptive effectiveness in the Phase 3 study, we may determine to delay, scale back or terminate the program, and we may not realize any return on our investment in the program. In addition, if we, the investment community, potential collaborators or the FDA view the topline or complete results of the study as not positive, our stock price could decline significantly, our reputation may suffer, and our ability to raise additional capital to continue to operate as a going concern and execute our business strategy could be adversely impacted.

Our business depends on the successful clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates, and in particular, our lead product candidates, which may never occur. The product candidates we develop require substantial clinical testing to demonstrate that they are safe and effective for their proposed uses. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and its outcome is inherently uncertain. A failure of one or more clinical trials could occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a particular clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results of that trial. Accordingly, while some of our product candidates have undergone clinical trials and demonstrated positive results, including Ovaprene and Sildenafil Cream, there is no guarantee of successful outcomes in current or future clinical studies of these product candidates or of obtaining marketing approval for any of them. For example, while PCT clinical trials have been used as a surrogate marker for contraceptive effectiveness and our PCT clinical trial of Ovaprene met its primary endpoint, there is no guarantee Ovaprene will demonstrate contraceptive effectiveness in its ongoing pivotal Phase 3 clinical study. As another example, while we believe the objectives of our exploratory Phase 2b RESPOND study of Sildenafil Cream were met and enabled successful completion of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA and alignment on key elements of the Phase 3 program for Sildenafil Cream, the co-primary efficacy endpoints of the Phase 2b study were not met and there is no guarantee that Phase 3 clinical studies will be successful. The fact that the active pharmaceutical ingredients in certain of our product candidates, including Sildenafil Cream, received regulatory approval in other formulations and/or for other indications does not guarantee successful development of our product candidates for their proposed intended uses. Clinical trials may never demonstrate sufficient safety and effectiveness to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for our product candidates. Even if we conduct and complete clinical trials for our product candidates, we may not obtain regulatory approval to market and sell any of them on the timelines we anticipate, or at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.

Treatments to address the symptoms associated with menopause, including the vasomotor symptoms, also known as hot flashes, include combinations of prescription hormones, some of which are FDA-approved and others which are prepared in compounding pharmacies. Numerous products already exist, and this number is likely to expand with time. In addition, there has been an emerging preference among some women and providers for bio-identical hormones that are chemically identical to those the body produces. DARE-HRT1 is designed to offer a convenient vaginal ring that continuously delivers a combination of bio-identical estradiol and progesterone over 28 days. Until relatively recently, no FDA-approved bio-identical hormone treatments existed. In 2018, Bijuva estradiol and progesterone capsules, which are to be taken daily, received the first such approval. Studies have failed to demonstrate that bio-identical hormones are safer than other hormones, so DARE-HRT1 will need to compete with many types of hormone therapy options in terms of convenience, safety and efficacy in managing symptoms of menopause.

If commercialization of XACIATO is not successful, or is perceived to be unsuccessful, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may suffer, particularly because XACIATO is the first and only product for which we have received regulatory approval. XACIATO's commercial success will depend on many factors, including: - the capabilities of Organon and its commitment of sufficient resources to market, distribute and sell the product;- timely and adequate commercial supply of the finished product and its components;- perceived superiority of its cure rates compared to other available treatments;- the extent to which the approved product labeling contains features or expected benefits that differentiate it from other available treatments;- preferences by health care providers and women for a vaginally administered therapy;- the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects;- patient satisfaction and willingness to use it again and refer it to others;- price pressure given the high level of generic treatments and changes in health care laws and regulations, including the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022;- adequate coverage, pricing and reimbursement from third-party payors;- the willingness of patients, without third-party insurance coverage or adequate reimbursement, to pay for the product;- the success or failure of other branded therapies;- market exclusivity provided by our intellectual property rights or conferred by regulatory authorities; and - approval of new entrants, including alternative, non-antibiotic treatment options. There is no assurance that Organon's efforts with respect to XACIATO will be successful or that product sales will be able to generate revenue to us at the levels or within the timing we expect or at the levels or within the timing necessary to support our goals. See also the risks and uncertainties described under "Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties," above.

Our business development strategy involves identifying and acquiring or in-licensing potential product candidates or technologies. We assembled our current portfolio of product candidates through the acquisition of companies and assets and in-licensing transactions beginning in 2017. We may engage in strategic transactions that could cause us to incur additional liabilities, commitments or significant expense. These efforts may not be successful, including for reasons discussed in elsewhere in this Risk Factors section and also: - we may fail to appropriately evaluate the potential risks and uncertainties associated with a transaction;- there may be intense competition to acquire or in-license promising product candidates and technologies and many of our competitors have considerably more financial, development and commercialization resources than we have;- we may not effectively integrate the acquired or in-licensed assets, businesses, personnel, intellectual property or business relationships;- we may underestimate the development and regulatory approval challenges, costs and timelines and overestimate the market opportunity for the potential product candidates and technologies; and - during development, the acquired or in-licensed product candidates may not prove to be safe or effective in their targeted indications. We may fail to realize the anticipated value of any strategic transaction and the costs of a transaction may outweigh the benefits we realize from it. In addition, we have used shares of our common stock as consideration in strategic transactions and we may do so in the future, which may result in significant dilution to our stockholders. Any strategic transaction we pursue may not produce the outcomes and benefits we originally anticipated and may adversely impact our operating results and financial condition and be detrimental to our company in general.

