REGN, §1A diff (2015 → 2016)

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS We operate in an environment that involves a number of significant risks and uncertainties. We caution you to read the following risk factors, which have affected, and/or in the future could affect, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. The risks described below include forward-looking statements, and actual events and our actual results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Furthermore, additional risks and uncertainties are described under other captions in this report and should also be considered by our investors. Risks Related to Commercialization of EYLEA We are substantially dependent on the success of EYLEA. If we or Bayer are unable to continue to successfully commercialize EYLEA, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition will be materially harmed. EYLEA net sales represent a substantial portion of our revenues and this concentration of our net sales in a single product makes us substantially dependent on that product. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, EYLEA net sales in the United States represented 68% and 65% of our total revenues, respectively. If we were to experience difficulty with the commercialization of EYLEA in the United States, if Bayer were to experience any difficulty with the commercialization of EYLEA outside the United States, or if we and Bayer are unable to maintain current marketing approvals of EYLEA, we may experience a reduction in revenue and may not be able to sustain profitability, and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be materially harmed. We expect that the continued commercial success of EYLEA will depend on many factors, including the following: • effectiveness of the commercial strategy in and outside the United States for the marketing of EYLEA, including pricing strategy and the continued effectiveness of efforts to obtain, and the timing of obtaining, adequate third-party reimbursements; • maintaining and successfully monitoring commercial manufacturing arrangements for EYLEA with third parties who perform fill/finish or other steps in the manufacture of EYLEA to ensure that they meet our standards and those of regulatory authorities, including the FDA, which extensively regulate and monitor pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities; • our ability to meet the demand for commercial supplies of EYLEA; • our ability to differentiate EYLEA from Lucentis and other competitive products, and the willingness of retinal specialists and patients to switch from Lucentis or off-label use of repackaged Avastin to EYLEA or to start treatment with EYLEA; • the ability of patients, retinal specialists, and other providers to obtain and maintain sufficient coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States and other government and private payers in the United States and foreign jurisdictions; • our ability to maintain sales of EYLEA in the face of competitive products, including those currently in clinical development; • the effect of existing and new health care laws and regulations currently being considered or implemented in the United States, including reporting and disclosure requirements of such laws and regulations and the potential impact of such requirements on physician prescription practices; and • risks associated with intellectual property of other parties and pending or future litigation relating thereto, as discussed under "Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Market Exclusivity" below. More detailed information about the risks related to the commercialization of EYLEA is provided in the risk factors below. We and Bayer are subject to significant ongoing regulatory obligations and oversight with respect to EYLEA. If we or Bayer fail to maintain regulatory compliance for EYLEA, EYLEA marketing approval may be withdrawn, which would materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. We and Bayer are subject to significant ongoing regulatory obligations and oversight with respect to EYLEA for its currently approved indications in the United States, EU, and other countries where the product is approved. If we or Bayer fail to maintain regulatory compliance for EYLEA for its currently approved indications (including for any of the reasons discussed below under "Risks Related to Maintaining Approval of Our Marketed Products and the Development and Obtaining Approval of Our Product Candidates and New Indications for Our Marketed Products - Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval for drug products is costly, time-consuming, and highly uncertain"), EYLEA marketing approval may be withdrawn, which would materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Failure to comply may also subject us to sanctions, product recalls, or withdrawals of previously approved marketing applications. See also "Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply - If we fail to meet the stringent requirements of governmental regulation in the manufacture of drug products or product candidates, we could incur substantial remedial costs, delays in the development or approval of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products and/or in their commercial launch if they obtain regulatory approval, and a reduction in sales" below. Serious complications or side effects in connection with the use of EYLEA could materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Serious complications or serious, unexpected side effects in connection with the use of EYLEA could materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. For additional information about some of these risks, see "Risks Related to Maintaining Approval of Our Marketed Products and the Development and Obtaining Approval of Our Product Candidates and New Indications for Our Marketed Products - Serious complications or side effects in connection with the use of our products and in clinical trials for our product candidates and new indications for our marketed products could cause our regulatory approvals to be revoked or limited or lead to delay or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, which could severely harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition" below. Sales of EYLEA are dependent on the availability and extent of reimbursement from third-party payers, and changes to such reimbursement may materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Our sales in the United States of EYLEA are dependent, in large part, on the availability and extent of reimbursement from third-party payers, including private payer healthcare and insurance programs, health maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit management companies, and government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Sales of EYLEA in other countries are dependent, in large part, on similar programs in those countries. In the United States, there is an increased focus from the federal government and others on analyzing the impact of various regulatory programs on the federal deficit, which could result in increased pressure on federal programs to reduce costs, including limiting federal healthcare expenditures. For example, in September 2011 the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report entitled "Review of Medicare Part B Avastin and Lucentis Treatments for Age-Related Macular Degeneration" in which the OIG details possible savings to the Medicare program by using off-label, repackaged Avastin rather than Lucentis for the treatment of wet AMD. In addition, in March 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) of the Department of Health and Human Services released a proposed rule regarding a new payment model for the reimbursement by Medicare of drugs administered in the physician office or hospital outpatient department settings. If approved, the proposed rule could potentially redistribute and reduce reimbursement currently available to physicians and hospitals that furnish such drugs, including EYLEA, and may also impact physician prescription practices. Economic pressure on state budgets may also have a similar impact. A reduction in the availability or extent of reimbursement from U.S. government programs could have a material adverse effect on the sales of EYLEA. In addition, other third-party payers (including pharmacy benefit management companies) are challenging the prices charged for healthcare products and increasingly limiting, and attempting to limit, both coverage and level of reimbursement for prescription drugs. Since EYLEA is too expensive for most patients to afford without health insurance coverage, if adequate coverage and reimbursement by third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, is not available, our ability to successfully commercialize EYLEA will be materially adversely impacted. Our sales and potential profits and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be materially harmed. See also "Risks Related to Commercialization of Products - The successful commercialization of our marketed products, as well as our late-stage product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, if approved, will depend on obtaining and maintaining coverage and reimbursement for use of these products from third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, and these payers may not cover or adequately reimburse for use of our products or may do so at levels that make our products uncompetitive and/or unprofitable, which would materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition" below. The commercial success of EYLEA is subject to strong competition. The market for eye disease products is very competitive (an overview of the competitive landscape for EYLEA is provided in Part I, Item 1. "Business - Competition - EYLEA"). For example, Novartis and Genentech/Roche are collaborating on the commercialization and further development of a VEGF antibody fragment, Lucentis, for the treatment of various eye indications. Lucentis is approved in one or more jurisdictions for the treatment of wet AMD, macular edema following RVO (including CRVO and BRVO), DME, diabetic retinopathy in patients with DME, and mCNV. Competitors are also exploring the development of a biosimilar version of Lucentis; in particular, Pfenex is developing PF582 (a Phase 1b/2a trial in patients with wet AMD has been completed), and Formycon (in collaboration with Bioeq) is developing FYB201 (currently in a Phase 3 trial in patients with wet AMD). Other competitive or potentially competitive products include Allergan's Ozurdex (approved by the FDA for the treatment of macular edema following RVO and for the treatment of DME) and Alimera's Iluvien (approved by the FDA for the treatment of DME in patients who have been previously treated with a course of corticosteroids and did not have a clinically significant rise in intraocular pressure), both of which are intravitreal implants of corticosteroids. Many other companies are working on the development of product candidates and extended delivery devices for the potential treatment of wet AMD, DME, and RVO, including those that act by blocking VEGF and VEGF receptors, as well as small interfering ribonucleic acids (siRNAs) that modulate gene expression. For example, Genentech/Roche is developing a Lucentis port delivery system implant (currently in a Phase 2 study in patients with wet AMD). Novartis is developing RTH258 (ESBA1008), a humanized monoclonal single-chain FV (scFv) antibody fragment targeting VEGF-A for wet AMD, and initiated a non-inferiority Phase 3 trial comparing RTH258 and EYLEA in December 2014. Allergan is developing abicipar pegol for wet AMD and related conditions (currently studied in Phase 3 trials against Lucentis as a comparator drug). Additionally, companies are developing products (or combinations of products) to treat wet AMD that act by blocking VEGF and VEGF receptors, as well as other targets (for example, Ang2). Genentech/Roche is developing a bi-specific antibody targeting both VEGF and Ang2 for wet AMD and DME (currently in Phase 2 trials for both indications). Competitors are also developing eye-drop formulations, oral therapies, and gene/cell therapies for various indications that, if approved, would compete with EYLEA in one or more of its currently approved indications. In addition, ophthalmologists are using off-label, third-party repackaged versions of Genentech/Roche's approved VEGF antagonist, Avastin, for the treatment of wet AMD, DME, and RVO. The relatively low cost of therapy with repackaged Avastin in patients with wet AMD presents a significant competitive challenge in this indication. Competitors (including Amgen) are also developing a biosimilar version of Avastin. Long-term, controlled clinical trials comparing Lucentis to Avastin in the treatment of wet AMD are being conducted. One-year data from the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trial (CATT) were reported in April 2011 and indicated that Avastin dosed monthly was non-inferior to Lucentis dosed monthly in the primary efficacy endpoint of mean visual acuity gain at 52 weeks. Two-year data from CATT were reported in April 2012 and indicated that monthly Avastin was non-inferior to monthly Lucentis in mean visual acuity gain; as-needed dosing was not non-inferior to monthly dosing. Avastin is also being evaluated in eye diseases in trials that have been initiated in the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Israel, and other countries. Furthermore, Lucentis and off-label use of repackaged Avastin present significant competitive challenges as doctors and patients have had significant experience using these medicines. Moreover, the reported results of the CATT study, combined with the relatively low cost of repackaged Avastin in treating patients with wet AMD, may exacerbate the competitive challenge which EYLEA faces in this or other eye indications for which it is approved. Finally, ZALTRAP has not been manufactured and formulated for use in intravitreal injections, and there is a risk that third parties may attempt to repackage ZALTRAP for off-label use and sale for the treatment of wet AMD and other diseases of the eye, which would present a potential low-cost competitive threat to EYLEA for its approved indications. We are aware of one published study claiming that ZALTRAP (ziv-aflibercept) may be safely administered to the eye. See also "Risks Related to Commercialization of Products - We may be unsuccessful in continuing the commercialization of our marketed products or in commercializing our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, if approved, which would materially and adversely affect our business, profitability, and future prospects" below. We rely on our collaboration with Bayer for commercializing EYLEA. While we have established our own sales and marketing organization for EYLEA in the United States for its currently approved indications, our commercialization experience is still relatively limited and we have no sales, marketing, commercial, or distribution capabilities for EYLEA outside the United States. Under the terms of our license and collaboration agreement with Bayer (which is terminable by Bayer at any time upon six or twelve months' advance notice), we rely on Bayer for sales, marketing, and distribution of EYLEA in countries outside the United States. If we and Bayer are unsuccessful in continuing to commercialize EYLEA, our ability to sustain profitability would be materially impaired. We have limited commercial capabilities outside the United States and would have to develop or outsource these capabilities. Therefore, termination of the Bayer collaboration agreement would create substantial new and additional risks to the successful commercialization of EYLEA, particularly outside the United States. For additional information regarding our collaboration with Bayer, see "Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties - If our collaboration with Bayer for EYLEA is terminated, or Bayer materially breaches its obligations thereunder, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition, and our ability to continue to develop EYLEA and commercialize EYLEA outside the United States in the time expected, or at all, would be materially harmed" below. Sales of EYLEA recorded by us and Bayer could be reduced by imports from countries where EYLEA may be available at lower prices. Our sales of EYLEA in the United States and Bayer's sales of EYLEA in other countries may be reduced if EYLEA is imported into those countries from lower priced markets, whether legally or illegally (a practice known as parallel trading or reimportation). Parallel traders (who may repackage or resize the original product or sell it through alternative channels such as mail order or the Internet) take advantage of the price differentials between markets arising from factors including sales costs, market conditions (such as intermediate trading stages), tax rates, or national regulation of prices. Under our arrangement with Bayer, pricing and reimbursement for EYLEA outside the United States is the responsibility of Bayer. Prices for EYLEA in territories outside the United States are based on local market economics and competition and are likely to differ from country to country. In the United States, prices for pharmaceuticals are generally higher than in the bordering nations of Canada and Mexico and our sales of EYLEA in the United States may be reduced if EYLEA marketed in those nations is imported into the United States. Parallel-trading practices also are of particular relevance to the EU, where they have been encouraged by the current regulatory framework. These types of imports may exert pressure on the pricing of EYLEA in a particular market or reduce our or Bayer's sales, thereby adversely affecting our results of operations. In addition, there have been proposals to legalize the import of pharmaceuticals from outside the United States. If such legislation were enacted, our future revenues derived from EYLEA sales could be reduced. Risks Related to Commercialization of Praluent If we or Sanofi are unable to successfully commercialize Praluent, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be materially harmed. We expect that the commercial success of Praluent will depend on many factors, including the following: • effectiveness of the commercial strategy in and outside the United States for the marketing of Praluent, including pricing strategy and the effectiveness of efforts to obtain, and the timing of obtaining, adequate third-party reimbursements; • our and Sanofi's ability to differentiate Praluent from Amgen's Repatha and other competitive products; • the outcome of the pending patent infringement proceedings initiated by Amgen against us and Sanofi (described further in Part I, Item 3. "Legal Proceedings" of this report), and other risks associated with intellectual property of other parties and pending or future litigation relating thereto, as discussed under "Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Market Exclusivity" below; • the ability of patients and providers to obtain and maintain sufficient coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States and other government and private payers in the United States and foreign jurisdictions; • payer restrictions on eligible patient populations and the reimbursement process, both in the United States and abroad; • our and Sanofi's ability to maintain sales of Praluent in the face of competitive products, including Repatha , as well as product candidates currently in clinical development; • the results of post-approval studies of (i) Praluent (including the ongoing ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial prospectively assessing the potential of Praluent to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit), whether conducted by us or by others and whether mandated by regulatory agencies or