UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

 

 

FORM 10-K

 

 

Commission File Number 000-51329

 

 

 

 

XenoPort, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

 

3410 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, California 95051

(Address of principal executive offices)          (Zip Code)

 

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code):  (408) 616-7200

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

None

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common stock, par value $0.001 per share

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

Large accelerated filer o Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o     No þ

 

As of June 30, 2005, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $148.5 million at June 30, 2005 based on the closing sale price as reported on the Nasdaq National Market for such date.

 

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

 

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

 

 

 

XENOPORT, INC

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. Forward-looking statements are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “potential” and similar expressions intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause our actual results, performance, time frames or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, time frames or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. We discuss many of these risks, uncertainties and other factors in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in greater detail under the heading “Risk Factors.” Given these risks, uncertainties and other factors, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Also, these forward-looking statements represent our estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this filing. You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We hereby qualify our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements publicly, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future.

 

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing a portfolio of internally discovered product candidates that utilize the body’s natural nutrient transporter mechanisms to improve the therapeutic benefits of drugs. Our most advanced product candidate has successfully completed a Phase 2 clinical program for the treatment of restless legs syndrome, or RLS, and is currently being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical program for this indication. RLS is a common, under-diagnosed neurological disorder that frequently manifests itself as a sleep disorder. This product candidate has also successfully completed a Phase 2a clinical trial for the management of post-herpetic neuralgia, or PHN. PHN is a chronic type of neuropathic pain, which is pain resulting from nerve damage. Our second product candidate is being evaluated in a Phase 2a clinical trial for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD.

 

Each of our product candidates is an orally available, patentable new chemical entity that addresses large potential markets. Our innovative product candidates, which we refer to as Transported Prodrugs, are created by modifying the chemical structure of currently marketed drugs, referred to as parent drugs, and are designed to correct deficiencies in the oral absorption, distribution and/or metabolism of the parent drug. We have designed our current Transported Prodrugs to be actively transported from the gastrointestinal, or GI, tract into the bloodstream, where they are metabolized to release the parent drug. We hold all worldwide commercial rights to our product candidates, except for Asian rights for our most advanced product candidate.

 

A key component of our strategy is to reduce the risks and time associated with drug development by capitalizing on the known safety, efficacy and established drug development history of the parent drugs. In addition, our product candidates are designed to be metabolized to release the parent drugs and natural substances with favorable safety characteristics. We believe that these features will increase the probability of successfully developing our product candidates. In addition, we intend to seek approval of our product candidates in indications for which the parent drugs have not been approved, but are nevertheless used off-label after having demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials. We believe that the improved characteristics of our product candidates will provide meaningful therapeutic benefits compared to existing drugs, as well as allow for approval to market in indications for which the parent drugs are not approved or promoted.

Our current portfolio of proprietary product candidates includes the following:

 

 

 

Critical to the success of any drug is its ability to access the targeted tissues, achieve and maintain effective concentrations at the site of therapeutic action for an appropriate period of time and have minimal side effects. In addition, convenient administration is frequently necessary to ensure patient compliance. Many marketed drugs do not possess all of these attributes, leading to limitations in their therapeutic benefit and commercial potential.

 

The conventional approach to designing new oral drugs is to rely on the drug’s ability to passively diffuse through the intestinal wall to enter the bloodstream and reach the targeted tissue. However, this can be a difficult task, since the chemical and physical properties that allow a drug to bind to its cellular target and cause the intended therapeutic effect frequently impair the drug’s ability to passively diffuse through the wall of the intestines. If the medical need is high, drugs with poor absorption from the GI tract are still developed and marketed, but with suboptimal therapeutic benefit. In some cases, drugs that are poorly absorbed from the GI tract are marketed as

injected medicines, which is inconvenient for patients. Another problem frequently encountered by drug designers occurs when a drug is well absorbed from the intestines but does not last in the bloodstream for a sufficient period of time to maintain a therapeutic benefit. In this situation, frequent oral dosing is required, which is inconvenient for patients and can lead to poor compliance. In addition, drugs requiring frequent dosing often exhibit unwanted side effects when the drug is present in high concentration and ineffectiveness when the concentration of the drug is insufficient. Sustained-release formulations that deliver medicine slowly as a pill travels down the entire GI tract can sometimes improve the utility of drugs that exhibit suboptimal therapeutic properties. However, drugs absorbed only in the upper GI tract do not benefit from sustained-release formulations.

 

Since most nutrients contain chemical features that prevent effective passive diffusion through cellular barriers, the human body contains specific membrane proteins, known as transporters, which are responsible for carrying nutrients into cells and across cell barriers. There are hundreds of different transporters in the human body that vary in the types of molecules they recognize and their localization to certain cells and tissue barriers. Active transport refers to cellular transporter mechanisms that capture nutrients and carry them across membranes.

 

Our proprietary technology utilizes the body’s natural mechanisms for actively transporting nutrients through cellular barriers to permit certain parent drugs with suboptimal oral absorption to be effectively and efficiently delivered into the body after the oral administration of our product candidate. Our scientists identify specific, high-capacity nutrient transporter proteins in the intestines and chemically modify the structure of the parent drug to create a Transported Prodrug that utilizes these transporters to gain efficient absorption into the bloodstream through active transport. Our Transported Prodrugs are engineered to split apart, releasing the parent drug and natural substances that generally have well-studied, favorable safety characteristics. In some cases, our product candidates target transporter proteins that are present throughout the entire GI tract, including the colon, so they can be formulated using sustained-release technology and thereby maintain effective blood concentrations for an extended period after dosing. As a result of their improved oral absorption, our product candidates may have improved therapeutic benefits, such as superior clinical efficacy, reduced side effects and less frequent dosing, which result in improved patient convenience and compliance.

 

The following table summarizes our first four product candidates. We have entered into a license agreement with Astellas Pharma Inc., providing it exclusive rights to develop and commercialize XP13512 in Japan and five other Asian countries. We hold all rights to XP13512 in other regions of the world. We hold all worldwide commercial rights to our other product candidates.

 

 

XP13512 — A Transported Prodrug of Gabapentin

 

Our most advanced product candidate is XP13512, which we are developing for the treatment of RLS and PHN. We hold a composition-of-matter patent on XP13512 and have filed patent applications directed to XP13512 methods of synthesis and use in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

Parent Drug Background

 

XP13512 is metabolized by the body to release gabapentin, a drug that has been sold by Pfizer Inc as Neurontin since 1993 and is currently sold as a generic drug by a number of companies. Gabapentin is approved for marketing

in the United States as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial seizures in patients with epilepsy and for the management of PHN. In addition, based on a variety of medical studies showing its safety and efficacy, gabapentin is prescribed by physicians off-label to treat a wide range of psychiatric, neurological and pain conditions, including RLS and other forms of neuropathic pain besides PHN. Gabapentin has a side effect profile that is considered very favorable, with dizziness and somnolence, or drowsiness, as the most commonly reported side effects. Neurontin achieved peak sales of approximately $2.7 billion worldwide in 2004, before the launch in the United States of generic gabapentin in October 2004. Neurontin has been prescribed to at least 12 million patients worldwide since its approval in 1993.

 

Despite its substantial commercial success, we believe that gabapentin therapy can be significantly improved. For example, in the clinical trials used to support the approval of gabapentin for the treatment of partial seizures in patients with epilepsy and the management of PHN, only 26% and 32% of the patients responded to gabapentin at the highest approved dose, respectively. Gabapentin absorption is highly variable among patients, and there is a limit on the gabapentin exposure that can be achieved. Published results from clinical trials of gabapentin in epilepsy patients indicated that, for the same dose level, some patients absorbed as little as 10% of the dose of gabapentin administered while others absorbed more than 70%. We have also conducted a clinical trial of gabapentin in neuropathic pain patients in which the high variability of gabapentin absorption was demonstrated. In addition, the short duration of gabapentin in blood after oral dosing requires that it be administered three times a day, which may lead to poor compliance with the dosing regimen and, therefore, reduced efficacy in some patients.