We enter into confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements with our employees, CROs, CMOs, consultants, collaborators, sponsored researchers, and scientific and other advisors. These agreements generally require that the other party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties all confidential information developed by the party on our behalf or made known to the party by us during the course of the party's relationship with us. We also enter into intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and certain other service providers, which generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may not be honored or may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. We have not entered into any non-compete agreements with any of our employees. We cannot guarantee that the confidential nature of our proprietary information will be maintained by our employees and others in the course of their future employment with or provision of services to a competitor. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or obtained and is using our know-how, trade secrets or other proprietary information is difficult, expensive and time consuming and the outcome is unpredictable. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage for the products we develop, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

In addition to patent and trademark protection, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to derive a competitive advantage for products we develop, especially where we believe patent protection is not appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to maintain. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. Moreover, we or any of our collaborators' employees, consultants, contractors or scientific and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our proprietary information to competitors and we may not have adequate remedies in respect of that disclosure. Enforcement of claims that a party illegally disclosed or obtained and is using trade secrets is difficult, expensive and time consuming and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, foreign courts are sometimes less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. If our competitors independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, we would not be able to assert our trade secrets against them and our business could be harmed. Our competitors may independently develop knowledge, methods and know-how equivalent to our trade secrets. Competitors may be able to legally obtain products of ours and replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts for technologies on which we do not have patent protection. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

The pharmaceutical industry has been characterized by significant litigation and other proceedings regarding patents, patent applications, trademarks and other intellectual property rights. The situations in which we may become party to such litigation or proceedings may include any third parties initiating litigation claiming that our products infringe their patent or other intellectual property rights, or that one of our trademarks or trade names infringes the third party's trademark rights; in such case, we would need to defend against such proceedings. The costs of resolving any patent litigation or other intellectual property proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Many of our potential competitors will be able to sustain the cost of such litigation and proceedings more effectively than us because of their substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other intellectual property proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace, our financial condition and our stock price. Patent litigation and other intellectual property proceedings may also consume significant management time. If a competitor infringes upon our patent or other intellectual property rights, including any rights licensed by us, enforcing those rights may be costly, difficult and time-consuming. Even if successful, litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights or to defend our patents against challenge could be expensive and time-consuming and could divert our management's attention. We may not have sufficient resources to enforce our intellectual property rights or to defend our patent or other intellectual property rights against a challenge. If we were unsuccessful in enforcing and protecting our intellectual property rights and protecting our products, it could materially harm our business. With respect to XACIATO, we have the initial right to enforce patents we license from TriLogic and MilanaPharm against third parties whose activities infringe such patents in a manner that could affect our exercise of the licenses granted to us, and TriLogic and MilanaPharm must reasonably cooperate in any such suit, including, if necessary, by being joined as a party to any such suit. In some cases, MilanaPharm may assume the defense of a claim initiated by a third-party alleging infringement of a third party's intellectual property rights as a result of the manufacture or sale of a product we develop under our license agreement with TriLogic/MilanaPharm. While our license agreement would require MilanaPharm to indemnify us for certain losses arising from these third-party claims, this indemnification may not be sufficient to adequately compensate us for any related losses or the potential loss of our ability to manufacture and sell XACIATO. Additionally, our license agreement with Organon requires that we indemnify Organon from and against all liabilities, damages, expenses, fines, penalties and losses as a result of any third-party claim arising out of or relating to the development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation of XACIATO or any licensed product by or on behalf of us or any affiliate or licensee of ours, except for in limited circumstances. As a result of our indemnification obligations to Organon and limitations on TriLogic's and MilanaPharm's obligations to indemnify us, any patent infringement litigation relating to XACIATO could subject us to significant liabilities that may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. With respect to Ovaprene, ADVA-Tec has the right, in certain instances, to control the defense against any infringement litigation arising from the manufacture or development (but not the sale) of Ovaprene. While our license agreement with ADVA-Tec requires ADVA-Tec to indemnify us for certain losses arising from these claims, this indemnification may not be sufficient to adequately compensate us for any related losses or the potential loss of our ability to manufacture and develop Ovaprene. Additionally, our license agreement with Bayer requires that we indemnify Bayer from and against all liabilities, damages, losses and expenses arising from or occurring as a result of development, manufacture, use or commercialization of Ovaprene by us or any licensee of ours, including without limitation, product liability claims, except in limited circumstances. As a result of our indemnification obligations to Bayer and limitations on ADVA-Tec's obligations to indemnify us, any patent infringement litigation relating to Ovaprene could subject us to significant liabilities that may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. With respect to Sildenafil Cream, we have the initial right to enforce the applicable licensed patents against infringers in the field of use where a third party is exploiting a topically applied pharmaceutical product that contains at least one of the same active pharmaceutical ingredients as a licensed product, and SST will provide us with reasonable assistance (excluding financial assistance), at our expense. We also have the initial right to defend any claim initiated by any third-party alleging that a licensed product developed or commercialized under the SST license agreement has infringed any third-party intellectual property rights. While the SST license agreement requires SST to indemnify us for certain losses arising from these claims, this indemnification may not be sufficient to adequately compensate us for any related losses or the potential loss of our ability to manufacture and develop Sildenafil Cream. With respect to our IVR product candidates, including DARE-HRT1, DARE-FRT1, and DARE-PTB1 we have the first right to enforce the applicable licensed patents against third party infringers in the fields of pharmaceutical, therapeutic, preventative, diagnostic and palliative uses. With respect to DARE-VVA1, we have the first right to enforce the applicable licensed patents against third-party infringers in all fields. We cannot guarantee that we or any of our licensors' patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, in the U.S., applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S. remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the U.S., EU and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our future product candidates, or their manufacture or use may currently be unpublished. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent's prosecution history. Our or our licensors' interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our product candidates. We or our licensors may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party's pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our or our licensors' determination of the expiration date of any patent in the U.S., the EU or elsewhere that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our licensors' failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. From time to time, we or our licensors may identify patents or applications in the same general area as our products and product candidates. We or our licensors may determine these third-party patents are irrelevant to our business based on various factors including our or our licensors' interpretation of the scope of the patent claims and our or our licensors' interpretation of when the patent expires. If the patents are asserted against us, however, a court may disagree with our or our licensors' determinations. Further, while we or our licensors may determine that the scope of claims that will issue from a patent application does not present a risk, it is difficult to accurately predict the scope of claims that will issue from a patent application, our determination may be incorrect, and the issuing patent may be asserted against us or our licensors. We cannot guarantee that we or our licensors will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we or our licensors fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay monetary damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing our product candidates. We or our licensors might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our product candidates so that we or our licensors no longer infringe on the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we or our licensors were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

The active ingredient in DARE-VVA1, tamoxifen, is not proprietary to us. As a result, we must compete with currently available products and any future products developed by competitors using the same active ingredient in a different formulation or via a different delivery system. The commercial opportunity for our product candidate for the treatment of vulvar and vaginal atrophy could be significantly harmed if competitors develop and commercialize alternative formulations or better delivery approaches.