voluntary, and (ii) other PCSK9 inhibitors, including Repatha, that could implicate an entire class of products or are perceived to do so; • our ability to meet the demand for commercial supplies of Praluent; • the effect of existing and new health care laws and regulations currently being considered or implemented in the United States, including reporting and disclosure requirements of such laws and regulations and the potential impact of such requirements on physician prescription practices; and • maintaining and successfully monitoring commercial manufacturing arrangements for Praluent with parties who perform fill/finish or other steps in the manufacture of Praluent to ensure that they meet our standards and those of regulatory authorities, including the FDA, which extensively regulate and monitor pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. More detailed information about the risks related to the commercialization of Praluent is provided in the risk factors below. We and Sanofi are subject to significant ongoing regulatory obligations and oversight with respect to Praluent. If we or Sanofi fail to maintain regulatory compliance for Praluent, Praluent marketing approval may be withdrawn, which would materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. We and Sanofi are subject to significant ongoing regulatory obligations and oversight with respect to Praluent for its currently approved indications in the United States, EU, and other countries. If we or Sanofi fail to maintain regulatory compliance for Praluent for its currently approved indications (including because Praluent does not meet the relevant endpoints of any required post-approval studies, such as the ongoing ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, or for any of the other reasons discussed below under "Risks Related to Maintaining Approval of Our Marketed Products and the Development and Obtaining Approval of Our Product Candidates and New Indications for Our Marketed Products - Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval for drug products is costly, time-consuming, and highly uncertain"), Praluent marketing approval may be withdrawn, which would materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Failure to comply may also subject us to sanctions, product recalls, or withdrawals of previously approved marketing applications. See also "Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply - If we fail to meet the stringent requirements of governmental regulation in the manufacture of drug products or product candidates, we could incur substantial remedial costs, delays in the development or approval of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products and/or in their commercial launch if they obtain regulatory approval, and a reduction in sales" below. Serious complications or side effects in connection with the use of Praluent could materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Serious complications or serious, unexpected side effects in connection with the use of Praluent could materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. For additional information about some of these risks, see "Risks Related to Maintaining Approval of Our Marketed Products and the Development and Obtaining Approval of Our Product Candidates and New Indications for Our Marketed Products - Serious complications or side effects in connection with the use of our products and in clinical trials for our product candidates and new indications for our marketed products could cause our regulatory approvals to be revoked or limited or lead to delay or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, which could severely harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition" below. Sales of Praluent are dependent on the availability and extent of reimbursement from third-party payers in the United States and other countries, and changes to such reimbursement may materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Sales in the United States of Praluent are dependent, in large part, on the availability and extent of reimbursement from third-party payers, including private payer healthcare and insurance programs, health maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit management companies, and government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Sales of Praluent in other countries are dependent, in large part, on similar reimbursement mechanisms and programs in those countries. Government and other third-party payers (including pharmacy benefit management companies) are challenging the prices charged for healthcare products and increasingly limiting, and attempting to limit, both coverage and level of reimbursement for prescription drugs, such as by requiring outcomes-based or other pay-for-performance pricing arrangements. They are also imposing restrictions on eligible patient populations and the reimbursement process, including by means of required prior authorizations and utilization management criteria. For example, pharmacy benefit management companies often develop formularies to reduce their cost for medications. The breadth of the products covered by formularies varies considerably from one pharmacy benefit management company to another. Failure to be included in such formularies or to achieve favorable formulary status may negatively impact the utilization and market share of Praluent. If Praluent is not included within an adequate number of formularies, adequate reimbursement levels are not provided, the eligible insured patient population for Praluent is limited, or a key payer refuses to provide reimbursement for Praluent in a particular jurisdiction altogether, this could have a material adverse effect on our and Sanofi's ability to commercialize Praluent. In the United States, there also is an increased focus from the federal government and others on analyzing the impact of various regulatory programs on the federal deficit, which could result in increased pressure on federal programs to reduce costs, including limiting federal healthcare expenditures. Economic pressure on state budgets may also have a similar impact. A reduction in the availability or extent of reimbursement from U.S. government programs could have a material adverse effect on the sales of Praluent. Since Praluent is too expensive for most patients to afford without health insurance coverage, if adequate coverage and reimbursement by third-party payers in the United States and other countries, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, is not available, our ability to successfully commercialize Praluent will be materially adversely impacted. Our sales and potential profits and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be materially harmed. See also "Risks Related to Commercialization of Products - The successful commercialization of our marketed products, as well as our late-stage product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, if approved, will depend on obtaining and maintaining coverage and reimbursement for use of these products from third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, and these payers may not cover or adequately reimburse for use of our products or may do so at levels that make our products uncompetitive and/or unprofitable, which would materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition" below. The commercial success of Praluent is subject to strong competition. There is significant actual and potential future competition for Praluent (an overview of the competitive landscape for Praluent is provided in Part I, Item 1. "Business - Competition - Praluent"). Amgen's PCSK9 program is currently the most advanced of the competitors, having already received regulatory approvals in jurisdictions including the U.S., the EU, and Japan for its PCSK9 inhibitor Repatha. Amgen may obtain marketing approval for Repatha in one or more additional countries before Praluent is approved in those countries. Several other companies, including AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, also have development programs for antibodies against PCSK9. Alnylam, in collaboration with The Medicines Company, has a clinical program underway with an RNAi molecule against PCSK9. In addition, there are therapeutic products targeting PCSK9 operating through other mechanisms of action in development, including oral products and vaccines. Oral products that lower LDL-C, if approved, may also be competitive with PCSK9 inhibitors, including Praluent. Certain late-stage inhibitors of cholesterylester transfer protein (CETP), such as Merck's anacetrapib, lower LDL-C and may be launched with supporting data from outcomes trials prior to the completion of our own outcomes trial for Praluent. Other oral agents for lowering LDL-C that may potentially compete with Praluent include ETC-1002, which is being developed by Esperion; and gemcabene, which is being developed by Gemphire. We rely on our Antibody Collaboration with Sanofi for commercializing Praluent. In accordance with the terms of our Antibody Collaboration with Sanofi, we have elected to co-promote Praluent with Sanofi in the United States. As such, we continue to rely in part on Sanofi's sales and marketing organization in the United States. If we and Sanofi fail to coordinate our United States sales and marketing efforts effectively, sales of Praluent may be materially affected. Sanofi also maintains other important responsibilities relating to Praluent in the United States. For example, Sanofi records product sales and cost of sales for Praluent in the United States, serves as the lead regulatory party (e.g., is responsible for regulatory filings and negotiations relating to Praluent in the United States), and leads negotiations with payors. We also rely on Sanofi for sales, marketing, and distribution of Praluent in countries outside the United States. If we or Sanofi are unsuccessful in commercializing Praluent, or if Sanofi terminates the Antibody Collaboration with us, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be materially impaired. We have limited commercial capabilities outside the United States and would have to develop or outsource these capabilities for Praluent. Therefore, termination of our Antibody Collaboration would create substantial new and additional risks to the successful commercialization of Praluent, particularly outside the United States. For additional information regarding our Antibody Collaboration with Sanofi, see "Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties - If any of our collaborations with Sanofi is terminated, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition, and our ability to discover, develop, manufacture, and commercialize our pipeline of product candidates in the time expected, or at all, would be materially harmed" below. Sales of Praluent recorded by Sanofi could be reduced by imports from countries where Praluent may be available at lower prices. Sales of Praluent recorded by Sanofi in the United States and other countries (which impact our share of any profits or losses from the commercialization of Praluent under our Antibody Collaboration with Sanofi and, therefore, our results of operations) may be reduced if Praluent is imported into those countries from lower priced markets, whether legally or illegally (a practice known as parallel trading or reimportation). Parallel traders (who may repackage or resize the original product or sell it through alternative channels such as mail order or the Internet) take advantage of the price differentials between markets arising from factors including sales costs, market conditions (such as intermediate trading stages), tax rates, or national regulation of prices. Under our Antibody Collaboration with Sanofi, pricing and reimbursement for Praluent outside the United States is the responsibility of Sanofi. Prices for Praluent in territories outside the United States are based on local market economics and competition and are likely to differ from country to country. In the United States, prices for pharmaceuticals are generally higher than in the bordering nations of Canada and Mexico and sales of Praluent in the United States that are recorded by Sanofi may be reduced if Praluent marketed in those bordering nations is imported into the United States. Parallel-trading practices also are of particular relevance to the EU, where they have been encouraged by the current regulatory framework. These types of imports may exert pressure on the pricing of Praluent in a particular market or the sales recorded by Sanofi, thereby adversely affecting our results of operations. In addition, there have been proposals to legalize the import of pharmaceuticals from outside the United States. If such legislation were enacted, our future revenues derived from Praluent sales could be reduced. Risks Related to Maintaining Approval of Our Marketed Products and the Development and Obtaining Approval of Our Product Candidates and New Indications for Our Marketed Products If we do not maintain regulatory approval for our marketed products, and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, we will not be able to market or sell them, which would materially and negatively impact our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. We cannot sell or market products without regulatory approval. If we do not maintain regulatory approval for our marketed products, and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or new indications of our marketed products, the value of our company and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition will be materially harmed. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, or if we are materially delayed in doing so, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be materially harmed. Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval for drug products is costly, time-consuming, and highly uncertain. In the United States, we must obtain and maintain approval from the FDA for each drug we intend to sell. Obtaining FDA approval is typically a lengthy and expensive process, and approval is highly uncertain. We cannot predict with certainty if or when we might submit for regulatory approval any of our product candidates currently under development. Any approvals we may obtain may not cover all of the clinical indications for which we are seeking approval. Also, an approval might contain significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, precautions, or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process (including with respect to setting specific conditions for submission) and may either refuse to accept an application for substantive review or may form the opinion after review of an application that the application is insufficient to allow approval of a product candidate. If the FDA does not accept our application for review or approve our application, it may require that we conduct additional clinical, preclinical, or manufacturing validation studies and submit the data before it will reconsider our application. Depending on the extent of these or any other studies that might be required, approval of any applications that we submit may be delayed significantly, or we may be required to expend more resources. It is also possible that any such additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to make our applications approvable. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to delay or abandon our applications for approval. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional clinical trials after granting approval of a product. Its ability to do so has been enhanced by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, pursuant to which the FDA has the explicit authority to require postmarketing studies (also referred to as post-approval or Phase 4 studies), labeling changes based on new safety information, and compliance with FDA-approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. Post-approval studies, whether conducted by us or by others and whether mandated by regulatory agencies or voluntary, and other data about our marketed products (or data about products similar to our marketed products that implicate an entire class of products or are perceived to do so) may result in changes in product labeling, restrictions on use, product withdrawal or recall, loss of approval, or lower sales of our products. According to the FDA policies under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA system of review times for new drugs includes standard review and priority review. Standard review can be accomplished in a ten-month time frame from the time the application is filed by the FDA (filing date), which typically occurs approximately 60 days following submission of the application by the applicant. The FDA has stated the goal to act on 90% of standard new molecular entity (NME) New Drug Application (NDA) and original BLA submissions within 10 months of the filing date. A priority review designation is given to drugs that treat a serious condition and offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists, and may also be afforded to a human drug application based on a priority review voucher. The FDA has stated the goal to act on 90% of priority NME NDA and original BLA submissions within 6 months of the filing date. However, the FDA's review goals are subject to change and the duration of the FDA's review depends on a number of factors, including the number and types of other applications that are submitted to the FDA around the same time period or are pending. Even if any of our applications receives a priority review designation, we may not ultimately be able to obtain approval of our application within a time frame consistent with the FDA's stated review goals or at all, and such designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process. The FDA enforces Good Clinical Practices (GCPs) and other regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical research organizations (CROs), principal investigators, and trial sites. If we or any of the third parties conducting our clinical studies are determined to have failed to fully comply with GCPs, the study protocol or applicable regulations, the clinical data generated in those studies may be deemed unreliable. This could result in non-approval of our product candidates by the FDA, or we or the FDA may decide to conduct additional audits or require additional clinical studies, which would delay our development programs, require us to incur additional costs, and could substantially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Before approving a new drug or biologic product, the FDA requires that the facilities at which the product will be manufactured or advanced through the supply chain be in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, requirements and regulations governing the manufacture, shipment, and storage of the product. These cGMP requirements and regulations are not prescriptive instructions on how to manufacture products, but rather a series of principles that must be observed during manufacturing; as a result, their implementation may not be clearly delineated and may present a challenging task. Manufacturing product candidates in compliance with these regulatory requirements is complex, time-consuming, and expensive. To be successful, our products must be manufactured in compliance with regulatory requirements, and at competitive costs. If we or any of our product collaborators, or third-party manufacturers, product packagers, labelers, or other parties performing steps in the supply chain are unable to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions, including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new drug or biologic product, or revocation of a pre-existing approval. For example, on October 28, 2016, the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter relating to the BLA for sarilumab, which referred to certain deficiencies identified during a routine cGMP inspection of the Sanofi facility in Le Trait, France where sarilumab is filled and finished; satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before the BLA can be approved. For additional information, see "Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply - If we fail to meet the stringent requirements of governmental regulation in the manufacture of drug products or product candidates, we could incur substantial remedial costs, delays in the development or approval of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products and/or in their commercial launch if they obtain regulatory approval, and a reduction in sales." Our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be materially harmed as a result of noncompliance with the requirements and regulations described in this paragraph. In addition to the FDA and other regulatory agency regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of foreign regulatory requirements governing human clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing and approval of drugs, and commercial sale and distribution of drugs in foreign countries. The foreign regulatory approval process is similarly likely to be a lengthy and expensive process, the result of which is highly uncertain, and foreign regulatory requirements include all of the risks associated with FDA approval as well as country specific regulations. In addition, actions by a regulatory agency in a country or region with respect to a product candidate may have an impact on the approval process for that product candidate in another country or region. Foreign regulatory authorities often also have the authority to require post-approval studies, which involve various risks similar to those described above. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product in the United States, we must obtain approval of the product by the comparable regulatory authorities in foreign countries before we can conduct clinical trials of or market that product or any other product in those countries. Preclinical and clinical studies required for our product candidates and new indications of our marketed products are expensive and time-consuming, and their outcome is highly uncertain. If any such studies are delayed or yield unfavorable results, regulatory approval for our product candidates or new indications of our marketed products may be delayed or become unobtainable. As described above, we must conduct extensive testing of our product candidates and new indications of our marketed products before we can obtain regulatory approval to market and sell them. We need to conduct both preclinical animal testing and human clinical trials. Conducting such studies is a lengthy, time-consuming, and expensive process. These tests and trials may not achieve favorable results for many reasons, including, among others, failure of the product candidate to demonstrate safety or efficacy, the development of serious or life-threatening adverse events (or side effects) caused by or connected with exposure to the product candidate, difficulty in enrolling and maintaining subjects in a clinical trial, lack of sufficient supplies of the product candidate or comparator drug, and the failure of clinical investigators, trial monitors, contractors, consultants, or trial subjects to comply with the trial plan, protocol, or applicable regulations related to Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) or GCPs. A clinical trial may fail because it did not include and retain a sufficient number of patients to detect the endpoint being measured or reach statistical significance. A clinical trial may also fail because the dose(s) of the investigational drug included in the trial were either too low or too high to determine the optimal effect of the investigational drug in the disease setting. We will need to reevaluate any drug candidate that does not test favorably and either conduct new studies, which are expensive and time consuming, or abandon that drug development program. If preclinical testing yields unfavorable results, product candidates may not advance to clinical trials. The failure of clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of our clinical candidates for the desired indication(s) would preclude the successful development of those candidates for such indication(s), in which event our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be materially harmed. Successful development of our current and future product candidates is uncertain. Only a small minority of all research and development programs ultimately result in commercially successful drugs. Clinical trials may not demonstrate statistically sufficient effectiveness and safety to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for these product candidates in these indications. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical industry, including our company, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after promising results have been obtained in earlier trials. In a number of instances, we have terminated the development of product candidates due to a lack of or only modest effectiveness, and clinical trials evaluating our product candidates failed to meet the relevant endpoints. For example, in September 2016, we reported that in the Phase 2 study evaluating aflibercept co-formulated with rinucumab, an antibody to Platelet Derived Growth Factor Receptor Beta (PDGFR-beta), in patients with wet AMD, the combination therapy did not demonstrate an improvement in best corrected visual acuity compared to intravitreal aflibercept injection monotherapy at 12 weeks. Moreover, even if we obtain positive results from preclinical testing or clinical trials, we may not achieve the same success in future trials, or the FDA and analogous foreign regulatory authorities may deem the results insufficient for an approval. For instance, based on the results of three Phase 3 studies, we submitted a supplemental BLA filing to the FDA seeking approval of ARCALYST for the prevention of gout flares in patients initiating uric acid-lowering drug therapy. In May 2012, the Arthritis Advisory Committee of the FDA voted to recommend against approval of ARCALYST for the prevention of gout flares in patients initiating uric acid-lowering drug therapy and, in July 2012, we received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA requesting additional information, including clinical data, as well as additional CMC information related to a proposed new dosage form. We have discontinued development of ARCALYST for gout. Many of our clinical trials are conducted under the oversight of Independent Data Monitoring Committees (IDMCs). These independent oversight bodies are made up of external experts who review the progress of ongoing clinical trials, including available safety and efficacy data, and make recommendations concerning a trial's continuation, modification, or termination based on interim, unblinded data. Any of our ongoing clinical trials may be discontinued or amended in response to recommendations made by responsible IDMCs based on their review of such interim trial results. For example, in September 2009, a Phase 3 trial that was evaluating ZALTRAP as a first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine was discontinued at the recommendation of an IDMC after a planned analysis of interim efficacy data determined that the trial would not meet its efficacy endpoint. The recommended termination of any of our ongoing late-stage clinical trials by an IDMC could negatively impact the future development of our product candidate(s), and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be materially harmed. We are studying our antibody candidates in a wide variety of indications in clinical trials. Many of these trials are exploratory studies designed to evaluate the safety profile of these compounds and to identify what diseases and uses, if any, are best suited for these product candidates. These product candidates may not demonstrate the requisite efficacy and/or safety profile to support continued development for some or all of the indications that are being, or are planned to be, studied, which would diminish our clinical "pipeline" and could negatively affect our future prospects and the value of our company. Serious complications or side effects in connection with the use of our products and in clinical trials for our product candidates and new indications for our marketed products could cause our regulatory approvals to be revoked or limited or lead to delay or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, which could severely harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. During the conduct of clinical trials, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries, and discomforts, to their study doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the drug candidate being studied caused these conditions. Various illnesses, injuries, and discomforts have been reported from time-to-time during clinical trials of our product candidates and new indications for our marketed products. It is possible that as we test our drug candidates or new indications in larger, longer, and more extensive clinical programs, or as use of these drugs becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, and discomforts that were observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, will be reported by patients. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational drugs are tested in large-scale, Phase 3 clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients after approval. If additional clinical experience indicates that any of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products has many side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of the product candidate may be delayed or fail, or, if the product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked, which would severely harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. EYLEA is being studied in additional indications, and aflibercept is being studied as a combination product. There are many potential safety concerns associated with significant blockade of VEGF that may limit our ability to further successfully develop and/or commercialize aflibercept. These serious and potentially life-threatening risks, based on clinical and preclinical experience of VEGF inhibitors, include bleeding, intestinal perforation, hypertension, proteinuria, congestive heart failure, heart attack, and stroke. Other VEGF blockers have reported side effects that became evident only after large-scale trials or after marketing approval when large numbers of patients were treated. There are risks inherent in the intravitreal administration of drugs like aflibercept (such as intraocular inflammation, sterile and culture positive endophthalmitis, corneal decomposition, retinal detachment, and retinal tear), which can cause injury to the eye and other complications. For example, in our Phase 3 trials of EYLEA in wet AMD, the most frequent ocular adverse events were conjunctival hemorrhage, macular degeneration, eye pain, retinal hemorrhage, and vitreous floaters. These and other complications or side effects could harm further development and/or commercialization of aflibercept. The potential of Praluent to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit is being prospectively assessed in the ongoing ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial. There is no guarantee that Praluent will meet the relevant endpoints of this trial. In addition, there are potential safety concerns associated with PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies such as Praluent that may limit our ability to further successfully develop and/or commercialize Praluent, including new-onset diabetes mellitus, injection-site reactions, hypersensitivity, immunogenicity, demyelination, and changes in neurocognitive function. There also are risks inherent in subcutaneous injections, including subcutaneous injections with Praluent, such as injection-site reactions (including redness, itching, swelling, pain, and tenderness) and other side effects. These and other complications or side effects could harm further development and/or commercialization of Praluent. Our product candidates in development are recombinant proteins that could cause an immune response, resulting in the creation of harmful or neutralizing antibodies against the therapeutic protein. In addition to the safety, efficacy, manufacturing, and regulatory hurdles faced by our product candidates, the administration of recombinant proteins frequently causes an immune response, resulting in the creation of antibodies against the therapeutic protein. The antibodies can have no effect or can totally neutralize the effectiveness of the protein, or require that higher doses be used to obtain a therapeutic effect. In some cases, the antibody can cross-react with the patient's own proteins, resulting in an "auto-immune" type disease. Whether antibodies will be created can often not be predicted from preclinical or clinical experiments, and their detection or appearance is often delayed, so neutralizing antibodies may be detected at a later date, in some cases even after pivotal clinical trials have been completed. We may be unable to formulate or manufacture our product candidates in a way that is suitable for clinical or commercial use, which would delay or prevent continued development of such candidates and/or receipt of regulatory approval or commercial sale, which could materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. If we are unable to continue to develop suitable product formulations or manufacturing processes to support large-scale clinical testing of our product candidates, including our antibody candidates, we may be unable to supply necessary materials for our clinical trials, which would delay or prevent the development of our product candidates. Similarly, if we are unable, directly or through our collaborators or third parties, to supply sufficient quantities of our products or develop formulations of our product candidates suitable for commercial use, we will be unable to obtain regulatory approval for those product candidates. Some of our products and, if approved, product candidates may be used with drug delivery devices, which have their own regulatory and other risks. Some of our products (such as Praluent) are used and, if approved, some of our product candidates may be used in combination with a drug delivery device, including a pre-filled syringe, patch pump, auto-injector, or other delivery system. The success of our product candidates may depend to a significant extent on the performance of such devices, some of which may be novel or comprised of complex components. Given the increased complexity of the review process when approval of the product and device is sought under a single marketing application, our product candidates used with such drug delivery devices may be substantially delayed in receiving regulatory approval or may not be approved at all. In addition, some of these drug delivery devices may be provided by single-source, third-party providers or our collaborators. In any such case, we may be dependent on the sustained cooperation of those third-party providers or collaborators to supply the devices; to conduct the studies required for approval or clearance by the applicable regulatory agencies; and to continue to meet the applicable regulatory and other requirements to maintain approval or clearance once it has been received. Failure to successfully develop or supply the devices, delays in or failure of the studies conducted by us, our collaborators, or third-party providers, or failure of our company, our collaborators, or the third-party providers to obtain or maintain regulatory approval or clearance of the devices could result in increased development costs, delays in or failure to obtain regulatory approval, and associated delays in a product candidate reaching the market. Loss of regulatory approval or clearance of a device that is used with our product may also result in the removal of our product from the market. Further, failure to successfully develop or supply these devices, or to gain or maintain their approval, could adversely affect sales of the related products. Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Market Exclusivity If we cannot protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets or our patents are insufficient to protect our proprietary rights, our business and competitive position will be harmed. Our business requires using sensitive and proprietary technology and other information that we protect as trade secrets. We seek to prevent improper disclosure of these trade secrets through confidentiality agreements. If our trade secrets are improperly disclosed, by our current or former employees, our collaborators, or otherwise, it would help our competitors and adversely affect our business. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights only to the extent that our proprietary technologies and other information are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. The patent position of biotechnology companies, including our company, involves complex legal and factual questions and, therefore, enforceability cannot be predicted with certainty. Our patents may be challenged, invalidated, held to be unenforceable, or circumvented. Patent applications filed outside the United States may be challenged by other parties, for example, by filing third-party observations that argue against patentability or an opposition. Such opposition proceedings are increasingly common in the EU and are costly to defend. For example, our European Patent No. 1,360,287 was, and our European Patent No. 2,264,163 is, the subject of opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office, as described in Part I, Item 3. "Legal Proceedings" of this report. We have pending patent applications in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, and the patent offices of other foreign jurisdictions, and it is likely that we will need to defend patents from challenges by others from time to time in the future. Certain of our U.S. patents may also be challenged by parties who file a request for post-grant review or inter partes reexamination under the America Invents Act of 2011 or ex parte reexamination. Post-grant proceedings are increasingly common in the United States and are costly to defend. Our patent rights may not provide us with a proprietary position or competitive advantages against competitors. Furthermore, even if the outcome is favorable to us, the enforcement of our intellectual property rights can be extremely expensive and time consuming. We may be restricted in our development, manufacturing, and/or commercialization activities by patents or other proprietary rights of others, and could be subject to damage awards if we are found to have infringed such patents or rights. Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of others. Other parties may allege that they own blocking patents to our products in clinical development or even to products that have received regulatory approval and are being or have been commercialized, either because they claim to hold proprietary rights to the composition of a product or the way it is manufactured or the way it is used. Moreover, other parties may allege that they have blocking patents to antibody products made using our VelocImmune technology, or any other of our technologies, either because of the way the antibodies are discovered or produced or because of a proprietary composition covering an antibody or the antibody's target. We have been in the past, are currently, and may in the future be involved in patent litigation and other proceedings involving patents and other intellectual property. For example, we are currently party to patent infringement proceedings initiated by Amgen against us and Sanofi relating to Praluent, as described in Part I, Item 3. "Legal Proceedings" of this report. In addition, we are currently party to patent infringement proceedings initiated by us relating to our European Patent No. 1,360,287, our European Patent No. 2,264,163, and our U.S. Patent No. 8,502,018, all of which concern genetically altered mice capable of producing chimeric antibodies that are part human and part mouse, as described in Part I, Item 3. "Legal Proceedings" of this report. We are aware of additional patents and pending patent applications owned by others that claim antibodies to PCSK9 and methods of treating hypercholesterolemia with such antibodies. We are also aware of patents and pending patent applications owned by others that respectively claim antibodies to IL-6R and methods of treating conditions including rheumatoid arthritis and uveitis with such antibodies; and antibodies to IL-4R and methods of treating conditions including atopic dermatitis and asthma with such antibodies. In addition to Praluent, our late-stage antibody-based pipeline includes sarilumab, an antibody to IL-6R, intended for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and non-infectious uveitis; Dupixent (dupilumab), an antibody to IL-4R, intended for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis; REGN2222, an antibody targeting RSV-F; and fasinumab, an antibody to NGF. With respect to Dupixent, we are aware of certain patents owned by Immunex Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Amgen. These patents include U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 and European Patent No. 2,292,665 (the '665 Patent) and are generally directed to antibodies that bind to IL-4R. On September 30, 2016, Sanofi initiated a revocation proceeding to invalidate the U.K. counterpart of the '665 Patent in the United Kingdom. At the joint request of the parties to the revocation proceeding, the U.K. Patents Court ordered on January 30, 2017 that the revocation action be stayed pending the final determination of the currently pending European Patent Office opposition proceedings initiated by us and Sanofi in relation to the '665 Patent. The original patent term of the Immunex patents is set to expire in 2021. Although we do not believe that any of our late-stage antibody product candidates infringes any valid claim in these patents or patent applications, these other parties could initiate lawsuits for patent infringement and assert that their patents are valid and cover our late-stage antibody product candidates, similar to the patent infringement proceedings initiated by Amgen referred to above. Further, we are aware of a number of patent applications of others that, if granted with claims as currently drafted, may cover our current or planned activities. It could be determined that our products and/or actions in manufacturing or selling our product candidates infringe such patents. Patent holders could assert claims against us for damages and seek to prevent us from manufacturing, selling, or developing our products or product candidates, and a court may find that we are infringing validly issued patents of others. In the event that the manufacture, use, or sale of any of our products or product candidates infringes on the patents or violates other proprietary rights of others, we may be prevented from pursuing product development, manufacturing, and commercialization of those drugs and may be required to pay costly damages. In addition, in the event that we assert our patent rights against other parties that we believe are infringing our patent rights, such parties may challenge the validity of our patents and we may become the target of litigation, which may result in an outcome that is unfavorable to us. Any of these adverse developments may materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. In any event, legal disputes are likely to be costly and time consuming to defend. We seek to obtain licenses to patents when, in our judgment, such licenses are needed or advisable. If any licenses are required, we may not be able to obtain such licenses on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. The failure to obtain any such license could prevent us from developing or commercializing any one or more of our products or product candidates, which could severely harm our business. Loss or limitation of patent rights, and new regulatory pathways for biosimilar competition, could reduce the duration of market exclusivity for our products. In the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, the majority of an innovative product's commercial value is usually realized during the period in which it has market exclusivity. In the United States and some other countries, when market exclusivity expires and generic versions of a product are approved and marketed, there usually are very substantial and rapid declines in the product's sales. If our late-stage product candidates or other clinical candidates are approved for marketing in the United States or elsewhere, market exclusivity for those products will generally be based upon patent rights and/or certain regulatory forms of exclusivity. As described above under "If we cannot protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets or our patents are insufficient to protect our proprietary rights, our business and competitive position will be harmed," the scope and enforceability of our patent rights may vary from country to country. The failure to obtain patent and other intellectual property rights, or limitations on the use, or the loss, of such rights could materially harm us. Absent patent protection or regulatory exclusivity for our products, it is possible, both in the United States and elsewhere, that generic and/or biosimilar versions of those products may be approved and marketed, which would likely result in substantial and rapid reductions in revenues from sales of those products. Under the federal PPACA, enacted in 2010, there is an abbreviated path in the United States for regulatory approval of products that are demonstrated to be "biosimilar" or "interchangeable" with an FDA-approved biological product. The PPACA provides a regulatory mechanism that allows for FDA approval of biologic drugs that are similar to (but not generic copies of) innovative drugs on the basis of less extensive data than is required by a full BLA. Under this regulation, an application for approval of a biosimilar may be filed four years after approval of the innovator product. However, qualified innovative biological products will receive 12 years of regulatory exclusivity, meaning that the FDA may not approve a biosimilar version until 12 years after the innovative biological product was first approved by the FDA. However, the term of regulatory exclusivity may not remain at 12 years in the United States and could be shortened. A number of jurisdictions outside of the United States have also established abbreviated pathways for regulatory approval of biological products that are biosimilar to earlier versions of biological products. For example, the EU has had an established regulatory pathway for biosimilars since 2005. The increased likelihood of biosimilar competition has increased the risk of loss of innovators' market exclusivity. Due to this risk, and uncertainties regarding patent protection, if our late-stage product candidates or other clinical candidates are approved for marketing, it is not possible to predict the length of market exclusivity for any particular product with certainty based solely on the expiration of the relevant patent(s) or the current forms of regulatory exclusivity. It is also not possible to predict changes in United States regulatory law that might reduce biological product regulatory exclusivity. The loss of market exclusivity for a product would likely materially and negatively affect revenues from product sales of that product and thus our financial results and condition. Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply We rely on limited internal and contracted manufacturing and supply chain capacity, which could result in our being unable to continue to successfully commercialize EYLEA, to successfully commercialize Praluent and, if approved, our product candidates or other indications for our marketed products, and to advance our clinical pipeline. Our manufacturing facilities would be inadequate to produce the active pharmaceutical ingredients of (a) our current marketed products, including EYLEA and Praluent, and (b) our antibody product candidates in sufficient clinical quantities if our clinical pipeline advances as planned. In addition to expanding our internal capacity, we intend to rely on our collaborators, as well as contract manufacturers, to produce commercial quantities of drug material needed for commercialization of our products to the extent such quantities are not manufactured at our own facility. As we increase our production in anticipation of potential regulatory approval for our late-stage antibody product candidates, our current manufacturing capacity will likely not be sufficient, and we may depend on our collaborators or contract manufacturers, to produce adequate quantities of drug material for both commercial and clinical purposes. We rely entirely on other parties and our collaborators for filling and finishing services. Generally, in order for other parties to perform any step in the manufacturing and supply chain, we must transfer technology to the other party, which can be time consuming and may not be successfully accomplished without considerable cost and expense, or at all. We will have to depend on these other parties to perform effectively on a timely basis and to comply with regulatory requirements. If for any reason they are unable to do so, and as a result we are unable to directly or through other parties manufacture and supply sufficient commercial and clinical quantities of our products on acceptable terms, or if we should encounter delays or other difficulties in our relationships with our collaborators, contract manufacturers, or other parties involved in our supply chain which adversely affect the timely manufacture and supply of our products or product candidates, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be materially harmed. Expanding our manufacturing capacity will be costly and we may be unsuccessful in doing so in a timely manner, which could delay or prevent the launch and successful commercialization of our marketed products and late-stage product candidates or other indications for our marketed products if they are approved for marketing and could jeopardize our current and future clinical development programs. We have commenced construction of additional manufacturing space at our Rensselaer, New York site to increase our manufacturing capacity. In addition, we have acquired and are renovating a 400,000 square foot facility in Limerick, Ireland to expand our manufacturing capacity to support our global supply chain. In the future, we may lease, operate, purchase, or construct additional facilities to conduct expanded manufacturing activities. Expanding our manufacturing capacity to supply commercial quantities of the active pharmaceutical ingredients for our marketed products and our late-stage product candidates if they are approved for marketing, and to supply clinical drug material to support the continued growth of our clinical programs, will require substantial additional expenditures and various regulatory approvals and permits. In addition, the Limerick, Ireland facility remains subject to securing certain governmental permits, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain the remaining required permits in the contemplated timeframe, or at all. Further, we will need to hire and train significant numbers of employees and managerial personnel to staff our expanding manufacturing and supply chain operations. Start-up costs can be large, and scale-up entails significant risks related to process development and manufacturing yields. In addition, we may face difficulties or delays in developing or acquiring the necessary production equipment and technology to manufacture sufficient quantities of our product candidates at reasonable costs and in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The FDA and analogous foreign regulatory authorities must determine that our existing and any expanded manufacturing facilities comply, or continue to comply, with cGMP requirements for both clinical and commercial production and license them, or continue to license them, accordingly, and such facilities must also comply with applicable environmental, safety, and other governmental permitting requirements. We may not successfully expand or establish sufficient manufacturing capabilities or manufacture our products economically or in compliance with cGMPs and other regulatory requirements, and we and our collaborators may not be able to build or procure additional capacity in the required timeframe to meet commercial demand for our late-stage product candidates if they receive regulatory approval, and to continue to meet the requirements of our clinical programs. This would interfere with our efforts to successfully commercialize EYLEA, Praluent, and ARCALYST and could also delay or require us to discontinue one or more of our clinical development programs. As a result, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition could be materially harmed. Our ability to manufacture products may be impaired if any of our manufacturing activities, or the activities of third parties involved in our manufacture and supply chain, are found to infringe patents of others. Our ability to continue to manufacture EYLEA, Praluent, ZALTRAP, and ARCALYST in our Rensselaer, New York facilities and our ability to manufacture our marketed products at additional facilities (such as the Limerick, Ireland facility) in the future, or to utilize third parties to produce our products, to supply raw materials or other products, or to perform fill/finish services or other steps in our manufacture and supply chain, depends on our and their ability to operate without infringing the patents or other intellectual property rights of others. Other parties may allege that our manufacturing activities, or the activities of third parties involved in our manufacture and supply chain (which may be located in jurisdictions outside the United States), infringe patents or other intellectual property rights. A judicial or regulatory decision in favor of one or more parties making such allegations could directly or indirectly preclude the manufacture of our products to which those intellectual property rights apply on a temporary or permanent basis, which could materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. If sales of EYLEA or Praluent do not meet the levels currently expected, or if the launch of any of our product candidates is delayed or unsuccessful, we may face costs related to excess inventory or unused capacity at our manufacturing facilities and at the facilities of third parties. We have large-scale manufacturing operations in Rensselaer, New York and are in the process of building a large-scale manufacturing facility in Limerick, Ireland. We use our manufacturing facilities primarily to produce bulk product for commercial supply of our marketed products and clinical and preclinical candidates for ourselves and our collaborations. We also plan to use such facilities to produce bulk product for commercial supply of new indications of our marketed products and new product candidates if they are approved for marketing. If our clinical candidates are discontinued or their clinical development is delayed, if the launch of new indications for our marketed products or new product candidates is delayed or does not occur, or if such products are launched and the launch is unsuccessful or the product is subsequently recalled or marketing approval is rescinded, we may have to absorb one hundred percent of related overhead costs and inefficiencies, as well as similar costs of third-party contract manufacturers performing services for us. In addition, if we experience excess inventory, it may be necessary to write down or even write off such excess inventory, which could adversely affect our operating results. Third-party service or supply failures, or other failures, business interruptions, or other disasters affecting our manufacturing facilities in Rensselaer, New York or the facilities of any other party participating in the supply chain, would adversely affect our ability to supply our products. We currently manufacture all of our bulk drug materials at our manufacturing facilities in Rensselaer, New York. We would be unable to manufacture these materials if our Rensselaer facilities were to cease production due to regulatory requirements or actions, business interruptions, labor shortages or disputes, contaminations, fire, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism, or other problems. Many of our products and product candidates are very difficult to manufacture. As our products and product candidates are biologics, they require processing steps that are more difficult than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Accordingly, multiple steps are needed to control the manufacturing processes. Problems with these manufacturing processes, even minor deviations from the normal process or from the materials used in the manufacturing process (which may not be detectable by us in a timely manner), could lead to product defects or manufacturing failures, resulting in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims, and insufficient inventory. Also, the complexity of our manufacturing process may make it difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to transfer our technology to our collaborators or contract manufacturers. Also, certain raw materials or other products necessary for the manufacture and formulation of our marketed products and product candidates, some of which are difficult to source, are provided by single-source unaffiliated third-party suppliers. In addition, we rely on certain third parties to perform filling, finishing, distribution, laboratory testing, and other services related to the manufacture of our marketed products and product candidates, and to supply various raw materials and other products. We would be unable to obtain these raw materials, other products, or services for an indeterminate period of time if any of these third parties were to cease or interrupt production or otherwise fail to supply these materials, products, or services to us for any reason, including due to regulatory requirements or actions (including recalls), adverse financial developments at or affecting the supplier, failure by the supplier to comply with cGMPs, contamination, business interruptions, or labor shortages or disputes. In any such circumstances, we may not be able to engage a backup or alternative supplier or service provider in a timely manner or at all. This, in turn, could materially and adversely affect our ability to manufacture or supply marketed products and product candidates, which could materially and adversely affect our business and future prospects. Certain of the raw materials required in the manufacture and the formulation of our product candidates may be derived from biological sources, including mammalian tissues, bovine serum, and human serum albumin. There are certain European regulatory restrictions on using these biological source materials. If we are required to substitute for these sources to comply with European regulatory requirements, our clinical development or commercial activities may be delayed or interrupted. If we fail to meet the stringent requirements of governmental regulation in the manufacture of drug products or product candidates, we could incur substantial remedial costs, delays in the development or approval