 

We believe that these suboptimal characteristics of gabapentin result from the mechanism responsible for absorption of gabapentin. Gabapentin is actively transported across the GI tract after administration. However, the specific transporter mechanism responsible for gabapentin absorption appears to have limited capacity, which seems to vary among individuals, and which is predominantly expressed in the upper GI tract. Due to gabapentin’s poor absorption in the lower GI tract, the use of sustained-release formulations to correct the frequent dosing requirement has not been possible.

 

Our Transported Prodrug

 

XP13512 addresses the deficiencies of gabapentin by targeting high-capacity nutrient transporter mechanisms expressed throughout the length of the intestines. We believe that this approach can overcome the variable and suboptimal exposure to gabapentin experienced by patients. By targeting transporters expressed throughout the length of the intestines, we have been able to develop a sustained-release formulation of XP13512 that we believe has overcome the need for frequent dosing of gabapentin.

 

XP13512 is designed to rapidly convert to gabapentin once absorbed from the GI tract, resulting in limited systemic exposure to the intact Transported Prodrug. In addition to producing gabapentin, XP13512 is metabolized to release other components with well-studied, favorable safety characteristics. We believe that XP13512 will have a favorable safety profile in humans, comparable to that of gabapentin, due to the inherently safe nature of its metabolic breakdown products.

 

Phase 1 Clinical Trials

 

We have completed five Phase 1 clinical trials of XP13512 that included a total of 135 healthy volunteers.

 

 

 

The results of all of these Phase 1 clinical trials indicated that XP13512 was well tolerated at all doses. Reported adverse events were consistent with those previously reported for gabapentin. In addition, these clinical trials indicated that XP13512 was rapidly absorbed and converted to gabapentin. Exposure to the intact Transported Prodrug was low and transient compared to the level of gabapentin produced at all dose levels.

 

Initial Target Indications

 

Restless Legs Syndrome

 

Background on RLS.  RLS is a common, under-diagnosed neurological disorder that frequently manifests itself as a sleep disorder. Patients who suffer from RLS experience an irresistible urge to move their legs. This urge is usually accompanied by unpleasant sensations of burning, creeping, tugging or tingling inside the patients’ legs, ranging in severity from uncomfortable to painful. These RLS-related symptoms typically begin or worsen during periods of rest or inactivity, particularly when lying down or sitting, and may be temporarily relieved by movement such as walking or massaging the legs. Symptoms often worsen at night and disturbed sleep is a common result of RLS. Left untreated, RLS may cause exhaustion, daytime fatigue, inability to concentrate and impaired memory.

 

Potential Market.  According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, RLS is the third largest sleep disorder, after insomnia and sleep apnea. Although the exact prevalence rate of RLS is uncertain, a study published in the May 2004 issue of Sleep Medicine indicated that approximately 10% of patients visiting primary care physicians in the United States and four European countries experience RLS symptoms at least weekly, with approximately 2% of patients visiting primary care physicians suffering from symptoms severe enough to disrupt their quality of life.

 

Current Treatments.  Current treatments of RLS include dopamine agonists, opioids, benzodiazepines and anticonvulsants, such as gabapentin. In May 2005, GlaxoSmithKline plc received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, to market the dopamine agonist ropinirole, known as Requip, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RLS.

 

In a study published in the journal Neurology in 2002, gabapentin was shown to be effective in treating patients with RLS in terms of statistically significant improvements versus placebo in both the International Restless Legs Syndrome, or IRLS, rating scale and measures of sleep quality. We believe that XP13512 may provide better efficacy than gabapentin in RLS patients because of its potential ability to maintain higher levels of gabapentin in the blood throughout the night.

 

Phase 2a Clinical Trial Results.  We have completed a Phase 2a clinical trial of XP13512 as a treatment for RLS. The trial included 38 patients diagnosed with RLS using the International RLS Study Group diagnostic criteria at nine clinical sites in the United States. The objective of this Phase 2a clinical trial was to further assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of the sustained-release tablet formulation of XP13512, as well as to assess

preliminary efficacy in patients after two weeks of XP13512 therapy. The trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial designed to test XP13512 versus placebo in patients with RLS. XP13512 was dosed twice a day, once at 5:00 p.m. (600 mg) and again one hour before bedtime (1200 mg). The primary endpoint of the clinical trial was the change in the IRLS rating scale score from baseline to the end of the treatment period. A number of secondary endpoints were also examined, including objective sleep measures obtained by polysomnogram, or sleep laboratory measurements, which were conducted prior to and at the end of each treatment.

 

This Phase 2a clinical trial demonstrated that after 14 days of therapy, XP13512 produced a highly statistically significant improvement in the IRLS rating scale score compared to placebo. We determined statistical significance based on a widely used, conventional statistical method that establishes the p-value of clinical results. The statistical significance level for comparing XP13512 to placebo was p<0.0001. A p-value of 0.05 or less generally represents a statistically significant difference in treatments. A lower p-value indicates greater confidence in the result. A statistically significant improvement in the IRLS rating scale score was also seen after one week of XP13512 treatment. Twenty-nine patients (85% of the patients who completed the trial) reported themselves “much improved” or “very much improved” at the end of the XP13512 treatment period as compared to five patients (15%) at the end of the placebo treatment period. Additionally, compared to placebo, XP13512 was associated with statistically significant improvements in a number of objective sleep measures, including an increase in total sleep time, an increase in the amount of slow-wave sleep, a reduction in the amount of time awake after sleep onset and a reduction in the number of times periodic limb movements woke patients from sleep. XP13512 was well tolerated. The most common side effects of XP13512 were dizziness and somnolence, which are established side effects of gabapentin.

 

Phase 2b Clinical Trial Results.  We have completed a Phase 2b clinical trial of XP13512 as a treatment for RLS. The trial included 95 patients diagnosed with RLS using the International RLS Study Group diagnostic criteria at 14 clinical sites in the United States. The objective of this Phase 2b clinical trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of lower doses of XP13512 given once daily. The trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to test 600 mg of XP13512 and 1200 mg of XP13512 versus placebo administered once per day at evening meal for 14 days. The primary endpoint of the clinical trial was the change in the IRLS rating scale score from baseline to the end of the treatment period. A number of secondary endpoints were also examined, including Patient and Investigator Clinical Global Impression of Change, or CGI, scales, which are recognized measures of patient and physician assessments of clinical change, subjective measures of sleep and symptom severity throughout the day, assessed with a 24-hour diary.

 

The Phase 2b clinical trial demonstrated that treatment with 1200 mg of XP13512 was associated with a highly statistically significant improvement in the IRLS rating scale score at the end of 14 days of treatment (mean change from baseline: -16.1 for 1200 mg of XP13512; -8.9 for placebo; p<0.0001). A statistically significant improvement in the IRLS rating scale score was also seen after one week of treatment with 1200 mg of XP13512. Treatment with 1200 mg of XP13512 resulted in a statistically significant improvement in both Patient and Investigator CGI scales (both p<0.0001 compared to placebo), which were used to assess overall patient improvements. Based on Investigator CGI, 81% of the patients who received 1200 mg of XP13512 were “much improved” or “very much improved,” as compared to 48% of patients who received placebo. Treatment with 1200 mg of XP13512 was associated with statistically significant improvements in a number of subjective measures of sleep, including overall quality of sleep, the number of awakenings per night due to RLS symptoms and the number of hours awake per night due to RLS symptoms (all p<0.005 compared to placebo). Finally, treatment with 1200 mg of XP13512, compared to placebo, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the severity of RLS symptoms in the evening (8:00 p.m. to midnight) as measured using a 24-hour RLS symptom diary on the final day of treatment (p=0.01 compared to placebo). Clinical effects measured by the above endpoints in patients treated with 600 mg of XP13512 were not statistically different from patients treated with placebo.

 

XP13512 was generally well tolerated.  There were no serious adverse events. The most common side effects were somnolence (15% placebo, 14% 600 mg of XP13512 and 36% 1200 mg of XP13512) and dizziness (3% placebo, 14% 600 mg of XP13512 and 18% 1200 mg of XP13512). Similar side effects have been reported previously for gabapentin.