The active ingredients in our IVR product candidates include bio-identical progesterone, estrogen and oxybutynin, and none of those ingredients are proprietary to us. As a result, we must compete with currently available products and any future products developed by competitors using same active ingredients in a different formulation or via a different delivery system. The commercial opportunity for our IVR product candidates, including DARE-HRT1 for hormone therapy, could be significantly harmed if competitors develop and commercialize alternative formulations or better delivery approaches.

The active ingredient in our product candidate for FSAD, Sildenafil Cream, is sildenafil and the active ingredient in our FDA-approved product for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis, XACIATO, is clindamycin. Patent protection for these ingredients has expired and generic products are available. As a result, a competitor that obtains the requisite regulatory approvals could offer products with the same active ingredient in a different formulation so long as the competitor does not infringe any process, use or formulation patents that we have developed, or that may not be barred by any three-year Waxman-Hatch Act exclusivity, or any GAIN Act extension thereof, we might enjoy upon approval of our products. Competitors may seek to develop and market competing formulations that may not be covered by our patents and patent applications. The commercial opportunity for Sildenafil Cream and XACIATO could be significantly harmed if competitors are able to develop and commercialize alternative formulations using these ingredients.

Our success depends in part on our ability, and the ability of our licensors, to obtain and maintain protection in the U.S. and other countries for the intellectual property covering or incorporated into our technologies and products. Many of the patents and patent applications relied upon by us are licensed to us by third parties. Our ability, or the ability of our licensors, to protect our product candidates from unauthorized use or infringement by third parties depends substantially on our abilities and the abilities of such licensors to obtain and maintain, or license, valid and enforceable patents. Due to evolving legal standards relating to the patentability, validity and enforceability of patents covering pharmaceutical inventions and the scope of claims made under these patents, our ability, and that of our licensors, to obtain or enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles are unresolved. As a result, the validity and enforceability of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. In addition, we do not know whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions covered by each of our issued patents and pending patent applications. We or our licensors may not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot be certain if any of the patents that cover our product candidates will be eligible to be listed in the Orange Book following a drug product marketing approval. The advantage of being listed in the Orange Book is that, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, any future generic applicant for any of our approved products needs to include a patent certification in their generic application with respect to each patent listed in the Orange Book for an approved product (referred to as the "listed drug") for which they are seeking approval. If the generic applicant believes that any of the patents in the Orange Book on the listed drug is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed by their product, the generic applicant usually will file a "Paragraph IV" certification on that patent if they plan to challenge the patent. When a generic applicant files a Paragraph IV certification, they must provide the listed drug applicant (and the patent owner if different) a notice that they filed a generic application with the Paragraph IV certification. If, in reply to that notice, the listed drug holder files a patent lawsuit against the generic applicant within 45 days of the Paragraph IV notice, a 30-month automatic stay is imposed by the Hatch-Waxman Act on FDA during which FDA may not approve the generic application (unless the patent litigation is resolved in the generic applicant's favor). These 30-month stays are major protection available in the Hatch-Waxman Act for innovative drug makers. However, if our products are approved, but one or more of our patents are not listed in the Orange Book, generic firms that might seek approval of a generic version of our product would not have to "certify" in their generic drug applications as to any such unlisted patent. This could result in the absence of a 30-month stay and thus faster approval of some generic applications for our products. Other companies or individuals may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate our technologies. This could enable our competitors to develop a competing product that avoids infringing our patents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which could significantly harm the commercial opportunity for our product candidates. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as U.S. laws, and we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our proprietary rights in these countries. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary technologies, products and product candidates are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. As an example, the complexity and uncertainty of European laws have increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system was launched on June 1, 2023, which significantly impacted European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications now have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes. Our patent strategy for protecting Ovaprene includes in-licensing several patent families from ADVA-Tec. Patent prosecution for the intellectual property incorporated into Ovaprene is entirely controlled by ADVA-Tec and we have little, if any, influence or control over such patent prosecution. Our patent strategy for protecting Sildenafil Cream includes in-licensing a patent family from SST, whose last U.S. claim expires in June 2029, but which could be eligible for three-year market exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act in the U.S. However, if granted 3-year exclusivity, generic applicants can still submit an abbreviated application during the 3-year period and the FDA is required to review the application, but will defer any approval until the end of the 3-year period. Three-year exclusivity differs from 5-year exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which bars the submission of a generic application during the 5-year period, with the exception that a generic application can be filed after 4 years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification challenging an Orange Book-listed patent for the brand drug. With respect to patents related to Sildenafil Cream, SST has the sole right, but not the obligation, to prepare, file, prosecute and maintain such patents. We will be responsible for the costs incurred to maintain and prosecute all such patents and we will be kept informed of all strategies. However, we will have little if any, influence or control over implementing the patent strategy. With respect to patent rights related to our IVR product candidates, including DARE-HRT1 and DARE-FRT1, The General Hospital Corporation (also known as Massachusetts General Hospital or MGH) has the sole right to prosecute and maintain its patent rights, and we have the right to prosecute and maintain Catalent's patent rights. We will be responsible for the costs incurred by MGH to maintain and prosecute such patents and we will be kept informed of all strategies. However, we will have little, if any, influence or control over MGH's implementation of the patent strategy. With respect to patents related to DARE-VVA1, we have the right and obligation, at our expense, to prosecute and maintain the in-licensed patent rights in certain major markets, if possible. With respect to patents rights related to our DARE-GML program, the University of Minnesota (UMN) has the sole right to prosecute and maintain its patent rights, and we have the right to prosecute and maintain patents licensed from Hennepin Life Sciences. We will be responsible for the costs incurred by UMN to maintain and prosecute such patents and we will be kept informed of all strategies. However, we will have little, if any, influence or control over UMN's implementation of the patent strategy. With respect to patent rights licensed from Douglas and underlying patent rights from University of Manchester, Douglas has the sole right to prosecute and maintain those patent rights. We will be responsible for the costs incurred by Douglas to maintain and prosecute such patents and we will be kept informed of all strategies. However, we will have little, if any, influence or control over Douglas's implementation of the patent strategy. There is a substantial backlog of patent applications at the USPTO that may lead to delays in having patent applications examined by the USPTO. There can be no assurance that any patent applications relating to our products or methods will be issued as patents or, if issued, that the patents will not be challenged, invalidated or circumvented or that the rights granted thereunder will provide a competitive advantage. We and our licensors may not obtain patent rights on products, treatment methods or manufacturing processes that we may develop or to which we may obtain license or other rights. Even if patents are issued to us and our licensors, rights under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection for our product candidates or provide sufficient protection to afford us a commercial advantage against our competitors or their competitive products or processes. It is possible that no patents will be issued from any pending or future patent applications owned by us or licensed to us. Others may challenge, seek to invalidate, infringe or circumvent any patents we own or license, including the patents we have licensed to date and any other patents we may license in the future. Conversely, in the future we may have to initiate litigation against third parties to enforce our intellectual property rights. The defense and enforcement of patent and intellectual property claims are both costly and time consuming, even if the outcome is favorable to us. Any adverse outcome could subject us to significant liabilities, require us to license disputed rights from others or require us to cease selling our future products. In addition, many other organizations are engaged in research and product development efforts that may overlap with our products. Such organizations may currently have, or may obtain in the future, legally blocking proprietary rights, including patent rights, in one or more products or methods we are developing or considering for development. These rights may prevent us from commercializing technology, or they may require us to obtain a license from the organizations to use the technology. We may not obtain any such licenses that may be required on reasonable financial terms, if at all, and there can be no assurance that the patents underlying any such licenses will be valid or enforceable. As with other companies in the pharmaceutical industry, we are subject to the risks that persons located in other countries will engage in development, marketing or sales activities of products that would infringe our intellectual property rights if such activities were conducted in the U.S. and enforcing our intellectual property rights against such persons may be difficult or not possible. Our patents and other intellectual property also may not afford protection against competitors with similar technology. We may not have identified all patents, published applications or published literature that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our product candidates, by preventing the patentability of our products or by covering the same or similar technologies that may affect our ability to market or license our product candidates. Many companies have encountered difficulties in protecting and defending their intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. If we encounter such difficulties or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting our intellectual property rights in either the U.S. or foreign jurisdictions, our business prospects could be substantially harmed. In addition, because of funding limitations and our limited cash resources, we may not be able to devote the resources that we might otherwise desire to prepare or pursue patent applications, either at all or in all jurisdictions in which we might desire to obtain patents, or to maintain already-issued patents.