of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products and/or in their commercial launch if they obtain regulatory approval, and a reduction in sales. We and our third-party providers are required to maintain compliance with cGMPs, and are subject to inspections by the FDA or comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. Changes of suppliers or modifications of methods of manufacturing may require amending our application(s) to the FDA or such comparable foreign agencies and acceptance of the change by the FDA or such comparable foreign agencies prior to release of product(s). Because we produce multiple products and product candidates at our facility in Rensselaer, New York, including EYLEA, Praluent, ZALTRAP, and ARCALYST, there are increased risks associated with cGMP compliance. Our inability, or the inability of our third-party fill/finish or other service providers, to demonstrate ongoing cGMP compliance could require us to engage in lengthy and expensive remediation efforts, withdraw or recall product, halt or interrupt clinical trials, and/or interrupt commercial supply of any marketed products, and could also delay or prevent our obtaining regulatory approval for our late-stage product candidates or new indications for our marketed products. For example, on October 28, 2016, the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter relating to the BLA for sarilumab, which referred to certain deficiencies identified during a routine cGMP inspection of the Sanofi facility in Le Trait, France where sarilumab and dupilumab are filled and finished; satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before the BLA can be approved. While the FDA subsequently reclassified the Sanofi Le Trait fill-and-finish facility as "acceptable" based on review of responses to an FDA Form 483, as well as proposed corrective actions, there is no guarantee that Sanofi will be able to resolve those deficiencies timely or at all. Any delay, interruption, or other issue that arises in the manufacture, fill/finish, packaging, or storage of any drug product or product candidate as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of third parties to pass any regulatory agency inspection or maintain cGMP compliance could significantly impair our ability to develop, obtain approval for, and successfully commercialize our products, which would substantially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Any finding of non-compliance could also increase our costs, cause us to delay the development of our product candidates, result in delay in our obtaining, or our not obtaining, regulatory approval of product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, and cause us to lose revenue from any marketed products, which could be seriously detrimental to our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Risks Related to Commercialization of Products We may be unsuccessful in continuing the commercialization of our marketed products or in commercializing our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, if approved, which would materially and adversely affect our business, profitability, and future prospects. Even if clinical trials demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of any of our product candidates for a specific disease and the necessary regulatory approvals are obtained, the commercial success of any of our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products will depend upon, among other things, their acceptance by patients, the medical community, and third-party payers and on our and our collaborators' ability to successfully manufacture, market and distribute those products in substantial commercial quantities or to establish and manage the required infrastructure to do so, including large-scale information technology systems and a large-scale distribution network. Establishing and maintaining sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities are expensive and time-consuming. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or new indications, if they are not successfully commercialized, we will not be able to recover the significant investment we have made in developing such products and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be severely harmed. The commercial success of our products may also be adversely affected by guidelines or recommendations to healthcare providers, administrators, payers, and patient communities that result in decreased use of our products. Such guidelines or recommendations may be published not only by governmental agencies, but also professional societies, practice management groups, private foundations, and other interested parties. Our product candidates are delivered either by intravenous infusion or by intravitreal or subcutaneous injections, which are generally less well received by patients than tablet or capsule delivery and this could adversely affect the commercial success of those products if they receive marketing approval. For a description of additional risks relating specifically to the commercialization of EYLEA and Praluent, see above under "Risks Related to Commercialization of EYLEA" and "Risks Related to Commercialization of Praluent," respectively. Our marketed products are subject to significant competition, and our product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, if any are approved for marketing, may face significant competition. There is substantial competition in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries from biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and chemical companies. Many of our competitors have substantially greater research, preclinical and clinical product development and manufacturing capabilities, as well as financial, marketing, and human resources, than we do. Our smaller competitors may also enhance their competitive position if they acquire or discover patentable inventions, form collaborative arrangements, or merge with large pharmaceutical companies. Even if we achieve commercialization of our product candidates, our competitors have achieved, and may continue to achieve, product commercialization before our products are approved for marketing and sale. The market for eye disease products is very competitive, as described in greater detail above under "Risks Related to Commercialization of EYLEA - The commercial success of EYLEA is subject to strong competition." There is also significant actual and potential future competition for Praluent, the PCSK9 antibody we are developing and commercializing in collaboration with Sanofi, as described in greater detail above under "Risks Related to Commercialization of Praluent - The commercial success of Praluent is subject to strong competition." Our earlier-stage clinical candidates in development are all fully human monoclonal antibodies, which were generated using our VelocImmune technology. Our antibody generation technologies and earlier-stage clinical candidates face competition from many pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies using various technologies. We are aware of several pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies actively engaged in the research and development of antibody products against targets that are also the targets of our early- and late-stage product candidates (an overview of the competitive landscape for our antibody programs that are in late-stage clinical development is provided in Part I, Item 1. "Business - Competition - Monoclonal Antibodies in Development"). For example, Pfizer (in collaboration with Eli Lilly) is developing an antibody product candidate against NGF. Genentech/Roche is marketing an antibody against IL-6R (Actemra) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis that would compete with sarilumab, our IL-6R antibody, if it is approved. In addition, several other companies, including Johnson & Johnson (in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline), Alder (in collaboration with Vitaeris), Ablynx, and R-Pharm, have antibodies against IL-6 or IL-6R in clinical development. A number of companies are developing antibodies that, if approved, may compete with dupilumab, our IL-4R antibody, if it is approved, including Roche (an antibody against IL-13), AstraZeneca (antibodies against IL-4R, IL-5R, and IL-13), Novartis (a combination antibody against IL-4 and IL-13), and Amgen (in collaboration with AstraZeneca) (an antibody against thymic stromal lymphopoietin, or TSLP). GlaxoSmithKline's Nucala and Teva's Cinqair, both of which are antibodies against IL-5, may also compete with dupilumab, if dupilumab is approved. For RSV, AstraZeneca commercializes an antibody against RSV-F protein, Synagis, and other antibodies are in clinical development, including by AstraZeneca (in collaboration with AIMM Therapeutics). We are also aware of several companies developing or marketing small molecules that may compete with our antibody product candidates in various indications, if such product candidates obtain regulatory approval in those indications. For sarilumab, oral, small-molecule JAK inhibitors such as Pfizer's Xeljanz and Eli Lilly's baricitinib may pose a competitive threat in the rheumatoid arthritis indication if sarilumab is approved in such indication. For dupilumab, Pfizer's Eucrisa may be a competitor in the atopic dermatitis indication if dupilumab is approved in such indication. If any of these or other competitors announces a successful clinical study involving a product that may be competitive with one of our product candidates or the grant of marketing approval by a regulatory agency for a competitive product, such developments may have an adverse effect on our business or future prospects. In addition, the first product to reach the market in a therapeutic area is often at a significant competitive advantage relative to later entrants to the market. Accordingly, the relative speed with which we, or our collaborators, can develop our products candidates, complete the clinical trials and approval processes, and, if such product candidates are approved for marketing and sale, supply commercial quantities to the market is expected to continue to be an important competitive factor. Due to the uncertainties associated with developing biopharmaceutical products, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for a product against any particular target, which may have a material adverse effect on our business or future prospects. The successful commercialization of our marketed products, as well as our late-stage product candidates or new indications for our marketed products, if approved, will depend on obtaining and maintaining coverage and reimbursement for use of these products from third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, and these payers may not cover or adequately reimburse for use of our products or may do so at levels that make our products uncompetitive and/or unprofitable, which would materially harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Our future revenues and profitability will be adversely affected in a material manner if United States and foreign governmental payers, private third-party insurers and payers (such as health maintenance organizations and pharmacy benefit management companies), and other third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid, do not adequately defray or reimburse the cost of our products to the patients. If these entities do not provide coverage and reimbursement with respect to our products or provide an insufficient level of coverage and reimbursement, our products may be too costly for many patients to afford them, and physicians may not prescribe them. Many third-party payers cover only selected drugs, or may prefer selected drugs, making drugs that are not covered or preferred by such payers more expensive for patients. Third-party payers may also require prior authorization for reimbursement, or require failure on another type of treatment before covering a particular drug, particularly with respect to higher-priced drugs. As our currently marketed products and product candidates are biologics, bringing them to market may cost more than bringing traditional, small-molecule drugs to market due to the complexity associated with the research, development, production, supply and regulatory review of such products. Given cost sensitivities in many health care systems, our currently marketed products and product candidates are likely to be subject to continued pricing pressures, which may have an adverse impact on our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. In addition, in order for private insurance and governmental payers (such as Medicare and Medicaid in the United States) to reimburse the cost of our products, we must, among other things, maintain our FDA registration and our National Drug Code, maintain formulary approval by pharmacy benefits managers, and maintain recognition by insurance companies and CMS. There is no certainty that we will be able to obtain or maintain the applicable requirements for reimbursement (including relevant formulary coverage) of our current and future products, which may have a material adverse effect on our business. Government and other third-party payers (including pharmacy benefit management companies) are challenging the prices charged for healthcare products and increasingly limiting, and attempting to limit, both coverage and level of reimbursement for prescription drugs, such as by requiring outcomes-based or other pay-for-performance pricing arrangements. They are also imposing restrictions on eligible patient populations and the reimbursement process (including by means of required prior authorizations and utilization management criteria). In March 2010, the PPACA and a related reconciliation bill were enacted in the United States. This legislation imposes cost-containment and other measures that are likely to adversely affect the amount of reimbursement for our current and future products. The full effects of this legislation depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including new regulations and guidance issued by CMS and other federal and state agencies. Some states are also considering legislation that would control the prices of drugs, and state Medicaid programs are increasingly requesting manufacturers to pay supplemental rebates and requiring prior authorization by the state program for use of any drug for which supplemental rebates are not being paid. It is likely that federal and state legislatures and health agencies will continue to focus on additional health care reform in the future that will impose additional constraints on prices and reimbursements for our products. There is a risk that third-party payers, including Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, may not cover and/or reimburse our current and future products at levels required for us to successfully commercialize these products. Any limitation imposed by third-party payers on the use of our products if they are approved for marketing, or any action or decision by CMS or analogous foreign agencies or authorities which for any reason denies coverage or reimbursement for our products or provides coverage or reimbursement at levels that harm our products' competitiveness or leads to lower prices for those products, will have a material negative effect on our ability to sustain profitability. In certain foreign countries, pricing, coverage, and level of reimbursement of prescription drugs are subject to governmental control, and we and our collaborators may be unable to obtain coverage, pricing, and/or reimbursement on terms that are favorable to us or necessary for us or our collaborators to successfully commercialize our products in those countries. In some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country, and may take into account the clinical effectiveness, cost, and service impact of existing, new, and emerging drugs and treatments. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Our results of operations may suffer if we or our collaborators are unable to market our products in foreign countries or if coverage and reimbursement for our products in foreign countries is limited or delayed. We are dependent upon a small number of customers for a significant portion of our revenue, and the loss of or significant reduction in sales to these customers would adversely affect our results of operations. We sell EYLEA in the United States to several distributors and specialty pharmacies. Under this distribution model, the distributors and specialty pharmacies generally take physical delivery of product and generally sell the product directly to healthcare providers. For the year ended December 31, 2016, product sales to three customers accounted on a combined basis for 99% of our total gross product revenue. We expect this significant customer concentration to continue for the foreseeable future. Our ability to generate and grow sales of EYLEA will depend, in part, on the extent to which our distributors and specialty pharmacies are able to provide adequate distribution of EYLEA to healthcare providers. Although we believe we can find additional distributors, if necessary, our revenue during any period of disruption could suffer and we might incur additional costs. In addition, these customers are responsible for a significant portion of our net trade accounts receivable balances. The loss of any large customer, a significant reduction in sales we make to them, any cancellation of orders they have made with us, or any failure to pay for the products we have shipped to them could adversely affect our results of operations. If we need to establish commercial capabilities outside the United States and are unable to do so, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected. We have limited commercial capabilities outside the United States and do not currently have an organization for the sales, marketing, and distribution of marketed products outside the United States. There may be circumstances in which we need to establish commercial capabilities outside the United States, including because we decide to exercise our option to co-promote a product outside the United States or commercialize a particular product independently; we are unable to find an appropriate collaborator; or our existing collaborator decides not to opt in, decides to opt out, or breaches its obligations to us with respect to a particular product. In order to commercialize any products outside the United States, we must build our sales, marketing, distribution, managerial, and other non-technical capabilities in the relevant markets or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, which would likely be expensive and time consuming and could delay product launch in one or more markets outside the United States. We cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop commercial capabilities outside the United States within an acceptable time frame or at all. These and other difficulties relating to commercializing our products outside the United States may severely harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. For additional risks relating to commercialization of EYLEA and Praluent outside the United States, see also "Risks Related to Commercialization of EYLEA - We rely on our collaboration with Bayer for commercializing EYLEA" and "Risks Related to Commercialization of Praluent - We rely on our Antibody Collaboration with Sanofi for commercializing Praluent," respectively. Regulatory and Litigation Risks If the testing or use of our products harms people, or is perceived to harm them even when such harm is unrelated to our products, we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims. The testing, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of drugs for use in people expose us to product liability risk. Any informed consent or waivers obtained from people who enroll in our clinical trials may not protect us from liability or the cost of litigation. We may also be subject to claims by patients who use our approved products, or our product candidates if those product candidates receive regulatory approval and become commercially available, that they have been injured by a side effect associated with the drug. Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products or product candidates, the related investigation may be time consuming or inconclusive and may have a negative impact on our reputation or business. We may face product liability claims and be found responsible even if injury arises from the acts or omissions of third parties who provide fill/finish or other services. To the extent we maintain product liability insurance in relevant periods, such insurance may not cover all potential liabilities or may not completely cover any liability arising from any such litigation. Moreover, in the future we may not have access to liability insurance or be able to maintain our insurance on acceptable terms. If we market and sell approved products in a way that violates federal or state healthcare laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. The FDA regulates the marketing and promotion of our products, which must comply with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and applicable FDA implementing standards. The FDA's review of promotional activities includes healthcare provider-directed and direct-to-consumer advertising as well as sales representatives' communications. The FDA may take enforcement action for promoting unapproved uses of a product or other violations of its advertising laws and regulations. In addition to FDA and related regulatory requirements, we are subject to health care "fraud and abuse" laws, such as the federal False Claims Act, the anti-kickback provisions of the federal Social Security Act, and other state and federal laws and regulations. Federal and state anti-kickback laws prohibit, among other things, payments or other remuneration to induce or reward someone to purchase, prescribe, endorse, or recommend a product that is reimbursed under federal or state healthcare programs. If we provide payments or other remuneration to a healthcare professional to induce the prescribing of our products, we could face liability under state and federal anti-kickback laws. Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid. Pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of alleged promotional and marketing activities, such as allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product; reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates; engaging in promotion for uses that the FDA has not approved, known as off-label uses, that caused claims to be submitted to Medicaid for non-covered off-label uses; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate program. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer. Sanctions under these federal and state laws may include civil monetary penalties, exclusion of a manufacturer's products from reimbursement under government programs, criminal fines, and imprisonment. Even if it is determined that we have not violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which would harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the safe harbors, it is possible that some of our business activities could be challenged under one or more of such laws. As part of the PPACA, the federal government requires that pharmaceutical manufacturers record any "transfers of value" made to U.S. prescribers and certain other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals. Information provided by companies is aggregated and posted annually on an "Open Payments" website, which is managed by CMS, the agency responsible for implementing these disclosure requirements. We will need to continue to dedicate significant resources to comply with these requirements and to be prepared to comply with additional reporting obligations outside of the United States that may apply in the future. The PPACA also includes various provisions designed to strengthen fraud and abuse enforcement, such as increased funding for enforcement efforts and the lowering of the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback statute and criminal health care fraud statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, several states have legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state or make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials, and other activities. Many of these requirements and standards are new or uncertain, and the penalties for failure to comply with these requirements may be unclear. If we are found not to be in full compliance with these laws, we could face enforcement actions, fines, and other penalties, and could receive adverse publicity, which would harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Additionally, access to such data by fraud-and-abuse investigators and industry critics may draw scrutiny to our collaborations with reported entities. Risks from the improper conduct of employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators could adversely affect our reputation and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies, and procedures will in every instance protect us from acts committed by our employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators that would violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate, including, without limitation, healthcare, employment, foreign corrupt practices, trade restrictions and sanctions, environmental, competition, and patient privacy and other privacy laws and regulations. Such improper actions could subject us to civil or criminal investigations, and monetary and injunctive penalties, and could adversely impact our ability to conduct business, operating results, and reputation. In particular, our business activities outside of the United States are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate, including the U.K. Bribery Act. The FCPA generally prohibits offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action, or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the health care providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers are subject to regulation under the FCPA. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers, or our employees, requirements to obtain export licenses, cessation of business activities in sanctioned countries, implementation of compliance programs, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our products in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international expansion efforts, our ability to attract and retain employees, and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Our operations may involve hazardous materials and are subject to environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations. Compliance with these laws and regulations is costly, and we may incur substantial liability arising from our activities involving the use of hazardous materials. As a biopharmaceutical company with significant research and development and manufacturing operations, we are subject to extensive environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, including those governing the use of hazardous materials. Our research and development and manufacturing activities involve the controlled use of chemicals, infectious agents (such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi), radioactive compounds, and other hazardous materials. The cost of compliance with environmental, health, and safety regulations is substantial. If an accident involving these materials or an environmental discharge were to occur, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, or face regulatory actions, which could exceed our resources or insurance coverage. Our business is subject to increasingly complex corporate governance, public disclosure, and accounting requirements and regulations that could adversely affect our business, operating results, and financial condition. We are subject to changing rules and regulations of various federal and state governmental authorities as well as the stock exchange on which our Common Stock is listed. These entities, including the SEC and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, have issued a significant number of new and increasingly complex requirements and regulations over the course of the last several years and continue to develop additional requirements and regulations in response to laws enacted by Congress, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, most recently, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation-related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that expressly authorized or required the SEC to adopt additional rules in these areas, a number of which have yet to be fully implemented. Our efforts to comply with these requirements and regulations have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, an increase in expenses and a diversion of management's time from other business activities. Changes in laws and regulations affecting the healthcare industry could adversely affect our business. All aspects of our business, including research and development, manufacturing, marketing, pricing, sales, litigation, and intellectual property rights, are subject to extensive legislation and regulation. Changes in applicable federal and state laws and agency regulations could have a materially negative impact on our business. These include: • changes in the FDA and foreign regulatory processes for new therapeutics that may delay or prevent the approval of any of our current or future product candidates; • new laws, regulations, or judicial decisions related to healthcare availability or the payment for healthcare products and services, including prescription drugs, that would make it more difficult for us to market and sell products once they are approved by the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies; • changes in FDA and foreign regulations that may require additional safety monitoring prior to or after the introduction of new products to market, which could materially increase our costs of doing business; and • changes in FDA and foreign cGMPs that may make it more difficult and costly for us to maintain regulatory compliance and/or manufacture our marketed product and product candidates in accordance with cGMPs. As described above, the PPACA and potential regulations thereunder easing the entry of competing follow-on biologics into the marketplace, other new legislation or implementation of existing statutory provisions on importation of lower-cost competing drugs from other jurisdictions, and legislation on comparative effectiveness research are examples of previously enacted and possible future changes in laws that could adversely affect our business. The current U.S. administration and Congress could carry out significant changes in legislation, regulation, and government policy (including with respect to the possible repeal of all or portions of the PPACA, possible changes in the existing treaty and trade relationships with other countries, and tax reform), as evidenced by statements and recent actions of the current president. While it is not possible to predict whether and when any such changes will occur, changes in the laws, regulations, and policies governing the development and approval of our product candidates and the commercialization, importation, and reimbursement of our products could adversely affect our business. Risks associated with our operations outside of the United States could adversely affect our business. We have operations and conduct business outside the United States and we plan to expand these activities. Consequently, we are, and will continue to be, subject to risks related to operating in foreign countries, which include: • unfamiliar foreign laws or regulatory requirements or unexpected changes to those laws or requirements; • other laws and regulatory requirements to which our business activities abroad are subject, such as the FCPA and the U.K. Bribery Act (discussed in greater detail above under "Risks from the improper conduct of employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators could adversely affect our reputation and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition"); • changes in the political or economic condition of a specific country or region; • fluctuations in the value of foreign currency versus the U.S. dollar; • our ability to deploy overseas funds in an efficient manner; • tariffs, trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements, trade embargoes, and sanctions (including those administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury), and other trade barriers; • difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified personnel; and • cultural differences in the conduct of business. For example, on June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum in which voters approved an exit from the EU, commonly referred to as "Brexit." As a result of the referendum, it is expected that the British government will begin negotiating the terms of the United Kingdom's future relationship with the EU. We do not know to what extent Brexit will impact the business and regulatory environment in the United Kingdom, the rest of the EU, or other countries. Changes impacting our ability to conduct business in the United Kingdom or other EU countries, or changes to the regulatory regime applicable to our operations in those countries (such as with respect to the approval of our product candidates), may materially and adversely impact our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. We may incur additional tax liabilities related to our operations. We are subject to income tax in the United States and various foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our worldwide tax liabilities, and our effective tax rate is derived from a combination of the applicable statutory rates in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. We record liabilities that involve significant management judgment for uncertain tax positions. The Internal Revenue Service or other domestic or foreign taxing authorities may disagree with our interpretation of tax law as applied to the operations of Regeneron and its subsidiaries or with the positions we may take with respect to particular tax issues on our tax returns. Consequently, our reported effective tax rate and our after-tax cash flows may be materially and adversely affected by tax assessments or judgments in excess of accrued amounts we have estimated in preparing our financial statements. Further, our effective tax rate may also be adversely affected by numerous other factors, including changes in the mix of our profitability from country to country and changes in tax laws and regulations. Changes in tax laws of various jurisdictions in which we do business could also result from the base erosion and profits shifting, or BEPS, recommendations by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. If these recommendations (or other changes in law) were adopted by the countries in which we do business, it could adversely affect our provision for income tax and our current rate. We face potential liability related to the privacy of health information we obtain from clinical trials sponsored by us or our collaborators, from research institutions and our collaborators, and directly from individuals. Most health care providers, including research institutions from which we or our collaborators obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. For example, as part of our human genetics initiative, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Regeneron Genetics Center LLC, has entered into collaborations with research institutions, including the Geisinger Health System, which are subject to such regulations. Regeneron is not currently classified as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus is not subject to its requirements or penalties. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA's criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered health care provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA's requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. In addition, we may maintain sensitive personally identifiable information, including health information, that we receive throughout the clinical trial process, in the course of our research collaborations, and directly from individuals (or their healthcare providers) who enroll in our patient assistance programs. As such, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA. Our clinical trial programs and research collaborations outside the U.S. implicate international data protection laws, including the EU Data Protection Directive and legislation of the EU member states implementing it. Our activities outside the U.S. impose additional compliance requirements and generate additional risks of enforcement for noncompliance. Failure by our collaborators to comply with the strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EU into the U.S. may result in the imposition of criminal and administrative sanctions on such collaborators, which could adversely affect our business. Furthermore, certain health privacy laws, data breach notification laws, consumer protection laws, and genetic testing laws may apply directly to our operations and/or those of our collaborators and may impose restrictions on our collection, use, and dissemination of individuals' health information. Moreover, patients about whom we or our collaborators obtain health information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may have statutory or contractual rights that limit our ability to use and disclose the information. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws. Claims that we have violated individuals' privacy rights or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business. If we or any collaborators fail to comply with applicable federal, state, or local regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions that could affect our or any collaborators' ability to commercialize our products and could harm or prevent sales of any affected products that we are able to commercialize, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing and marketing our products. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and require that we devote substantial resources that could otherwise be used in other aspects of our business. Increasing use of social media could give rise to liability, breaches of data security, or reputational damage. We and our employees are increasingly utilizing social media tools as a means of communication both internally and externally. Despite our efforts to monitor evolving social media communication guidelines and comply with applicable rules, there is risk that the use of social media by us or our employees to communicate about our products or business may cause us to be found in violation of applicable requirements. In addition, our employees may knowingly or inadvertently make use of social media in ways that may not comply with our social media policy or other legal or contractual requirements, which may give rise to liability, lead to the loss of trade secrets or other intellectual property, or result in public exposure of personal information of our employees, clinical trial patients, customers, and others. Furthermore, negative posts or comments about us or our products in social media could seriously damage our reputation, brand image, and goodwill. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition and could adversely affect the price of our Common Stock. Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties If any of our collaborations with Sanofi is terminated, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition, and our ability to discover, develop, manufacture, and commercialize our pipeline of product candidates in the time expected, or at all, would be materially harmed. We rely heavily on funding from Sanofi to support certain antibody research and development programs, as well as our immuno-oncology research and development programs. Sanofi has committed to reimburse us for up to (i) $130.0 million of the costs of our efforts to identify and validate drug discovery targets and pre-clinically develop fully human monoclonal antibodies against such targets under our Antibody Discovery Agreement in 2017 and (ii) $825.0 million of the costs of our efforts to identify and validate potential immuno-oncology targets and develop fully-human therapeutic antibodies against such targets under the IO Discovery and Development Agreement over the term of the IO Discovery and Development Agreement. Sanofi also initially funds almost all of the development expenses incurred in connection with the clinical development of product candidates (i) that Sanofi elects to co-develop with us under our Antibody Collaboration and (ii) for which Sanofi is the principal controlling party under our IO Collaboration. In addition, Sanofi initially funds half of the development expenses incurred in connection with the clinical development of product candidates for which we are the principal controlling party under our IO Collaboration. We rely on Sanofi to fund these activities. In addition, with respect to those antibodies that Sanofi elects to co-develop with us under our Antibody Collaboration (such as Praluent, sarilumab, and dupilumab) or for which Sanofi is the principal controlling party under our IO Collaboration, we rely on Sanofi to lead much of the clinical development efforts and assist with obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval. Following regulatory approval, we also rely on Sanofi to lead (i) the commercialization efforts to support all of the antibody products that are co-developed by Sanofi and us under our Antibody Collaboration and (ii) the commercialization efforts outside the Unites States to support all products that are co-developed by Sanofi and us under our IO Collaboration (as well as the commercialization efforts in the United States to support all products for which Sanofi is the principal controlling party under our IO Collaboration). If Sanofi does not elect to co-develop the product candidates that we discover or opts out of their development under our Antibody Collaboration or our IO Collaboration, unless we enter into a collaboration agreement with another party, we would be required to fund and oversee on our own the clinical trials, any regulatory responsibilities, and the ensuing commercialization efforts to support those antibody products. For example, Sanofi has elected not to continue co-development of fasinumab, REGN2222, and trevogrumab, and decided not to opt in to the evinacumab and other programs. In addition, after 2017, we will be required to fund our antibody discovery activities and the research and preclinical development activities of our drug candidates, as Sanofi’s funding obligations under the Antibody Discovery Agreement will cease to continue except with regard to the programs for which Sanofi has exercised its extension right. If Sanofi terminates any of the collaborations with us or fails to comply with its payment obligations thereunder, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be materially harmed. We would be required to either expend substantially more resources than we have anticipated to support our research and development efforts, which could require us to seek additional funding that might not be available on favorable terms or at all, or materially cut back on such activities. If Sanofi does not perform its obligations with respect to the product candidates that it elects to co-develop, our ability to develop, manufacture, and commercialize these product candidates will be significantly adversely affected. We have limited commercial capabilities outside the United States and would have to develop or outsource these capabilities for products commercialized under our Antibody Collaboration, such as Praluent (see also "Risks Related to Commercialization of Products - If we need to establish commercial capabilities outside the United States and are unable to do so, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected" above). Termination of our Antibody Collaboration would create substantial new and additional risks to the successful development and commercialization of Praluent, particularly outside the United States. If our collaboration with Bayer for EYLEA is terminated, or Bayer materially breaches its obligations thereunder, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition, and our ability to continue to develop EYLEA and commercialize EYLEA outside the United States in the time expected, or at all, would be materially harmed. We rely heavily on Bayer to assist with the development, and particularly the commercialization outside the United States, of EYLEA. Under our agreement with them, Bayer is required to fund approximately half of the development expenses incurred by both companies in connection with the global EYLEA development program. As the EYLEA program continues, we will continue to rely on Bayer to assist with funding the EYLEA development program, continue to lead the development of EYLEA outside the United States, obtain and maintain regulatory approval outside the United States, and provide all sales, marketing, and commercial support for the product outside the United States. In particular, Bayer has responsibility for selling EYLEA outside the United States using its sales force and, in Japan, in cooperation with Santen Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. pursuant to a Co-Promotion and Distribution Agreement with Bayer's Japanese affiliate. We cannot assure you that regulatory approvals will be received for EYLEA in additional indications outside the United States or that EYLEA will be successfully commercialized outside the United States. If Bayer and, in Japan, Santen do not perform their obligations in a timely manner, or at all, our ability to develop, manufacture, and commercialize EYLEA outside the United States will be significantly adversely affected. Bayer has the right to terminate its collaboration agreement with us at any time upon six or twelve months' advance notice, depending on the circumstances giving rise to termination. If Bayer were to terminate its collaboration agreement with us, we would not have the resources or skills to replace those of our collaborator, which could require us to seek additional funding or another collaboration that might not be available on favorable terms or at all, and could cause significant delays in the development and/or commercialization of EYLEA outside the United States and result in substantial additional costs to us. We have limited commercial capabilities outside the United States and would have to develop or outsource these capabilities (see also "Risks Related to Commercialization of Products - If we need to establish commercial capabilities outside the United States and are unable to do so, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected" above). Termination of the Bayer collaboration agreement would create substantial new and additional risks to the successful development and commercialization of EYLEA, particularly outside the United States. Our collaborators and service providers may fail to perform adequately in their efforts to support the development, manufacture, and commercialization of our drug candidates and current and future products. We depend upon third-party collaborators, including Sanofi, Bayer, and service providers such as CROs, outside testing laboratories, clinical investigator sites, and third-party manufacturers, fill/finish, and product packagers and labelers, to assist us in the manufacture and preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates. We also depend, or will depend, on some of these third parties in connection with the commercialization of our marketed products and our late-stage product candidates and new indications for our marketed products if they are approved for marketing. If any of our existing collaborators or service providers breaches or terminates its agreement with us or does not perform its development or manufacturing services under an agreement in a timely manner or in compliance with applicable GMPs, GLPs, or GCP Standards, we could experience additional costs, delays, and difficulties in the manufacture or development of, or in obtaining approval by regulatory authorities for, or successfully commercializing our product candidates. We and our collaborators rely on third-party service providers to support the distribution of our marketed products and for many other related activities in connection with the commercialization of these marketed products. Despite our or our collaborators' arrangements with them, these third parties may not perform adequately. If these service providers do not perform their services adequately, sales of our marketed products will suffer. Risk Related to Employees We are dependent on our key personnel and if we cannot recruit and retain leaders in our research, development, manufacturing, and commercial organizations, our business will be harmed. We are highly dependent on certain of our executive officers, other key members of our senior management team, and our Chairman. If we are not able to retain (or for any other reason lose the services of) any of these persons, our business may suffer. In particular, we depend on the services of P. Roy Vagelos, M.D., the Chairman of our board of directors; Leonard S. Schleifer, M.D., Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer; George D. Yancopoulos, M.D., Ph.D., our President and Chief Scientific Officer; and Neil Stahl, Ph.D., our Executive Vice President, Research and Development. As we continue to commercialize EYLEA and Praluent and begin to commercialize other products assuming the receipt of required regulatory approvals, we are also highly dependent on the expertise and services of members of our senior management leading these commercialization efforts. There is intense competition in the biotechnology industry for qualified scientists and managerial personnel in the development, manufacture, and commercialization of drugs. We may not be able to continue to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary to continue to advance our business and achieve our strategic objectives. Information Technology Risks Significant disruptions of information technology systems or breaches of data security could adversely affect our business. Our business is increasingly dependent on critical, complex, and interdependent information technology systems, including Internet-based systems, to support business processes as well as internal and external communications. The size and complexity of our computer systems make us potentially vulnerable to IT system breakdowns, internal and external malicious intrusion, and computer viruses, which may result in the impairment of production and key business processes. We also have outsourced significant elements of our information technology infrastructure and operations to third parties, which may provide access to our confidential information to such third parties and may also make our systems vulnerable to service interruptions or to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by such third parties or others. In addition, our systems are potentially vulnerable to data security breaches - whether by employees or others - which may expose sensitive data to unauthorized persons. Such data security breaches could lead to the loss of trade secrets or other intellectual property, result in demands for ransom or other forms of blackmail, or lead to the public exposure of personal information (including sensitive personal information) of our employees, clinical trial patients, customers, and others. Such attacks are of ever-increasing levels of sophistication and are made by groups and individuals with a wide range of motives (including industrial espionage) and expertise, including by organized criminal groups, “hacktivists,” nation states, and others. As a company with an increasingly global presence, our systems are subject to frequent attacks. Due to the nature of some of these attacks, there is a risk that an attack may remain undetected for a period of time. While we continue to make investments to improve the protection of data and information technology, there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent service interruptions or security breaches. Such disruptions and breaches of security could result in legal proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, disruptions to our operations, and damage to our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Risks Related to Our Financial Results, Liquidity, and Need for Additional Financing If we cannot sustain profitability, our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition would be materially harmed. Beginning in 2012, we reported profitability; prior to that, we generally incurred net losses. If we cannot sustain profitability, we may be unable to continue our operations. In the absence of substantial revenue from the sale of products on an ongoing basis, including our sales of EYLEA, and our share of the profits from Bayer's sales of EYLEA outside the United States, or from other sources, the amount, timing, nature, or source of which cannot be predicted, we may incur substantial losses again as we conduct our research and development activities, commercialize our approved products, and prepare for possible commercialization of our other product candidates and new indications of our marketed products. We may need additional funding in the future, which may not be available to us, and which may force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts. We expend substantial resources for research and development, including costs associated with clinical testing of our product candidates and new indications of our marketed products, the commercialization of products, and capital expenditures. We believe our existing capital resources and borrowing availability under our revolving credit facility, together with funds generated by current and anticipated EYLEA net product sales and funding we are entitled to receive under our collaboration agreements, will enable us to meet our anticipated operating needs for the foreseeable future. However, one or more of our collaboration agreements may terminate, our revenues may fall short of our projections or be delayed, or our expenses may increase, any of which could result in our capital being consumed significantly faster than anticipated. In addition, our expenses may increase for many reasons, including expenses in connection with the commercialization of EYLEA and Praluent and the anticipated commercial launches of our late-stage product candidates, including sarilumab and dupilumab, and new indications for our marketed products, manufacturing scale-up, expenses related to clinical trials testing of antibody product candidates we are developing on our own (without a collaborator), and expenses for which we are responsible in accordance with the terms of our collaboration agreements. We cannot be certain that our existing capital resources and our current and anticipated revenues will be sufficient to meet our operating needs. We may require additional financing in the future and we may not be able to raise additional funds on acceptable terms or at all. For example, on December 30, 2016, we entered into a purchase agreement pursuant to which we have agreed to purchase our existing corporate headquarters and other rentable area consisting of approximately 150 acres of predominately office buildings and laboratory space located in the towns of Mount Pleasant and Greenburgh, NY for a gross purchase price of $720.0 million, subject to certain customary adjustments. The closing of the purchase is anticipated in the first quarter of 2017. Our obligation to consummate the purchase is not subject to a financing condition. While we have engaged a financing provider to use its best efforts to arrange a financing in connection with the contemplated purchase, there is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain such financing on the agreed terms or at all. Our ability to obtain additional financing could be adversely affected if there is a significant decline in the demand for our products or other significantly unfavorable changes in economic conditions. Volatility in the financial markets could increase borrowing costs or affect our ability to raise capital. If additional financing is necessary and we obtain it through the sale of equity securities, such sales will likely be dilutive to our shareholders. Debt financing arrangements may require us to pledge certain assets or enter into covenants that would restrict our business activities or our ability to incur further indebtedness and may be at interest rates and contain other terms that are not favorable to our shareholders. Should we require and be unable to raise sufficient funds (i) to complete the development of our product candidates, (ii) to successfully commercialize our late-stage product candidates or new indications for our marketed products if they obtain regulatory approval, and (iii) to continue our manufacturing and marketing of EYLEA, we may face delay, reduction, or elimination of our research and development or preclinical or clinical programs and our commercialization activities, which would significantly limit our potential to generate revenue. Changes in foreign currency exchange rates could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. Our revenue from outside of the United States will increase as our products, whether marketed by us or our collaborators, gain marketing approval in such jurisdictions. Our primary foreign currency exposure relates to movements in the Japanese yen, euro, British pound sterling, and Australian dollar. If the U.S. dollar weakens against a specific foreign currency, our revenues will increase, having a positive impact on net income, but our overall expenses will increase, having a negative impact. Likewise, if the U.S. dollar strengthens against a specific foreign currency, our revenues will decrease, having a negative impact on net income, but our overall expenses will decrease, having a positive impact. Therefore, significant changes in foreign exchange rates can impact our operating results and the financial condition of our company. Our investments are subject to risks and other external factors that may result in losses or affect the liquidity of these investments. As of December 31, 2016, we had $535.2 million in cash and cash equivalents and $1,367.7 million in marketable securities (including $49.2 million in equity securities). Our investments consist primarily of fixed-income securities, including investment- grade corporate bonds. These fixed-income investments are subject to external factors that may adversely affect their market value or liquidity, such as interest rate, liquidity, market, and issuer credit risks, including actual or anticipated changes in credit ratings. The equity securities we hold may experience significant volatility and may decline in value or become worthless if the issuer experiences an adverse development. Furthermore, our equity investments could be subject to dilution (and decline in value) as a result of the issuance of additional equity interests. If any of our investments suffer market price declines that are other than temporary, their value could be impaired, which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. Risks Related to Our Common Stock Our stock price is extremely volatile. There has been significant volatility in our stock price and generally in the market prices of