Planned Clinical Development.  Based on the results of our Phase 2 clinical program, we have commenced a Phase 3 clinical program for XP13512 for the treatment of RLS. The Phase 3 clinical program will encompass multiple U.S. trials, including two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1200 mg of XP13512 administered once a day at approximately 5:00 p.m. The second of these trials will also evaluate the safety and efficacy of 600 mg of XP13512 administered once a day at approximately 5:00 p.m. The first trial is anticipated to enroll approximately 200 patients and commenced in March of this year, with a second trial expected to commence later this year. The co-primary outcome measures for these trials are defined to be the change from baseline in the IRLS rating scale score and the Investigator CGI scale at the end of treatment. Secondary endpoints include onset of efficacy and subjective sleep, pain, mood and quality of life assessments. We expect top-line data from our first Phase 3 trial will be available in the first half of 2007.

 

In addition, we plan to conduct a Phase 3 trial assessing the long-term efficacy of XP13512 using a placebo-controlled, “randomized withdrawal” design to evaluate relapse of RLS symptoms in XP13512-treated or placebo-treated patients who had previously achieved clinical improvement while taking 1200 mg of XP13512 for 24 weeks. We also plan to conduct an open-label safety trial of 1200 mg of XP13512 in RLS patients with duration of treatment extending up to 12 months. The results of the Phase 3 clinical trials, combined with the results from other XP13512 clinical trials in RLS patients, are intended to meet the International Committee for Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines for safety assessment. These trials are also expected to start later this year.

 

Neuropathic Pain, Including PHN

 

Background on Neuropathic Pain.  Neuropathic pain is pain that results from damage to nerves. The damage may result from a variety of causes, including injury or illnesses such as diabetes, HIV and shingles. In addition, the toxic effects of therapy used to treat patients with cancer or HIV may also cause nerve damage leading to neuropathic pain. One form of chronic neuropathic pain is PHN. PHN is a complication of shingles, a painful outbreak of rash or blisters on the skin caused by a reactivation of the same virus that causes chicken pox. PHN is often characterized as constant stabbing, burning or electric shock-like sensation in the area affected by shingles after the rash has cleared. Approximately 10% to 15% of all patients with shingles develop PHN, which can persist for many years.

 

Potential Market.  Datamonitor estimates that the aggregate prevalence in 2003 of all forms of neuropathic pain was 62.6 million patients in the United States and six other major pharmaceutical markets, collectively. Datamonitor estimates that the prevalence of PHN during 2003 was 272,000 patients in the United States and six other major pharmaceutical markets, collectively.

 

Current Treatments.  Current classes of drugs used to treat patients with neuropathic pain include anticonvulsants, antidepressants and opioids, with anticonvulsants representing the largest share of the neuropathic pain market. Of the anticonvulsants, gabapentin is the market leader for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Patients with PHN are often treated with opioids, tricyclic antidepressants or anticonvulsants. Local application of capsaicin and lidocaine is also used in selected patients. Neurontin was the first oral drug approved by the FDA for the management of PHN. In September 2005, Pfizer launched pregabalin for the treatment of epilepsy and of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and PHN. Pfizer is marketing pregabalin under the trade name Lyrica. Pfizer received European Commission approval in July 2004 to market Lyrica in European Union member states for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. Eli Lilly and Company has also received approval from the FDA to market duloxetine for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy.

 

Phase 2a Clinical Trial Results.  We have completed a Phase 2a clinical trial of XP13512 for the management of PHN. The trial included 101 patients at 18 clinical sites in the United States. The objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to assess the preliminary safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of 1200 mg of XP13512 administered twice a day for 14 days and to compare the response to XP13512 against the response to placebo. While clinical trials required for obtaining FDA approval to market product candidates for the management of PHN have required treatment periods of eight weeks, published studies of gabapentin for the management of PHN have shown efficacy in as short as 14 days of treatment.

 

After establishing baseline pain scores and prior to entering the randomized treatment period, all patients in this clinical trial received increasing doses of Neurontin of up to 1800 mg per day and were maintained at this dose

for seven days. At the end of this Neurontin treatment period, pharmacokinetics and clinical endpoints were assessed. Patients were then immediately randomized to 1200 mg of XP13512 administered twice a day or placebo treatment. Treatment continued for an additional 14 days, at which time pharmacokinetics and clinical endpoints were again assessed. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial was the change in average pain score between the seven days of baseline assessment to the final seven days of XP13512 or placebo treatment using an 11-point numerical pain scale.

 

This Phase 2a clinical trial demonstrated that treatment with XP13512 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain as measured by an 11-point numerical pain scale (p=0.032) compared to placebo. Statistically significant improvements in pain were also observed using a different pain scale. Additionally, compared to placebo, treatment with XP13512 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in sleep interference. The clinical benefit of XP13512 over placebo was also supported by observed statistically significant improvements in both Patient and Investigator CGI scales. XP13512 was well tolerated. The most common side effect of XP13512 was dizziness, which is an established side effect of gabapentin.

 

Because of the structure of this Phase 2a clinical trial, we were able to compare blood levels of Neurontin and to test for a trend toward improved pain reduction with XP13512 compared to Neurontin in the same patients. Accordingly, additional analyses were conducted on data from those patients who received both Neurontin and XP13512 and for whom pharmacokinetic data was complete. A daily dose of 2400 mg of XP13512 has the potential to release 1248 mg per day of gabapentin into the bloodstream, which equates to approximately two-thirds of the daily dose administered during the Neurontin treatment period. Despite this lower dose, XP13512 produced on average a 17% increase in the steady-state average blood concentration of gabapentin compared to that produced by Neurontin dosing (p=0.014) in the evaluated patients because of the higher bioavailability of XP13512. Thirty-six percent of evaluated patients had an increased steady-state average blood concentration of greater than 30%. For all patients who received XP13512, the change in average pain score between the last seven days of the Neurontin treatment and the final seven days of XP13512 treatment was determined. A statistically significant reduction in pain score at the end of XP13512 treatment was observed (p=0.045).

 

Development and Commercialization Strategy

 

Due to the large markets for which we intend to seek regulatory approval for XP13512 and the requirement of a primary care physician sales force to address these markets, we believe that we will need a development and commercialization partner to effectively maximize the potential commercial value of XP13512. As such, we have entered into a license agreement with Astellas for exclusive rights to develop and commercialize XP13512 in Japan and five other Asian countries. We currently hold all rights to XP13512 in other regions of the world. In the U.S. market, we intend to seek to retain co-development and co-promotion rights to XP13512 and, if regulatory approval is received, to establish a focused sales and marketing organization in North America to market and sell XP13512 to specialty physicians, including neurologists, psychiatrists and sleep specialists, for target indications in which specialists significantly influence the market and to selectively co-promote XP13512 to primary care physicians. Our development and commercialization strategy with respect to the neuropathic pain indication in markets outside of the Astellas region will likely be determined in concert with our commercialization partner for XP13512.

 

XP19986 — A Transported Prodrug of R-baclofen

 

We are developing our product candidate, XP19986, a Transported Prodrug of R-baclofen, for the treatment of patients with GERD. XP19986 is also a potential treatment for the symptoms of spasticity. We have filed patent applications directed to XP19986 composition of matter, methods of synthesis and use in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

Parent Drug Background

 

Baclofen is thought to selectively act on the target that is known as the GABA(B) receptor. Baclofen is racemic, which means it is a mixture of R and S isomers. Only the R isomer is active at GABA(B) receptors. Baclofen, which is now sold as a generic drug in the United States, has been used since 1977 for the alleviation of the signs and symptoms of spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis, stroke or cerebral palsy, as well as other pain

and spasm conditions. According to the IMS National Prescription Audit Report, for the 12 months ended November 30, 2005, there were approximately 3.3 million prescriptions written for baclofen in the United States. Published studies indicate that baclofen may also be effective in treating GERD. Although baclofen has acceptable oral absorption, its short duration in blood of three to four hours necessitates dosing three times per day. This dosing regimen produces substantial peaks and troughs in drug exposure, which may be the cause of side effects such as significant drowsiness, weakness and dizziness during peak drug levels and diminished efficacy during trough drug levels. However, due to its poor absorption in the colon, a less frequently dosed sustained-release formulation of baclofen that produces a more constant level of baclofen in the blood is not technically feasible. To address these deficiencies of oral baclofen, an implantable pump that delivers baclofen directly into the spinal cord fluid via a catheter has been developed. However, physicians typically reserve this invasive surgical procedure for those few patients who are not suitable for oral baclofen.