Twice in the past decade, the previous appropriations legislation deadline was reached and Congress failed to pass a new appropriations bill or continuing resolution to temporarily extend funding, resulting in U.S. government shutdowns that caused federal agencies to halt non-essential operations. The federal government came very close to another shutdown in late 2023. Political polarization among lawmakers may lead to a higher frequency and longer duration of government shutdowns in the future. A federal government shutdown could prevent staff at federal agencies from performing key functions that may adversely affect our business. For example, disruptions at the FDA may delay meetings and other communications with agency staff necessary to progress development of our product candidates and may slow the time necessary for acceptance, review and approval of applications to commence clinical studies or to market a new product in the U.S. By way of further example, disruptions at the NIH, including its various institutes and centers, such as NICHD, could delay processing of new grant awards to fund research and development of potential new therapies or the disrupt staff's work and other activities or funding under active grant/cooperative agreements. If a prolonged government shutdown were to occur while our Phase 3 clinical study of Ovaprene is ongoing, depending on the amount of funds allocated and made available to the study before the shutdown begins, a federal government shutdown could adversely impact the ability of NICHD to carry out its responsibilities under our CRADA, including funding its share of the costs of the study, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and prospects. In addition, a government shutdown could prevent SEC staff from performing key functions, including, for example, granting acceleration requests for registration statements, declaring registration statements or amendments thereto effective and providing interpretive guidance or no-action letters. While we currently have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3, a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 typically can only be used for three years, subject to a limited extension, and that three-year period for our current shelf S-3 registration statement ends on April 7, 2024. If a federal government shutdown halts non-essential SEC operations for an extended period, it may negatively impact our ability to raise additional capital through registered offerings of our securities in the future. If a prolonged U.S. government shutdown or other event or condition occurs that prevents the FDA, NIH, SEC or other regulatory agencies from hiring and retaining personnel and conducting their regular activities, it could significantly impact the ability of these agencies to timely review and process our regulatory submissions and may impede our access to additional capital needed to maintain or expand our operations or to complete important acquisitions or other transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

To market any future product outside the U.S., we, or our commercial collaborators, must obtain separate marketing approvals from comparable regulatory authorities for each jurisdiction and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries, including clinical trials, commercial sales, pricing, manufacturing, distribution and safety requirements. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from, and be longer than, that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA or a comparable foreign authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in any other countries or jurisdictions, but a failure to obtain marketing approval in one jurisdiction may adversely impact the likelihood of approval in other jurisdictions. The marketing approval process in other countries may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval in the U.S., as well as other risks. Further, for approval in foreign jurisdictions, we may not have rights to reference the necessary clinical and nonclinical data that we do not own or have licensed rights to use, as we anticipate doing under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway in the U.S., and we, or our commercial collaborator, may have to conduct further nonclinical studies or clinical trials or develop other additional data to seek approvals in other jurisdictions. In addition, in many countries outside the U.S., a new product must receive pricing and reimbursement approval prior to commercialization. This can result in substantial delays in these countries. Additionally, the product labeling requirements outside the U.S. may be different and inconsistent with the U.S. labeling requirements, negatively affecting our ability to market our products in countries outside the U.S. In addition, we may be subject to fines, suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution if we, or our commercial collaborator, fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements. In such an event, our ability, or our commercial collaborator's ability, to market to the full target market for our products will be reduced and the full market potential of our products may not be realized, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Any name we intend to use for our current or future product candidates will require approval from the FDA regardless of whether we have secured a formal trademark registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed new prescription medical product names, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other product names. The FDA may also object to a proposed product name if it believes the name inappropriately implies medical claims or contributes to an overstatement of efficacy. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed product names, we may be required to adopt alternative names for our product candidates. If we adopt alternative names, we would lose any goodwill or brand recognition developed for previously used names and marks, such as Ovaprene, as well as the benefit of any existing trademark applications for such product candidate and may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties, and be acceptable to the FDA. We or a commercial collaborator may be unable to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner or at all, which would limit our or our collaborator's ability to commercialize our product candidates.