biotechnology companies' securities. Various factors and events may have a significant impact on the market price of our Common Stock. These factors include, by way of example: • fluctuations in our operating results, in particular net product sales of EYLEA; • if any of our product candidates or our new indications for our marketed products receive regulatory approval, net product sales of, and profits from, these product candidates and new indications; • market acceptance of, and fluctuations in market share for, our marketed products, especially EYLEA and Praluent; • whether our net products sales and net profits underperform, meet, or exceed the expectations of investors or analysts; • announcement of actions by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities or their respective advisory committees regarding our, or our collaborators', or our competitors', currently pending or future application(s) for regulatory approval of product candidate(s) or new indications for marketed products; • announcement of submission of an application for regulatory approval of one or more of our, or our competitors', product candidates or new indications for marketed products; • progress, delays, or results in clinical trials of our or our competitors' product candidates or new indications for marketed products; • announcement of technological innovations or product candidates by us or competitors; • claims by others that our products or technologies infringe their patents; • challenges by others to our patents in the European Patent Office and in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; • public concern as to the safety or effectiveness of any of our marketed products or product candidates or new indications for our marketed products; • pricing or reimbursement actions, decisions, or recommendations by government authorities, insurers, or other organizations (such as health maintenance organizations and pharmacy benefit management companies) affecting the coverage, reimbursement, or use of any of our marketed products or competitors' products; • our ability to raise additional capital as needed on favorable terms; • developments in our relationships with collaborators or key customers; • developments in the biotechnology industry or in government regulation of healthcare, including those relating to compounding; • large sales of our Common Stock by our executive officers, directors, or significant shareholders; • changes in tax rates, laws, or interpretation of tax laws; • arrivals and departures of key personnel; • general market conditions; • trading activity that results from the rebalancing of stock indices in which our Common Stock is included, or the inclusion or exclusion of our Common Stock from such indices; • other factors identified in these "Risk Factors"; and • the perception by the investment community or our shareholders of any of the foregoing factors. The trading price of our Common Stock has been, and could continue to be, subject to wide fluctuations in response to these and other factors, including the sale or attempted sale of a large amount of our Common Stock in the market. As discussed in greater detail under "Future sales of our Common Stock by our significant shareholders or us may depress our stock price and impair our ability to raise funds in new share offerings" below, a large percentage of our Common Stock is owned by a small number of our principal shareholders, and our largest shareholder, Sanofi, has been maintaining its percentage ownership of our Common Stock but has previously publicly disclosed that it may opportunistically increase its percentage ownership of our Common Stock. As a result, the public float of our Common Stock (i.e., the portion of our Common Stock held by public investors, as opposed to the Common Stock held by our directors, officers, and principal shareholders) is low relative to many large public companies. As our Common Stock is less liquid than the stock of companies with broader public ownership, its trading price may fluctuate significantly more than the stock market as a whole. These factors may exacerbate the volatility in the trading price of our Common Stock and may negatively impact your ability to liquidate your investment in Regeneron at the time you wish at a price you consider satisfactory. Broad market fluctuations may also adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against companies following periods of volatility in their stock price. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management's attention and resources, and could also require us to make substantial payments to satisfy judgments or to settle litigation, which may harm our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. Future sales of our Common Stock by our significant shareholders or us may depress our stock price and impair our ability to raise funds in new share offerings. A small number of our shareholders beneficially own a substantial amount of our Common Stock. As of December 31, 2016, our five largest shareholders plus Dr. Schleifer, our Chief Executive Officer, beneficially owned approximately 52.0% of our outstanding shares of Common Stock, assuming, in the case of our Chief Executive Officer, the conversion of his Class A Stock into Common Stock and the exercise of all options held by him which are exercisable within 60 days of December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2016, Sanofi beneficially owned 23,418,396 shares of our Common Stock, representing approximately 22.5% of the shares of Common Stock then outstanding. Under our January 2014 amended and restated investor agreement with Sanofi, Sanofi has three demand rights to require us to use all reasonable efforts to conduct a registered underwritten offering with respect to shares of our Common Stock held by Sanofi from time to time; however, shares of our Common Stock held by Sanofi from time to time may not be sold until the later of (i) December 20, 2020 and (ii) the expiration of our Antibody Discovery Agreement with Sanofi relating to our Antibody Collaboration (as amended) if the agreement is extended beyond December 20, 2020. These restrictions on dispositions are subject to earlier termination upon the occurrence of certain events, such as the consummation of a change-of-control transaction involving us or a dissolution or liquidation of our company. In February 2013, we received from Sanofi a notification under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 that it intends to acquire additional Common Stock through open market purchases and direct purchases from shareholders. In December 2015, Sanofi disclosed in an amendment to its Schedule 13D filed with the SEC its intention to purchase (subject to market conditions, including the price and availability of shares of our Common Stock, and legal and regulatory requirements) additional shares of our Common Stock to maintain and opportunistically increase its beneficial ownership on a percentage basis up to the maximum allowed under the "standstill" provisions of our amended and restated investor agreement with Sanofi, or 30% of our Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together). If Sanofi, our other significant shareholders, or we sell substantial amounts of our Common Stock in the public market, or there is a perception that such sales may occur, the market price of our Common Stock could fall. Sales of Common Stock by our significant shareholders, including Sanofi, also might make it more difficult for us to raise funds by selling equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate. Our existing shareholders may be able to exert significant influence over matters requiring shareholder approval and over our management. Holders of Class A Stock, who are generally the shareholders who purchased their stock from us before our initial public offering, are entitled to ten votes per share, while holders of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share. As of December 31, 2016, holders of Class A Stock held 15.5% of the combined voting power of all shares of Common Stock and Class A Stock then outstanding. These shareholders, if acting together, would be in a position to significantly influence the election of our directors and the vote on certain corporate transactions that require majority or supermajority approval of the combined classes, including mergers and other business combinations. This may result in our taking corporate actions that other shareholders may not consider to be in their best interest and may affect the price of our Common Stock. As of December 31, 2016: • our current executive officers and directors beneficially owned 10.8% of our outstanding shares of Common Stock, assuming conversion of their Class A Stock into Common Stock and the exercise of all options held by such persons which are exercisable within 60 days of December 31, 2016, and 22.0% of the combined voting power of our outstanding shares of Common Stock and Class A Stock, assuming the exercise of all options held by such persons which are exercisable within 60 days of December 31, 2016; and • our five largest shareholders plus Dr. Schleifer, our Chief Executive Officer, beneficially owned approximately 52.0% of our outstanding shares of Common Stock, assuming, in the case of our Chief Executive Officer, the conversion of his Class A Stock into Common Stock and the exercise of all options held by him which are exercisable within 60 days of December 31, 2016. In addition, these five shareholders plus our Chief Executive Officer held approximately 57.2% of the combined voting power of our outstanding shares of Common Stock and Class A Stock, assuming the exercise of all options held by our Chief Executive Officer which are exercisable within 60 days of December 31, 2016. Pursuant to the January 2014 amended and restated investor agreement with us, Sanofi has agreed to vote its shares as recommended by our board of directors, except that it may elect to vote proportionally with the votes cast by all of our other shareholders with respect to certain change-of-control transactions and to vote in its sole discretion with respect to liquidation or dissolution of our company, stock issuances equal to or exceeding 20% of the outstanding shares or voting rights of Common Stock and Class A Stock (taken together), and new equity compensation plans or amendments if not materially consistent with our historical equity compensation practices. In addition, upon Sanofi reaching 20% ownership of our outstanding shares of Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together), we are required under the amended and restated investor agreement to appoint an individual agreed upon by us and Sanofi to our board of directors. Subject to certain exceptions, we are required to use our reasonable efforts (including recommending that our shareholders vote in favor) to cause the election of this designee at our annual shareholder meetings for so long as Sanofi maintains an equity interest in us that is the lower of (i) the highest percentage ownership Sanofi attains following its acquisition of 20% of our outstanding shares of Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together) and (ii) 25% of our outstanding shares of Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together). This designee is required to be "independent" of our company, as determined under NASDAQ rules, and not to be a current or former officer, director, employee, or paid consultant of Sanofi. In April 2014, Sanofi notified us that it had reached the 20% ownership threshold and designated an initial director designee. Following the election and subsequent resignation of the initial designee, in January 2017, the board of directors elected N. Anthony Coles, M.D. as a successor Sanofi designee. Dr. Coles has been elected as a Class II director with a term expiring at the 2017 annual shareholder meeting. The anti-takeover effects of provisions of our charter, by-laws, and of New York corporate law, as well as the contractual provisions in our investor and collaboration agreements and certain provisions of our compensation plans and agreements, could deter, delay, or prevent an acquisition or other "change in control" of us and could adversely affect the price of our Common Stock. Our certificate of incorporation, our by-laws, and the New York Business Corporation Law contain various provisions that could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company or our management that shareholders may consider favorable or beneficial. Some of these provisions could discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for shareholders to elect directors and take other corporate actions. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our Common Stock. These provisions include: • authorization to issue "blank check" preferred stock, which is preferred stock that can be created and issued by the board of directors without prior shareholder approval, with rights senior to those of our Common Stock and Class A Stock; • a staggered board of directors, so that it would take three successive annual shareholder meetings to replace all of our directors; • a requirement that removal of directors may only be effected for cause and only upon the affirmative vote of at least eighty percent (80%) of the outstanding shares entitled to vote for directors, as well as a requirement that any vacancy on the board of directors may be filled only by the remaining directors; • a provision whereby any action required or permitted to be taken at any meeting of shareholders may be taken without a meeting, only if, prior to such action, all of our shareholders consent, the effect of which is to require that shareholder action may only be taken at a duly convened meeting; • a requirement that any shareholder seeking to bring business before an annual meeting of shareholders must provide timely notice of this intention in writing and meet various other requirements; and • under the New York Business Corporation Law, in addition to certain restrictions which may apply to "business combinations" involving our company and an "interested shareholder," a plan of merger or consolidation of our company must be approved by two-thirds of the votes of all outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon. See the risk factor above captioned "Our existing shareholders may be able to exert significant influence over matters requiring shareholder approval and over our management." Pursuant to the January 2014 amended and restated investor agreement between us and Sanofi, Sanofi is bound by certain "standstill" provisions, which contractually prohibit Sanofi from seeking to directly or indirectly exert control of our company or acquiring more than 30% of our Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together). This prohibition will remain in place until the earliest of (i) the later of the fifth anniversaries of the expiration or earlier termination of our License and Collaboration Agreement with Sanofi relating to our Antibody Collaboration or our ZALTRAP collaboration agreement with Sanofi, each as amended; (ii) our announcement recommending acceptance by our shareholders of a tender offer or exchange offer that, if consummated, would constitute a change of control involving us; (iii) the public announcement of any definitive agreement providing for a change of control involving us; (iv) the date of any issuance of shares of Common Stock by us that would result in another party having more than 10% of the voting power of our outstanding Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together) unless such party enters into a standstill agreement containing certain terms substantially similar to the standstill obligations of Sanofi; or (v) other specified events, such as a liquidation or dissolution of our company. Similarly, under our 2014 PDGFR-beta license and collaboration agreement and our 2016 ANG2 license and collaboration agreement with Bayer, Bayer is bound by certain "standstill" provisions, which contractually prohibit Bayer from seeking to influence the control of our company or acquiring more than 20% of our outstanding Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together). With respect to each of these agreements, this prohibition will remain in place until the earliest of (i) the fifth anniversary of the expiration or earlier termination of the agreement; (ii) the public announcement of a tender offer, exchange offer, or other proposal that would constitute a change of control of our company; (iii) the acquisition by a third party or a group of third parties (other than by Dr. Schleifer or his affiliates) of more than 20% of the voting power of our outstanding Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together); (iv) the issuance of shares of capital stock to another party (other than to an underwriter in a public offering) that would result in such party's having more than 7% of the voting power of our outstanding Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together) unless such third party enters into a standstill agreement containing terms substantially similar to the standstill obligations of Bayer; or (v) other specified events, such as a liquidation or dissolution of our company. Further, pursuant to the 2016 collaboration agreement between us and Teva, Teva and its affiliates are bound by certain "standstill" provisions, which contractually prohibit them from seeking to directly or indirectly exert control of our company or acquiring more than 5% of our Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together). This prohibition will remain in place until the earliest of (i) the fifth anniversary of the expiration or earlier termination of the agreement; (ii) our announcement recommending acceptance by our shareholders of a tender offer or exchange offer that, if consummated, would constitute a change of control involving us; (iii) the public announcement of any definitive agreement providing for a change of control involving us; (iv) the acquisition by a third party or a group of third parties of more than 30% of the voting power of our outstanding Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together); (v) the date of any issuance of shares of capital stock by us that would result in another party having more than 10% of the voting power of our outstanding Class A Stock and Common Stock (taken together) unless such party enters into a standstill agreement containing certain terms substantially similar to the standstill obligations of Teva; or (vi) other specified events, such as a liquidation or dissolution of our company. In addition, our Change in Control Severance Plan and the employment agreement with our Chief Executive Officer, each as amended and restated, provide for severance benefits in the event of termination as a result of a change in control of our company. Also, stock options issued under our Second Amended and Restated 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan and our 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan may become fully vested in connection with a "change in control" of our company, as defined in the plans. Further, under the amended and restated investor agreement between us and Sanofi, we are required under certain circumstances to appoint an individual agreed upon by us and Sanofi to our board of directors and to use our reasonable efforts to cause the election of this designee at our annual shareholder meetings for so long as Sanofi maintains a specified equity interest in us. As described above under "Our existing shareholders may be able to exert significant influence over matters requiring shareholder approval and over our management," a Sanofi designee has in the past served, and a successor Sanofi designee currently serves, on our board of directors. These contractual provisions may also have the effect of deterring, delaying, or preventing an acquisition or other change in control. ITEM 1B.