 

Our Transported Prodrug

 

XP19986 was designed to address the deficiencies of baclofen by targeting high-capacity nutrient transporter mechanisms expressed throughout the length of the entire GI tract, including the colon. By targeting these transporters, we believe that XP19986 can be formulated in a sustained-release pill and thereby require less frequent dosing than baclofen. XP19986 is a chiral molecule, which means that it exists as a single isomeric form, and produces only the R isomer of baclofen, known as R-baclofen.

 

XP19986 was designed to rapidly convert to R-baclofen upon absorption, with limited systemic exposure to the intact Transported Prodrug. Once absorbed, XP19986 converts to R-baclofen and natural substances that have well-studied, favorable safety characteristics. We believe that the inherently safe nature of the metabolic breakdown products of XP19986 should provide XP19986 with a safety profile that is at least comparable to, and potentially better than, that seen with baclofen.

 

We are developing a sustained-release formulation of XP19986 that may be suitable for twice-daily dosing. We believe that XP19986, if successfully developed, will be superior to baclofen as a treatment for spasticity and as a potential treatment for GERD because of its reduced dosing frequency, improved patient compliance, improved efficacy and/or reduced side effects.

 

Phase 1 Clinical Trials

 

We have completed two Phase 1 clinical trials of XP19986 that included a total of 80 healthy volunteers.

 

 

The results of both of these Phase 1 clinical trials indicated that our prototype formulation of XP19986 was well absorbed and rapidly converted to the R isomer of baclofen. Exposure to the intact Transported Prodrug was low and transient. Comparison of these data with historical pharmacokinetic data for racemic baclofen suggest that XP19986 taken twice a day should be associated with a decreased peak-to-trough ratio of R-baclofen blood levels over 24 hours compared to racemic baclofen dosed three or four times a day.

Planned Clinical Development

 

We are conducting a Phase 2a clinical trial of XP19986 in patients with GERD. The trial is a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study designed to assess the safety, tolerability and efficacy of XP19986. The clinical trial is intended to test the ability of escalating single doses of a prototype sustained-release formulation of XP19986 to reduce reflux episodes. We expect to complete this Phase 2a clinical trial in the first half of this year.

 

Initial Target Indications

 

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

 

Background on GERD.  GERD is a digestive system disorder caused primarily by inappropriate relaxations of the lower esophageal sphincter, which is a combination of muscles that controls the junction between the esophagus and the stomach. GERD is characterized by the frequent, undesirable passage of stomach contents into the esophagus that results in discomfort and potential damage to the lining of the esophagus.

 

Potential Market.  Approximately $10 billion is spent worldwide each year on GERD and heartburn medications, and approximately 6% of the global population experiences GERD symptoms daily.

 

Current Treatments.  Conventional treatment for GERD includes medications that suppress stomach acid, including proton pump inhibitors such as Nexium, Prilosec and Prevacid, H2 receptor antagonists such as Tagamet, Pepcid and Zantac, as well as over-the-counter antacids. However, these treatments are not effective in all patients, and there is a subset of patients who suffer from reflux of stomach contents that are not acidic, such as bile, who do not respond to these acid suppression treatments.

 

Baclofen has recently been the subject of clinical trials indicating that it may also be effective in treating GERD. Unlike acid suppressing agents, baclofen exerts its effects on the function of the lower esophageal sphincter that controls passage of material between the esophagus and the stomach. Baclofen reduces the frequency of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and, therefore, passage of gastric contents into the esophagus. Such a mechanism may potentially be effective alone or in combination with acid suppressants to increase the effectiveness of existing therapies. One study published in 2003 indicated that baclofen was effective when compared to placebo in reducing the number of reflux episodes and the percentage of time that the esophagus was acidic. Another study published in 2003 indicated that baclofen, when combined with a proton pump inhibitor, was more effective in reducing the number of reflux episodes as compared to the proton pump inhibitor alone. In these studies, baclofen was taken three or four times a day.

 

While these studies suggest a potential role for baclofen in the treatment of GERD, it is currently not approved for this indication, and we believe that it is unlikely that an approval of baclofen for this indication will be pursued because of the requirement for frequent dosing. We believe that providing a steady exposure of the R isomer of baclofen to patients with a twice-daily dosage of XP19986 may result in reduced side effects compared to racemic baclofen and may demonstrate improved efficacy in the treatment of GERD.

 

Spasticity

 

Background on Spasticity.  Spasticity is a widespread and debilitating condition that is associated with some common neurological disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, stroke and cerebral palsy. Spasticity is a condition in which certain muscles are continuously contracted, causing stiffness or tightness of muscles that interfere with movement or speech.

 

Potential Market.  Reports indicate that the prevalence of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis, stroke and cerebral palsy in 2002 was approximately 5.2 million patients in the United States and six other major pharmaceutical markets, collectively. According to the IMS National Prescription Audit Report, for the 12 months ended November 30, 2005, there were approximately 3.3 million prescriptions written for baclofen in the United States. According to data on baclofen prescriptions, multiple sclerosis, spinal disease/injury, pain conditions and spasm conditions accounted for 80% of baclofen use. Besides baclofen, treatments for spasticity include diazepam, tizanidine and dantrolene sodium. Although these medications may provide symptom relief in some people, they

are often only partially effective and generally require dosing three or more times a day. In addition, these medications are often associated with unwanted side effects such as sedation and weakness, as well as issues with bladder, bowel and sexual function.

 

We believe that a Transported Prodrug of R-baclofen that can be taken twice each day to provide a steady exposure of R-baclofen to patients may more adequately address the needs of spasticity patients than current therapies, including racemic baclofen.

 

Development and Commercialization Strategy

 

Due to the requirement of a primary care physician sales force to address the GERD market, we intend to seek a development and commercialization partner for the further development and commercialization of XP19986 for the potential treatment of GERD. Since the spasticity market could be served through a smaller, focused sales force, we may seek to retain promotional rights to XP19986 in the United States for spasticity indications.

 

XP21279 — A Transported Prodrug of L-Dopa

 

We are developing our product candidate, XP21279, a Transported Prodrug of L-Dopa, for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. We have filed patent applications directed to XP21279 composition of matter, methods of synthesis and use in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

Parent Drug Background

 

Patients with Parkinson’s disease have a deficiency of the neurotransmitter dopamine resulting from neuronal degeneration within certain nerve cells in an area of the brain collectively known as substantia nigra. L-Dopa is an immediate precursor of dopamine that, unlike dopamine, readily crosses the blood brain barrier. When administered in conjunction with carbidopa (and, in some cases, with benzerazide, carbidopa and entacapone), L-Dopa is protected from rapid degradation by peripheral enzymes, or enzymes that are outside of the brain, and able to convert to dopamine at its desired site of action in the brain.

 

L-Dopa is widely viewed as one of the most effective treatments of Parkinson’s disease, and virtually all patients with Parkinson’s disease ultimately require it. However, L-Dopa has many undesirable pharmacokinetic characteristics including its rapid breakdown by gastric and other peripheral enzymes, a short duration in blood after oral dosing that leads to the fluctuation of drug plasma concentrations upon frequent dosing and a narrow absorption window within the GI tract. The poor colonic absorption of L-Dopa has precluded the development of a satisfactory sustained-release formulation of L-Dopa that would prolong absorption beyond the small intestine.

 

Our Transported Prodrug

 

We believe that XP21279 has the potential to improve upon the deficiencies of L-Dopa. XP21279 is designed to engage natural nutrient transport mechanisms located throughout the length of the GI tract and then be rapidly converted to L-Dopa by the body’s endogenous enzymes. In addition to L-Dopa, the metabolic breakdown products of XP21279 are substances with favorable safety characteristics. Because XP21279 is designed to be well absorbed from the lower GI tract, we believe that it can be formulated for sustained release, thus reducing fluctuations of L-Dopa levels in the bloodstream. From December 2002 to December 2004, we were engaged in a collaboration with the ALZA division of Johnson & Johnson to jointly develop Transported Prodrugs of L-Dopa. In March 2005, ALZA relinquished all rights to such Transported Prodrugs, subject to a small royalty upon sales of certain product candidates if they are ultimately commercialized.