The commercial success of any products we develop will significantly depend upon our ability, or that of our commercial collaborator, to obtain approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities of prescribing information for the product that adequately describes expected features or benefits. Failure to achieve such approval will prevent or substantially limit our or our collaborators' ability to advertise and promote such features and benefits in order to differentiate our products from competing products. This failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Sildenafil Cream is being developed for female sexual arousal disorder, a life altering, but not a life threatening, condition. Hence, there is no assurance that third-party reimbursement will be available for Sildenafil Cream, if approved. Even if reimbursement becomes available, the amount of such reimbursement may not make our product affordable to women and profitable to us. Insurers may deem Sildenafil Cream to be a lifestyle drug and decide not to provide reimbursement. Today, many health insurance plans provide reimbursement for male sexual arousal medications. However, we cannot predict whether they will continue to do so or whether they will do so for FSAD treatments as well. The safety and efficacy data from our clinical trials may impact whether Sildenafil Cream will become eligible for insurance coverage, and if it does, the level of such reimbursement. In an environment of rapidly rising health care costs, insurers have been looking for ways to reduce costs, which could make it difficult for new therapies to gain coverage if they are not deemed medically critical or essential. If Sildenafil Cream fails to obtain insurance coverage, or if the patient's share of the cost is deemed to be expensive, a market may never develop for Sildenafil Cream, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and prospects.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription medical products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA (i.e., off-label uses), as reflected in the product's approved or cleared labeling. Promotional labeling and advertising for any of our drug product candidates that receive marketing approval, must be submitted to FDA at the time of first use and the agency actively solicits reports from health care professionals about improper promotional claims or activities by the drug manufacturer or distributor. Medical device promotion and advertising are subject to similar off-label restrictions, although without the same requirement to submit promotional materials to FDA at the time of first use. Both prescription drug and medical device promotional materials must present a fair balance between the product's effectiveness and the risks associated with its use, and must be truthful and not misleading. If we or a commercial collaborator is alleged or found to have promoted a product for any off-label use, we may become subject to significant liability and reputational harm. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper medical product promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. Other enforcement authorities may also take action against a company for promoting an off-label use of a prescription medical product, which could result in penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. See also "Risks Related to Our Business Operations and Industry- The pharmaceutical and medical device industries are highly regulated and subject to various fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the U.S. federal False Claims Act and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" below. If we or our commercial collaborators, as applicable, cannot successfully manage the product promotion to ensure compliance with these legal and regulatory requirements, we could become subject to significant liability, our reputation could be damaged, and adoption of our products could be considerably impaired.

The containment of health care costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drug products have been a focus of this effort. For example, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. We expect that federal, state and local governments in the U.S. will continue to consider legislation directed at lowering the total cost of health care and prescription drugs. Individual states in the U.S. have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states' ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The Biden Administration has also indicated that lowering prescription drug prices is a priority, and on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the U.S. Starting in 2023, a manufacturer of drugs or biological products covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product's price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting for payment year 2026, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities and entered into the first set of agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct price negotiations in October 2023. However, the IRA's impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing. Further, in December 2023, the Biden Administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (the "Bayh-Dole Act"), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. It is uncertain whether and how future legislation or regulatory changes could affect prospects for XACIATO or our product candidates or what actions third-party payors may take in response to any such health care reform proposals or legislation. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures reforms, may prevent or limit our ability, or the ability of a commercial collaborator, to commercialize any future products as well as our ability to generate revenue and attain profitability.

Even if any of the product candidates we develop are approved by the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority outside of the U.S., as long as we are the holder of the product approval or manufacturer of record with the FDA or other regulatory authority, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements with respect to manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing clinical trials and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-approval information, including both federal and state requirements in the U.S. and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, manufacturers and manufacturers' facilities are required to continuously comply with FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations and corresponding foreign regulatory manufacturing requirements. Accordingly, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in our NDA or PMA submissions to the FDA. Any marketing approvals we receive for our product candidates in the future may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. In addition, we will be required to report adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities (when products are approved in foreign markets). Any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization, or increased costs to assure compliance. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or it disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, the regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or on us or our commercial collaborator, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we or our commercial collaborators are unable to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things: - issue warning letters;- impose civil or criminal penalties;- suspend or withdraw regulatory approval;- suspend any of our ongoing clinical trials;- refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications submitted by us;- impose restrictions on our operations, including closing our contract manufacturers' facilities; or - require a product recall. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law would require us and/or our commercial collaborators to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate adverse publicity. Any inability to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability, or that of our collaborators, to develop and commercialize our products and the value of our business, and our operating results would be adversely affected.

Historical success in clinical development of and obtaining regulatory approval for a product candidate does not guarantee or predict future successful outcomes for other investigational products. Each of our development programs is unique and subject to substantial uncertainty of success inherent in pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical development. Our pipeline consists entirely of investigational products, which we also refer to as product candidates, which means that they must successfully complete one or more clinical studies to be considered for marketing approval and undergo a submission and review process with the FDA to obtain approval to be marketed in the U.S., or a similar process with comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions to be marketed anywhere outside of the U.S. FDA or other regulatory authority approval may never be obtained. If we are unable to successfully complete development of and obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, our business may fail and you could lose all or part of your investment.

To the extent our product candidates meet the FDA's or any other regulatory authority's definition of a combination product, the regulatory approval requirements can be more complex and costly because in addition to the individual regulatory requirements for each component, e.g., a drug and a medical device, additional combination product regulatory requirements may apply. The cost and timeline for development of product candidates determined to be combination products may be substantially greater than product candidates that are not considered combination products. See also ITEM 1. "BUSINESS–Government Regulation–U.S. Government Regulation–FDA Review and Approval Process for Combination Products," above. Ovaprene is composed of both device and drug components and is considered a combination product by the FDA. The process for obtaining FDA approval of Ovaprene will require compliance with complex procedures because concordance between two centers of the FDA (CDRH and CDER) is necessary. Ovaprene previously underwent a request for designation, or RFD, process with the FDA that determined that CDRH would lead the review of a PMA for potential marketing approval of this product candidate. If the designation were to be changed to CDER, or if either center were to institute additional requirements for the approval of Ovaprene, we could be required to complete clinical studies with more patients and over longer periods of time than is currently anticipated. This would significantly increase the anticipated cost and timeline to completion of Ovaprene's development and require us to raise additional funds. Based on discussions with the FDA, we believe that if our ongoing pivotal clinical study of Ovaprene is successful, the FDA will not require additional clinical studies to support the PMA for Ovaprene. However, the FDA may determine that the results of the study are not sufficiently robust or convincing and require additional clinical and/or nonclinical studies prior to approval of Ovaprene. Because Ovaprene is one of our lead product candidates, the impact of either a change in the lead FDA review center or the imposition of additional, currently unplanned requirements for approval could be significant to us and have a material adverse effect on the prospects for developing Ovaprene, as well as on our business and our financial condition. See also "The commercial success of Ovaprene will depend on market acceptance of a hormone-free monthly, intravaginal product, availability and effectiveness of alternative contraceptive products and women's preferences, as well as the success of Bayer's marketing and sales efforts" below.

As of March 27, 2024, we had 26 employees, of which 24 were full-time and five were part-time. Our focus on limiting cash utilization requires us to manage and operate our business in a highly efficient manner, relying on consultants and other third-party service providers for product development and operational expertise we require, and to limit full-time personnel resources. With a small number of employees, our ability to supervise the service providers we engage, including our CMOs and CROs, may be constrained, which may impact the timing and quality of services we receive. No assurance can be given that we will be able to run our operations or accomplish all of the objectives we otherwise would seek to accomplish with the limited personnel resources we currently have. We generally allow for a hybrid work model. We instituted remote work policies in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting government stay-at-home orders, which have evolved into our current policies generally permitting a hybrid work schedule. In addition, many consultants, collaborators and other third-party service providers on which we rely currently have a remote or hybrid workforce model. The long-term impact of less frequent in-person meetings on our productivity and creativity is difficult to assess. Remote working arrangements for our personnel and that of third parties on which we rely may weaken our ability to effectively manage and operate our business and lead to delays in our anticipated development program timelines. In addition, due to our small workforce, if multiple employees were to become unable to work for a protracted period for any reason, or if they were to resign at roughly the same time, our business could suffer. Our ability to effectively manage and operate our business could become significantly impaired and our expenses could increase materially, including as a result of expenditures related to recruiting, hiring and training qualified new employees and engaging additional consultants and service providers to perform the job responsibilities of the employees on leave or who resign. If we or our collaborators or service providers experience staffing shortages, it may result in significant delays in our anticipated development program timelines.

Our agreement with ADVA-Tec restricts our ability to engage a manufacturing source for Ovaprene other than ADVA-Tec during Ovaprene's development period as well as following regulatory approval, subject to limited exceptions. If ADVA-Tec fails to provide sufficient clinical supply of Ovaprene on anticipated timelines, our ability to complete clinical development and seek regulatory approval of Ovaprene could be significantly delayed. A substantial scale up in production of Ovaprene clinical supplies was necessary to support the ongoing Phase 3 clinical study of Ovaprene, which took longer and was more expensive than anticipated, and if Ovaprene receives marketing approval, further substantial manufacturing scale up will be necessary. If Ovaprene receives marketing approval, failure by ADVA-Tec to provide sufficient commercial product quantities at reasonable costs could have a significant adverse effect on our revenue and ability to become profitable. Furthermore, for some key raw materials and components of Ovaprene, there currently is only a single source of supply, and alternate sources of supply may not be readily available. Under the terms of the SST license agreement, SST was responsible for obtaining supplies of Sildenafil Cream for Phase 2 clinical trials conducted in the U.S., and we are responsible for providing supplies of Sildenafil Cream for Phase 3 clinical development and, if approved, for marketing and sale. We do not have any long-term manufacturing or supply agreements with the CMO from which we plan to obtain Sildenafil Cream for our first Phase 3 clinical study of Sildenafil Cream or with any supplier of the raw materials required to produce Sildenafil Cream. Future supplies of Sildenafil Cream or the raw materials required to produce Sildenafil Cream may be more difficult and costly to obtain. For example, the current supplier of sildenafil is located in India. Should this supplier slow production, shut down its factory or increase its prices for any reason, including due to factors outside of its control such as a public health emergency or geopolitical conflicts or events, we may not be able to obtain adequate supplies of sildenafil to satisfy our clinical supply requirements.