 

Initial Target Indications

 

Parkinson’s Disease.

 

Background on Parkinson’s Disease.  Parkinson’s disease is a motor system disorder that results from the loss of dopamine-producing nerve cells in the brain. Dopamine is a chemical that is naturally produced by the body. It is responsible for smooth, coordinated function of the body’s muscles and movement. When approximately 80% of

dopamine-producing cells are damaged, the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease appear. The primary symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are tremor or shaking, slowness of movement, rigidity or stiffness and difficulty with balance.

 

Potential Market.  According to Datamonitor, Parkinson’s disease is primarily a disease of elderly individuals with a peak age at onset of 55 to 66 years. Approximately 1% of the U.S. population over 65 years old has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The Parkinson’s Disease Foundation estimates that there are about 60,000 new cases of Parkinson’s disease diagnosed in the United States each year. According to the IMS National Prescription Audit Report and the IMS National Disease and Therapeutic Index Report, there were approximately 6.5 million prescriptions written in the United States in 2005 for treating the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.

 

Current Treatments.  At present, there is no cure for Parkinson’s disease, but a variety of medications provide relief from the symptoms. L-Dopa acts to replenish dopamine in the brain. It is usually administered with benzerazide or carbidopa, or a combination of carbidopa and entacapone, which delays the premature conversion of L-Dopa to dopamine in peripheral tissues. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, treatment with L-Dopa helps patients in at least three-quarters of Parkinson’s disease cases.

 

Another class of drugs, called dopamine agonists, is also commonly used to treat Parkinson’s disease. Dopamine agonists, which include bromocriptine, pergolide, pramipexole and ropinirole, mimic the role of dopamine in the brain, which causes neurons to react as they would to dopamine. In spite of their wide use, both L-Dopa and dopamine agonists remain suboptimal in treating the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. L-Dopa therapy has been associated with “wearing-off,” a condition where treatment effects diminish over time as the disease progresses, and “on-off” dyskinesias due to changes in L-Dopa plasma concentrations. Dopamine agonists are generally considered the next most powerful drug class in treating the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, but are more likely to cause hallucinations, confusion and psychosis, especially in the elderly.

 

Planned Clinical Development.  We plan to file an IND for XP21279 in the first half of 2007. Given the known safety and efficacy of L-Dopa for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, our goal is to develop an improved L-Dopa therapy that provides more constant, extended exposure of L-Dopa in the brain compared to current treatments.

 

XP20925 — A Transported Prodrug of Propofol

 

Our fourth product candidate is XP20925, a Transported Prodrug of propofol, for the treatment of migraine and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We have filed patent applications directed to XP20925 composition of matter, methods of synthesis and use in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

Parent Drug Background

 

Propofol is a rapid, short-acting intravenous anesthetic that is widely used in hospitals and outpatient settings to induce and maintain anesthesia during surgery or to sedate patients undergoing diagnostic or medical procedures. Diprivan, the brand name of propofol, was introduced in the United States in 1989 and is currently the world’s leading anesthetic agent. Propofol has very poor oral absorption due primarily to extensive metabolism in the GI tract.

 

A number of clinical investigators have demonstrated that intravenously infused, non-sedative doses of propofol are effective in treating disorders such as migraine and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. While there are approved drugs for both of these disorders, these approved drugs do not work optimally in all patients. We believe that propofol’s poor oral absorption, which necessitates intravenous administration, has precluded the development of propofol for these indications.

 

Our Transported Prodrug

 

XP20925 was designed to target a high-capacity intestinal transporter mechanism in order to overcome the rapid intestinal metabolism of propofol and enable the oral delivery of the active ingredient. We have conducted animal studies in which the bioavailability was increased from 1%, when dosed orally as propofol, to greater than 40%, when dosed orally as XP20925. We have conducted various preclinical pharmacokinetic and safety studies in animals.

Planned Clinical Development

 

We plan to continue XP20925’s development at an appropriate time in the future depending on the availability of resources.

 

Initial Target Indications

 

Migraine.  Migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by recurrent headache attacks that are usually accompanied by various combinations of symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, as well as distorted vision and sensitivity to light and sound. Migraine is a common neurological disorder in the developed world. Datamonitor estimated that, in 2002, migraine afflicted more than 81 million people in the United States and six other major pharmaceutical markets, collectively, resulting in an approximately $2.5 billion commercial market. There are a variety of drugs used in the treatment of migraine. However, a class of drugs known as triptans represents a significant proportion of the overall market. While the treatment of migraine was significantly improved with the introduction of the triptans, there continues to be an unmet need for patients who suffer from migraines that do not respond adequately to current treatments. Up to 40% of patients who suffer from migraines do not respond to oral triptans. In a study published in 2000, a low-dose infusion of propofol was shown to be effective in treating patients with migraine that was resistant to standard therapy, including triptans. We believe that an oral Transported Prodrug of propofol that is able to deliver non-sedating levels of propofol may provide a new method for the treatment of migraine.

 

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.  Nausea and vomiting are among the most severe side effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Drugs that prevent or reduce nausea and vomiting are known as anti-emetics. A Datamonitor report estimated that the 2000 worldwide market for anti-emetic drugs was approximately $1.8 billion. The Datamonitor report indicates that the top three brands of a single class of drugs, the 5HT-3 receptor antagonists, accounted for approximately 70% of the $1.8 billion market in 2000. However, it is estimated that as many as 50% of patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting do not respond to current anti-emetic therapy, including the 5HT-3 drugs. We believe that an oral Transported Prodrug of propofol that is able to deliver non-sedating levels of propofol may provide a new method for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

 

We believe that there are a number of other generic parent drugs that could be candidates for our Transported Prodrug technology. We will apply our proprietary technology to selected parent drugs that have low or regionally restricted absorption in the GI tract that results in suboptimal therapy, have a chemical structure that is amenable to prodrug manipulation and are economical to manufacture.

 

Additionally, we believe that our proprietary technology has broad applicability beyond improving absorption from the GI tract, such as improving the penetration of drugs into the central nervous system, or CNS. We also believe that there is a significant opportunity to use our proprietary technology to improve drug candidates that otherwise would not be successfully developed due to poor oral absorption, distribution and/or metabolism.

 

Blood Brain Barrier

 

We have initiated efforts to further extend our proprietary technology to transporters found in the blood brain barrier with a goal of improving CNS penetration. The blood brain barrier is an important obstacle to the effectiveness of compounds acting on CNS targets. The highly restrictive endothelium of the brain capillary bed and the protective epithelial layer of a part of the brain known as the choroid plexus comprise a formidable barrier of cells through which drugs must pass from the blood to enter the brain. However, many natural compounds needed to feed the high metabolic activity of the brain are selectively absorbed into the CNS, particularly through the extensive capillary beds in the brain. In some cases, large amounts of these compounds are actively pumped from the blood to the brain by transporter proteins. From November 2003 to November 2005, we were engaged in a collaboration with Pfizer to jointly develop transporter technology to enhance the delivery of drugs to the brain.

Third-Party Compounds

 

We believe that our proprietary technology can be utilized to rehabilitate those product candidates of third parties that initially demonstrated potential therapeutic benefits but whose limitations in absorption, distribution and pharmacokinetics have prevented successful drug development or commercialization. We will select other drug molecules for this approach based on our ability to license from third parties these product candidates, the medical need for an improved version of the third party’s drug, the size of the commercial opportunity and the amenability of our chemistry to the drug’s particular structure.

 

Research and development costs consist of salaries, employee benefits, laboratory supplies, costs associated with clinical trials, including amounts paid to clinical research organizations, other professional services and facility costs. Research and development expenses were $38.7 million, $33.4 million and $25.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

 

In December 2005, we entered into an agreement in which we licensed to Astellas exclusive rights to develop and commercialize XP13512 in Japan and five other Asian countries. Under the terms of this agreement, Astellas has obtained exclusive rights to develop and commercialize XP13512 in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Taiwan. Astellas plans to initiate Phase 1 clinical trials in the middle of this year. Under the terms of this agreement, we received an initial license payment of $25 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $60 million, including milestone payments of $10 million at the initiation and $5 million at the subsequent completion of our first Phase 3 clinical trial of XP13512 in RLS patients in the United States. We will provide Astellas both clinical and commercial supplies of XP13512 and will receive royalties on any sales of XP13512 in the Astellas territory at a royalty rate in the mid-teens on a percentage basis.

 

We will be able to protect our technology from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our technology is covered by valid and enforceable patents or effectively maintained as trade secrets and able to be utilized without infringing the proprietary rights of others. Our success in the future will depend in part on obtaining patent protection for our technologies and product candidates. Accordingly, patents and other proprietary rights are essential elements of our business. Our policy is to actively seek in the United States and selected foreign countries patent protection for novel technologies and compositions of matter that are commercially important to the development of our business.

 

Issued U.S. and foreign patents generally expire 20 years after filing. As of March 1, 2006, we had nine issued U.S. patents, including a composition-of-matter patent on XP13512. As of that date, we had 83 pending patent applications in the United States, including composition-of-matter patent applications on XP19986, XP21279 and XP20925. We hold two issued foreign patents. We have 34 pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, known as PCT, regional applications that permit us to pursue patents outside of the United States, 26 pending European regional patent applications that permit us to pursue patents in various European countries and 116 foreign national patent applications. The claims in these various patents and patent applications are directed to compositions of matter, including claims covering product candidates, lead compounds and key intermediates, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of use and processes for making our compounds, along with methods of design, synthesis, selection and use of Transported Prodrugs in general and to our research and development programs in particular.

 

The patent rights relating to XP13512, its synthesis and method of use, owned by us consist of two issued U.S. patents that expire in 2022 and 11 pending U.S. patent applications. We also own five pending counterpart PCT regional patent applications and 91 foreign national applications in a number of jurisdictions, including Asia and Europe. The patent rights relating to XP19986 and its synthesis and use owned by us consist of three pending U.S. patent applications, one counterpart PCT application designating an extensive number of jurisdictions, including Asia and Europe, and 33 foreign national applications. The patent rights relating to XP21279 and its synthesis and use owned by us consist of two pending U.S. patent applications and one counterpart PCT application

designating an extensive number of jurisdictions, including Asia and Europe. The patent rights relating to XP20925 and its synthesis and use owned by us consist of three pending U.S. patent applications, one counterpart PCT application designating an extensive number of jurisdictions, including Asia and Europe, and 13 foreign national applications.

 

The composition-of-matter patent on gabapentin, the parent drug of XP13512, expired in 2000, but Pfizer sold gabapentin exclusively based on a formulation patent until September 2004. This formulation patent is the subject of ongoing litigation between Pfizer and several generic manufacturers. In October 2004, a federal court in New Jersey denied Pfizer’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the commercialization of generic gabapentin by Alpharma, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. during the consideration of challenges to the Pfizer formulation patent. Pfizer currently markets generic gabapentin through its Greenstone Ltd. subsidiary. Alpharma and Teva, along with many others, currently market gabapentin as a generic drug. We are not a party to this litigation, and we believe that our manufacturing process for XP13512 does not infringe the patent that is the subject of this litigation. However, in case of an adverse event in this litigation, such as enjoining or limiting Teva’s ability to sell generic gabapentin to us, we would not be able to manufacture XP13512 until a suitable qualified alternate supplier of gabapentin was identified. This could delay the development of XP13512. We are currently in the process of qualifying additional suppliers for gabapentin.

 

We also rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our drug discovery process that involve proprietary know-how and technology that is not covered by patent applications, especially where patent protection is not believed to be appropriate or obtainable. We require all of our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements. Where it is necessary to share our proprietary information or data with outside parties, our policy is to make available only that information and data required to accomplish the desired purpose and only pursuant to a duty of confidentiality on the part of those parties.

 

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of clinical or commercial quantities of any of our product candidates. We currently rely on a small number of third-party manufacturers to produce our compounds and expect to continue to do so to meet the preclinical and clinical requirements of our potential products and for all of our commercial needs. We do not have long-term agreements with any of these third parties.

 

We have purchased substantial amounts of gabapentin, which is the active agent used to make XP13512, from Teva pursuant to purchase orders issued from time to time. Currently, we believe that there are at least five alternative manufacturers that could supply our requirements of gabapentin in the event that Teva determines to not sell gabapentin to us at a price that is commercially attractive. In addition, we believe that there will be an increasing number of qualified alternative suppliers of gabapentin in the future. We are currently in the process of qualifying alternative sources of gabapentin for use in the manufacture of XP13512.

 

We have agreed to purchase approximately 2,000 kilograms of XP13512 in active pharmaceutical ingredient form, known as API, from Lonza Ltd. under a manufacturing services and product supply agreement. The parties have agreed to specific transfer prices for this API under a quotation that forms a part of the agreement. We believe that the quantities of API that we have in inventory, and that we have agreed to purchase, will be sufficient to complete the RLS clinical trials required for regulatory approval, as well as chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies. Our current agreement with Lonza does not provide for the entire supply of API necessary for full-scale commercialization. However, the manufacturing services and product supply agreement obligates the parties to negotiate in good faith on the terms and conditions for Lonza to supply some or all of our total requirements for the commercial supply of API for XP13512. The API is manufactured using a four-step synthetic process that uses commercially available starting materials for each step. There are no complicated chemistries or unusual equipment required in the manufacturing process. We may terminate this agreement upon 30 days’ notice. Either party may terminate this agreement for cause upon notice and a failure to cure by the other party. Unless earlier terminated for the reasons stated above, this agreement terminates in July of this year, unless extended by the mutual agreement of

the parties. In the event that Lonza terminates the agreement following a breach by us, we would not be able to manufacture the API until a qualified alternative supplier was identified.

 

We rely on Patheon as a single source supplier for XP13512 formulated in sustained-release tablets for clinical trials at specified transfer prices under a quotation agreed upon by the parties as a part of a master services agreement. This agreement terminates in December 2008, unless earlier terminated. We may terminate this agreement at any time. Patheon may terminate this agreement if we do not cure a breach within 30 days of receiving notice from Patheon. In the event that Patheon terminates the agreement under the specified circumstances, we would not be able to manufacture XP13512 sustained-release tablets until a qualified alternative supplier was selected.

 

If either of these agreements is terminated by us, we are contractually obligated to reimburse Lonza or Patheon for costs incurred up to the termination date, as well as any specific costs incurred by either party in connection with the termination.

 

In addition, prior to June 2005, our supplies of XP13512 clinical trial materials were produced by MDS Pharma, including the sustained-release formulation that was the subject of our Phase 2 clinical trials. In June 2005, we transferred the manufacture of XP13512 sustained-release tablets to Patheon and initiated scale-up activities in anticipation of producing quantities expected to support our Phase 3 clinical program in RLS. We believe that we are currently manufacturing at a scale sufficient to support our current requirements and will be initiating further scale-up activities later this year. In order to use sustained-release tablets manufactured at Patheon in our clinical trials, we have conducted a Phase 1 clinical trial to assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of these tablets. Preliminary results from this clinical trial suggest that the new, sustained-release tablets manufactured by large-scale production from Patheon produce blood levels of gabapentin that are similar to the sustained-release formulation used in the previous clinical trials.

 

We currently rely on Heumann Pharma GmbH as our single source supplier of R-baclofen, the active agent used to make XP19986, under purchase orders issued from time to time. We are not aware of any alternative suppliers of R-baclofen. However, we believe at least two alternative manufacturers, PCAS Finland Oy and Fine Chemicals Corporation (Pty) Ltd., could supply an intermediate to baclofen, from which R-baclofen could be synthesized, in the event that Heumann determines to not sell R-baclofen to us at a price that is commercially attractive.