We do not own or operate, and we currently have no plans to establish, facilities for manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing of product candidates. We rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties to supply and manufacture our product candidates and other materials necessary to commence and complete pre-clinical testing, clinical trials and other activities required for regulatory approval of our product candidates, including qualification of equipment, developing and validating methods, defining critical process parameters, releasing component materials, and conducting stability testing. In addition, we expect to continue to rely on third parties for commercial production and supplies of any future products. This reliance on third-party manufacturers and suppliers subjects us to inherent uncertainties related to product safety, availability, quality and cost. Our product candidates (including their component materials) must be manufactured, packaged, tested, and labeled in accordance with our specifications and in conformity with cGMP and other applicable regulatory requirements, which requires dedication of substantial resources to specialized personnel, facilities and equipment and sophisticated quality assurance, quality control, recordkeeping procedures. While our employees and consultants monitor and audit our CMOs' manufacturing processes and systems, we have limited control over our CMOs and they may fail to perform as expected. The facilities and quality systems of CMOs who produce our product candidates and their APIs must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with applicable regulations as a condition of FDA approval. Failure to pass inspections, or to timely remediate any compliance issues identified by the FDA, could substantially delay marketing approval. As long as we are the product candidate sponsor or the holder of the product approval or manufacturer of record with the FDA or other regulatory authority, we are ultimately responsible for compliance with regulatory requirements for manufacturing and distribution of our product candidates and any future approved products, regardless of our lack of control over our third-party manufacturers and suppliers. Failure of those third parties to comply with cGMP and other applicable regulatory requirements may result in fines and civil penalties on us, suspension of production, delay or failure to obtain product approval, product seizure or recall, or withdrawal of product approval. Our CMOs and component suppliers may experience delays in producing and supplying, or may become unable or unwilling to produce and supply, our clinical trial material or commercial supply material due to financial or personnel constraints, their obligations to, or their decision to prioritize the production and supply of products for, other customers, partial or full loss of their facilities, or supply chain disruptions, including as a result of geopolitical conflicts, macroeconomic events or conditions, natural or man-made disasters, or public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, our single source CMO for Ovaprene is located in an area of the U.S. that is vulnerable to tropical storms, hurricanes, flooding and tornadoes, which have potential to render its facilities inoperative for protracted periods. One or more of our CMOs may fail or be unable to perform at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. We may not have adequate or any recourse against a CMO or supplier who does not perform or terminates its agreement with us if such non-performance or termination is excused under the applicable agreement. We do not have long-term supply agreements with any of our CMOs. We generally enter into manufacturing agreements on a project-by-project basis based on our development needs, which may heighten the risk of timely availability of sufficient quantities of our product candidates at acceptable costs for clinical trials. As we advance development of our product candidates, we will need to negotiate agreements for commercial supply and we may not be able to reach agreement on a timely basis or acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, the FDA or regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. may require that we have an alternate manufacturer of a product before approving it for marketing and sale in the U.S. or other jurisdiction, and securing such alternate manufacturer before approval of a marketing application could result in considerable additional time and cost prior to product approval. Currently, we do not have alternative CMOs or API suppliers to back up our primary vendors of clinical trial material. Identification of and discussions with other vendors may be protracted and/or unsuccessful, or new vendors may not be successful in producing the same results as our current vendors on a timely basis at the appropriate volumes, at an acceptable cost, or at all. Therefore, if the current vendors become unable or unwilling to perform their required activities, we could experience protracted delays or interruptions in the supply of clinical trial material or any future approved product for commercial sale, which could materially and adversely affect our development programs, commercial activities, operating results, and financial condition. Any new CMO or API supplier would be required to qualify under applicable regulatory requirements. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our clinical trial material or commercial material may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO or supplier and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills or technology to another third party and a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors would increase our reliance on such CMOs and suppliers or require us to obtain a license from them in order to have another third party manufacture our product candidates or any future approved product. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. In some cases, the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority may require us to conduct additional clinical or nonclinical studies, collect additional stability data, and provide additional information concerning any new CMO or supplier, or change in a validated manufacturing process, including scaling-up production, before we could distribute products from that manufacturer or supplier or revised process. The process of identifying, verifying and transitioning to a new CMO or supplier could significantly delay development or regulatory approval of our product candidates or delay or disrupt commercialization of any approved product and substantially increase costs or result in significant loss of product sales and associated revenue. If our CMOs encounter difficulties or otherwise fail to comply with their contractual obligations or there are delays entering commercial supply agreements, we may have insufficient quantities of material to support ongoing or planned clinical trials or to meet commercial demand for any approved product in the future. In addition, any delay or interruption in the supply of materials necessary or useful to manufacture our product candidates could delay the completion of our clinical trials, increase the costs associated with our development programs, and depending upon the period of delay, require us to terminate the clinical trials completely and commence new clinical trials at significant additional expense. Delays or interruptions in the supply of commercial product could result in increased cost of goods sold and lost sales. Manufacturing or quality control problems may arise in connection with the manufacture of our clinical trial material or future approved product and CMOs may not be able to maintain the necessary governmental licenses and approvals to continue their manufacturing services for us. In addition, with respect to any finished product or key components manufactured outside the U.S., such as the API for Sildenafil Cream, we may experience interruptions in supply due to shipping or customs difficulties or regional instability. Furthermore, changes in currency fluctuations, shipping costs, or import tariffs could adversely affect cost of goods sold. Any of the above factors could cause us to delay or suspend anticipated or ongoing clinical trials, regulatory submissions or commercialization of a product candidate, entail higher costs, or result in being unable to effectively commercialize an approved product. Our dependence on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates or future approved products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis. Similarly, while Organon now holds the FDA marketing approval and we have transferred XACIATO manufacturing responsibilities to Organon, commercial production and supply of XACIATO remains subject to comparable manufacturing risks as described herein, and any interruption in the commercial supply of XACIATO that directly or indirectly results in significant loss of product sales could have a material adverse effect on the payments we receive under our license agreement.