 

We have purchased from Lonza all of our current worldwide requirements of XP19986 in API form through our initial Phase 2 clinical trials under a manufacturing services and product supply agreement. In the event that Lonza terminates the agreement following a breach by us, we would not be able to manufacture the API until a qualified alternative supplier was identified. Our current agreement with Lonza does not provide for the entire supply of the API necessary for additional Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials or for full-scale commercialization. The API is manufactured using a six-step synthetic process that uses commercially available starting materials for each step. There are no complicated chemistries or unusual equipment required in the manufacturing process.

 

Cardinal Health PTS, LLC provides our requirements of XP19986 for clinical trials in the form of capsules containing controlled-release beads at specified transfer prices under a quotation agreed upon by the parties as a part of a master services agreement. We rely on Cardinal Health as a single source supplier for capsules of XP19986. In the event that Cardinal Health terminates the agreement under specified circumstances, we would not be able to manufacture XP19986 until a qualified alternative supplier was identified.

 

Our contract manufacturers may own process technology related to the manufacture of our compounds. This would increase our reliance on this manufacturer. Each of Cardinal Health, Patheon and Lonza have informed us that they are not using any proprietary technology in their work for us on XP13512 or XP19986. Moreover, we have been successful in negotiating agreements with our contract manufacturers that include licenses, with the right to grant sublicenses, to any technology incorporated into the manufacture of our compounds or that is invented by employees of the contract manufacturers during the course of work conducted on our product candidates.

 

We have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. In order for us to commercialize any of our product candidates, we must either make arrangements with third parties to perform these services for us or acquire or develop internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, or both. In December 2005, we entered into a collaboration with Astellas to develop and commercialize XP13512 in Japan and five other Asian markets. We plan to establish additional development and commercialization partnerships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to accelerate the completion of regulatory approval and product introduction and to maximize the breadth of the commercial opportunity.

 

We intend to retain rights under collaborations that include commercialization of our products in the United States to establish a focused sales and marketing organization in North America to market and sell product candidates, for which marketing approval is ultimately received, to specialty physicians, including neurologists, psychiatrists and sleep specialists, for target indications in which specialists significantly influence the market and to selectively co-promote to primary care physicians.

 

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are intensely competitive. Any product candidate developed by us would compete with existing drugs and therapies. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities, government agencies and research organizations actively engaged in research and development of products targeting the same markets as our product candidates. Many of these organizations have substantially greater financial, technical, manufacturing and marketing resources than we have. Several of them have developed or are developing therapies that could be used for treatment of the same diseases that we are targeting. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly greater commercial infrastructures than we have. Our ability to compete successfully will depend largely on our ability to leverage our experience in drug discovery and development to:

 

 

We expect to compete on, among other things, product efficacy and safety, time to market, price, extent of adverse side effects experienced and convenience of treatment procedures. In order to compete successfully, we will need to identify, secure the rights to and develop pharmaceutical products and exploit these products commercially before others are able to develop competitive products. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected if insurers and other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products, making branded products less attractive to buyers from a cost perspective.

 

We believe that our product development programs will be subject to significant competition from companies utilizing alternative technologies. In addition, as the principles of active transport become more widely known and appreciated based on patent and scientific publications and regulatory filings, we expect the field to become highly competitive. Pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and academic and research institutions may succeed in developing products based upon the principles underlying our proprietary technologies earlier than us, obtaining approvals for such products from the FDA more rapidly than us or developing products that are safer, more effective and/or more cost effective than those under development or proposed to be developed by us.

 

Except for XP13512, our research and development efforts are at an early stage. Our objective is to discover, develop and commercialize new medicines with superior efficacy, convenience, tolerability and/or safety. To the extent that we are able to develop medicines, they are likely to compete with existing drugs that have long histories

of effective and safe use and with new therapeutic agents. We expect that any medicines that we commercialize with our collaborative partners or on our own will compete with existing, market-leading medicines.

 

XP13512.  We anticipate that, if approved, XP13512 would compete with generic gabapentin. We believe that it is unlikely that a healthcare provider would require the use of gabapentin in preference to XP13512 in an indication for which XP13512 is approved and gabapentin is not labeled. Other drugs targeting RLS and/or neuropathic pain will represent substantial competition. These include pregabalin (marketed by Pfizer as Lyrica), ropinirole (marketed by GSK as Requip) and duloxetine (marketed by Lilly as Cymbalta). Pregabalin is classified as a controlled substance, which could increase the possibility that XP13512 would be classified as a controlled substance since they act on the same therapeutic target. In May 2005, GSK received approval from the FDA to market Requip for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RLS. In addition, pramipexole (for which a new drug application, or NDA, was filed with the FDA in the fall of 2005 by Boehringer Ingelheim) and the rotigotine transdermal system (being developed by Schwarz Pharma) are among the product candidates for RLS that may represent potential competition for XP13512. In September 2005, Pfizer launched Lyrica in the U.S. market for the treatment of epilepsy, the management of PHN and the management of painful diabetic neuropathy. In addition, transdermal patches containing the anesthetic known as lidocaine are sometimes used for the management of PHN.

 

XP19986.  We anticipate that, if approved, XP19986 would compete with generic baclofen and other drugs for the alleviation of symptoms of spasticity, as well as other drugs targeted at GERD. These include approved treatments for spasticity, such as diazepam, dantrolene sodium and tizanidine, and many therapies in development, such as Fampridine-SR from Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., that could compete with XP19986. These also include GERD treatments, such as esomeprazole and omeprazole (marketed by AstraZeneca as Nexium and Prilosec, respectively) and lansoprazole (marketed by TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. as Prevacid). In addition, tenatoprazole (being developed by Abbott Laboratories) and soraprazan (being developed by ALTANA Pharma AG) are among multiple product candidates in late-stage clinical trials and represent potential competition for XP19986.

 

The testing, manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, export and marketing of our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. The FDA, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, regulates pharmaceutical products in the United States. The steps required before a drug may be approved for marketing in the United States generally include:

 

 

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and the receipt and timing of any approval is uncertain.

 

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of the product candidate, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, which must become effective before clinical trials may be commenced. The IND will become effective automatically 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND prior to that time. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can proceed.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the product candidates to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects and the possible liability of the institution.

 

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases prior to approval, but the phases may overlap. These phases generally include the following:

 

Phase 1.  Represents the initial introduction of the drug into human subjects, frequently healthy volunteers. In Phase 1, the drug is usually tested for safety, including adverse effects, dosage tolerance, absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and pharmacodynamics.

 

Phase 2.  Phase 2 clinical trials usually involve studies in a limited patient population to (1) evaluate the efficacy of the drug for specific indications, (2) determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage and (3) identify possible adverse effects and safety risks. Although there are no statutory definitions for Phase 2a and Phase 2b, Phase 2a is commonly used to describe a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating efficacy, adverse effects and safety risks, and Phase 2b is commonly used to describe a subsequent Phase 2 clinical trial that also evaluates dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

 

Phase 3.  If a compound is found to be potentially effective and to have an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 studies, the clinical trial program will be expanded to further demonstrate clinical efficacy, optimal dosage and safety within an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites.

 

Phase 4 clinical trials are conducted after approval to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under accelerated approval regulations. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any Phase 4 clinical trial requirement. These clinical trials are often referred to as Phase 3/4 post-approval clinical trials. Failure to promptly conduct Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products approved under accelerated approval regulations.

 

In the case of products for the treatment of severe or life-threatening diseases, the initial clinical trials are sometimes done in patients rather than in healthy volunteers. Since these patients are afflicted already with the target disease, it is possible that such clinical trials may provide evidence of efficacy traditionally obtained in Phase 2 clinical trials. These trials are referred to frequently as Phase 1/2 clinical trials. The FDA may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

 

The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Generally, regulatory approval of a new drug by the FDA may follow one of three routes. The most traditional of these routes is the submission of a full NDA under Section 505(b)(1) of the FFDCA. A second route, which is possible where an applicant chooses to rely in part on data generated or approvals obtained previously by other parties, is to submit a more limited NDA described in Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA. The final route is the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application for products that are shown to be pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent to previously approved drug products as permitted under Section 505(j) of the FFDCA. We do not expect any of our Transported Prodrugs to be submitted under Section 505(j).