The manufacture of our product candidates is complex and subject to compliance with extensive regulatory requirements, and in most cases we rely on single source contract manufacturers and suppliers. As a result, we face significant risks of manufacturing and supply delays and disruptions that may be difficult and expensive to resolve and may cause substantial delays in the development and regulatory approval of our product candidates or the commercialization of any approved product. To date, our clinical-stage product candidates have been tested in a relatively small number of clinical study participants. Significant scale-up of manufacturing will be required to provide adequate supplies of our product candidates for larger Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials and may take longer and be more expensive than anticipated, potentially having a significant negative impact on our development costs and timelines. We have, and we expect we will continue to, face multiple challenges as our contract manufacturers scale their processes to provide supplies for larger clinical trials or commercial production including, among others, potential difficulties with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability and purity issues, compliance with cGMP, lot consistency, and timely availability of acceptable raw materials. For example, the ongoing pivotal clinical study of Ovaprene will require far more clinical product supplies than were manufactured for prior clinical and nonclinical studies combined. A substantial scale up in production was necessary to meet the study's requirements and required more time and expense than anticipated. Additional clinical supplies must be produced to complete the study and manufacturing disruptions may occur that extend the overall timeline and cost to complete the study. Under our agreement with ADVA-Tec, we are dependent on ADVA-Tec and its contract manufacturer, Poly-Med, Inc., for all Ovaprene clinical and commercial product supplies, and we do not control these third parties and have limited influence the efforts and resources they expend to meet our supply requirements. Furthermore, some of the key raw materials and components of Ovaprene have only a single source of supply. Global supply chain disruptions may also result in delays in and increased costs for the manufacture and supply of sufficient quantities of Ovaprene to meet the pivotal clinical study's requirements. The manufacture of our product candidates is subject to extensive regulation. The finished products (and their APIs) used in clinical trials or approved for commercial sale must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP requirements in the U.S. that are enforced by the FDA and must comply with applicable requirements of foreign regulatory authorities for sales outside of the U.S. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including record keeping and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of a product that may result in closure of the manufacturing facility for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination or inadvertent change. In addition, deviations anywhere in the manufacturing process could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of clinical trials. Further, even minor deviations in the manufacturing process, including filling labeling, packaging, storage and shipping, and quality control and testing, may result in shipment delays, lot failures, recalls or spoilage, and delay or disrupt our clinical studies or commercial supply of any approved product. If our contract manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates (or their APIs) for clinical trials or, if approved, for commercialization at acceptable quality levels, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. As product candidates progress through the development process, it is not uncommon that manufacturing methods are altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield, manufacturing batch size, minimize costs, achieve consistent quality and results, or to comply with regulatory authority requirements. Any such changes carry risk that they will not achieve the intended objectives. If and when changes are made to the manufacturing process of our product candidates (or their APIs), we may be required by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities to conduct bridging clinical or nonclinical studies or repeat one or more clinical trials to demonstrate comparable identity, strength, quality and purity of the product candidate before and after such changes, which could significantly increase development costs and delay regulatory approval or disrupt commercial supply. These manufacturing and supply risks are similarly applicable to any product or product candidate we license to a commercial collaborator and could adversely impact the timing or amount of potential milestone and royalty payments to us. In addition, our cost of goods for our product candidates is at an early stage of development. The cost to manufacture our product candidates at commercial scale is difficult to predict currently. We may need to alter the materials, equipment or processes for making our product candidates in order to yield commercially viable products. As discussed above, manufacturing changes could increase development costs and timing and may not achieve the intended objectives. Manufacturing costs may negatively impact the commercial viability of our product candidates, if approved. See also "Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties- We do not have, and we do not have plans to establish, our own manufacturing capabilities and instead rely on third-party suppliers and manufacturers for clinical study materials, including multiple single source suppliers and manufacturers. If these third parties do not perform as we expect, do not maintain their regulatory approvals or become subject to negative circumstances, it could delay, prevent or impair our product development or commercialization efforts, or those of our collaborators, and harm our business," and "- In some cases, we may be contractually required to obtain clinical or commercial product supplies from specific third parties or there may be a limited number of third-party suppliers of raw materials and other components of our product candidates or future products, which may heighten our dependence on those third parties and the risk of manufacturing disruptions" below.

The proportion of the U.S. market made up of generic products has been increasing. If this trend continues, it may be more difficult for us or a commercial collaborator to introduce a new branded medical product, if approved, at a price that will allow us to achieve acceptable levels of revenue and net income from product sales. Generic competition is particularly strong in contraception and hormone therapy, which are areas in which our product candidates, if approved, will compete. In order for our branded products to develop commercial markets and for third-party payors to cover these higher cost products, our products must demonstrate better patient compliance and clinical benefit in their clinical trials compared to other available products. Additional marketing and educational efforts may be required to introduce a new branded prescription medical product in order to overcome the trend towards generics and gain access to reimbursement by payors. If we or a commercial collaborator cannot introduce a product at the desired price or gain reimbursement from payors for the product, or if patients opt for a lower cost generic product rather than pay out-of-pocket or a higher co-pay for our product, our revenues or royalties and other license fees, as applicable, will be limited.

Today, there are no FDA-approved products to treat FSAD. While our goal is for Sildenafil Cream to be the first product to receive such approval, one or more competitive products may be approved before our product. Even if we achieve our goal of being first-to-market for FSAD, the costs associated with introducing a new product into the sexual dysfunctions market would likely be significant, and regardless of the amount spent, there is no guarantee that our new product will be broadly adopted. Women may be hesitant to use Sildenafil Cream for many reasons, including the lack of experience with any product designed to treat FSAD, the lack or perceived lack of clinical evidence supporting its benefits, and the out-of-pocket cost of Sildenafil Cream, particularly if it is not covered by insurance. In addition, FSAD is a condition that impacts women of many ages, including older and elderly populations. We have not yet thoroughly studied the topical or clinical pharmacology of Sildenafil Cream in different patient populations, and sildenafil, the active ingredient in our drug candidate, has not been tested over long periods of time in older or elderly women. Older or elderly women may react differently and adversely to Sildenafil Cream than younger populations. Based on our end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA, we expect our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials of Sildenafil Cream will be conducted in a premenopausal population. Therefore, we expect initial FDA approval of Sildenafil Cream, if received, would be limited to premenopausal women. Should Sildenafil Cream not be studied in older or elderly women, or, if studied in those populations, should it show increased risk of adverse reactions, or signs thereof, in older or elderly women during clinical development, the potential market for Sildenafil Cream could be significantly limited, which could have a material adverse impact on the value of this program. If we receive marketing approval in the future, our commercial success with Sildenafil Cream will depend, in large part, on the ability of the product candidate to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in treating FSAD in clinical trials, as well as our ability, or that of a commercial collaborator, to educate doctors and women about the need to diagnose and treat FSAD and the potential benefits of using of Sildenafil Cream, which may not prove successful. Sexual arousal can be influenced by many emotional and physiological factors. To be successful, our clinical trials of Sildenafil Cream must anticipate such factors. Sildenafil Cream is designed to increase local blood flow to the genital tissue. Even if Sildenafil Cream demonstrates success in increasing blood flow, the product candidate may not demonstrate a significant, or any, increase in arousal or improvement in the overall sexual experience in some women in our clinical trials. If we fail to generate compelling clinical results, we may not receive regulatory approval to market Sildenafil Cream, or, if approved, many physicians may not prescribe and/or many women diagnosed with sexual arousal disorder may opt not to try Sildenafil Cream. If we fail to produce strong clinical outcomes, our ability to build a commercial market for Sildenafil Cream will be materially adversely impacted.