 

Both Section 505(b)(1) and Section 505(b)(2) applications are required by the FDA to contain full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness. However, in contrast to a traditional NDA submitted pursuant to Section 505(b)(1) in which the applicant submits all of the data demonstrating safety and effectiveness, we believe an application submitted pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) can rely upon findings by the FDA that the parent drug is safe and effective in that indication. As a consequence, the preclinical and clinical development programs leading to the submission of an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) may be less expensive to carry out and can be concluded in a shorter period of time than programs required for a Section 505(b)(1) application. In its review of any NDA submissions, however, the FDA has broad discretion to require an applicant to generate additional data related to

safety and efficacy, and it is impossible to predict the number or nature of the studies that may be required before the FDA will grant approval.

 

In the NDA submissions for our product candidates that are currently undergoing clinical trials, we intend to follow the development pathway permitted under the FFDCA that will maximize the commercial opportunities for these Transported Prodrugs. We are currently pursuing the traditional NDA route for our Transported Prodrugs under Section 505(b)(1) of the FFDCA. In the event that we decide to utilize Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA to pursue an approval of our Transported Prodrugs in indications for which the relevant parent drug has previously been approved, we will engage in discussions with the FDA to determine which, if any, portions of our development program can be modified.

 

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured and will not approve the product unless the manufacturing facility complies with cGMPs. Once the NDA submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA typically takes one year to review the application and respond to the applicant. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay approval of an NDA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product. FDA approval of any NDA submitted by us will be at a time the FDA chooses. Also, if regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. In addition, the FDA may require Phase 4 post-marketing studies to monitor the effect of approved products, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

 

If we obtain regulatory approval for a product, this clearance will be limited to those diseases and conditions for which the product is effective, as demonstrated through clinical trials. Even if this regulatory approval is obtained, a marketed product, its manufacturer and its manufacturing facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a medicine, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of an approved product, including costly recalls or withdrawal of the product from the market. The FDA has broad post-market regulatory and enforcement powers, including the ability to suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products, withdraw approvals, enjoin violations and institute criminal prosecution.

 

The Controlled Substances Act imposes various registration, record-keeping and reporting requirements, procurement and manufacturing quotas, labeling and packaging requirements, security controls and a restriction on prescription refills on certain pharmaceutical products. A principal factor in determining the particular requirements, if any, applicable to a product is its actual or potential abuse profile. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, regulates chemical compounds as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances, with Schedule I substances considered to present the highest risk of substance abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest risk. If any of our product candidates contains a scheduled substance, it would be subject to DEA regulations relating to manufacturing, storage, distribution and physician prescription procedures, and the DEA would regulate the amount of the scheduled substance that would be available for clinical trials and commercial distribution.

 

We also will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and the marketing of our products. Outside the United States, our ability to market a product depends upon receiving a marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory authorities. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, marketing authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. In any country, however, we will only be permitted to commercialize our products if the appropriate regulatory authority is satisfied that we have presented adequate evidence of safety, quality and efficacy. Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries must be obtained prior to the commencement of marketing of the product in those countries. The time needed to secure approval may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The regulatory approval and oversight process in other countries includes all of the risks associated with the FDA process described above.

 

Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry in the United States to fundamental change. Initiatives to reduce the federal deficit and to reform healthcare delivery are increasing cost-containment efforts. We anticipate that Congress, state legislatures and the private sector will continue to review and assess alternative benefits, controls on healthcare spending through limitations on the growth of private health insurance premiums and Medicare and Medicaid spending, the creation of large insurance purchasing groups, price controls on pharmaceuticals and other fundamental changes to the healthcare delivery system. Any proposed or actual changes could limit or eliminate our spending on development projects and affect our ultimate profitability. Legislative debate is expected to continue in the future, and market forces are expected to drive reductions of healthcare costs. The adoption of any federal or state healthcare reform measures or future private sector reforms could further limit reimbursement for medical products.

 

In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare product candidates. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products. Our product candidates may not be considered cost-effective.

 

In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, or the 2003 Medicare Act, was enacted. Under this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries were eligible to obtain a Medicare-endorsed, drug-discount card from a pharmacy benefit manager, managed care organization or other private sector provider through the end of 2005. Beginning on January 1, 2006, Medicare beneficiaries were eligible to obtain subsidized prescription drug coverage from a private sector provider. It remains difficult to predict the impact of the 2003 Medicare Act on pharmaceutical companies. Usage of pharmaceuticals may increase as the result of the expanded access to medicines afforded by the partial reimbursement under Medicare. Such potential sales increases, however, may be offset by increased pricing pressures due to the enhanced purchasing power of the private sector providers that will negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

 

As of December 31, 2005, we had 120 employees, 93 of whom were engaged in research and product development activities. Sixty-four employees hold post-graduate degrees, including two with medical degrees and 30 with Ph.D.s. Our employees are not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe our relations with our employees are good.

 

The following sets forth certain information regarding our executive officers as of March 1, 2006:

 

 

Ronald W. Barrett is one of our founders and has served as our chief executive officer since September 2001. He served as our chief scientific officer from 1999 to 2001. Dr. Barrett has been a director since August 1999. From

1989 to 1999, he held various positions at Affymax Research Institute, an institute employing combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput target screening to discover drug targets, the most recent of which was senior vice president of research. Glaxo Wellcome plc, a pharmaceutical company, acquired Affymax Research Institute in 1995. Glaxo Wellcome subsequently merged with SmithKline Beecham plc, a pharmaceutical company, in 2000 to form GlaxoSmithKline plc, a pharmaceutical company. Prior to Affymax Research Institute, Dr. Barrett was a molecular pharmacologist in the Neuroscience Group at Abbott Laboratories, a healthcare company, from 1986 to 1989. Dr. Barrett received a B.S. from Bucknell University and a Ph.D. in pharmacology from Rutgers University.

 

William J. Rieflin has been our president since September 2004. From 1996 to 2004, he held various positions with Tularik Inc., a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of product candidates based on the regulation of gene expression, the most recent of which was executive vice president, administration, chief financial officer, general counsel and secretary. Amgen Inc., a biotechnology company, acquired Tularik in 2004. Mr. Rieflin received a B.S. from Cornell University, an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and a J.D. from Stanford Law School.

 

Kenneth C. Cundy has been our senior vice president of preclinical development since January 2004. He was previously our vice president of biopharmaceutics from 2000 to 2004. From 1992 to 2000, he was senior director of biopharmaceutics at Gilead Sciences. Prior to Gilead Sciences, Dr. Cundy was principal research investigator at Sterling Drug, a pharmaceutical division of Eastman Kodak Company, an imaging and photographic equipment company, from 1988 to 1992. He received a B.S. from the University of Manchester and a Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences from the University of Kentucky.

 

Mark A. Gallop is one of our founders and has been our senior vice president of research since January 2004. He was previously our vice president of chemistry since 1999. From 1990 to 1999, Dr. Gallop held several positions at Affymax Research Institute, the most recent of which was senior director of combinatorial chemistry. Dr. Gallop received a B.Sc. from the University of Auckland and a Ph.D. in inorganic chemistry from the University of Cambridge.

 

William G. Harris has been our senior vice president of finance and chief financial officer since November 2001. From 1996 to 2001, he held several positions with Coulter Pharmaceutical, Inc., a biotechnology company engaged in the development of novel therapies for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases, the most recent of which was senior vice president and chief financial officer. Corixa Corp., a developer of immunotherapeutic products, acquired Coulter Pharmaceutical in 2000. Prior to Coulter Pharmaceutical, from 1990 to 1996, Mr. Harris held several positions at Gilead Sciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, most recently director of finance. Mr. Harris received a B.A. from the University of California, San Diego and an M.B.A. from Santa Clara University, Leavey School of Business and Administration.

 

Pierre V. Trân has been our senior vice president and chief medical officer since September 2004. From 2002 to July 2004, he was global medical director, Joint Antidepressant Group of Eli Lilly and Company, a pharmaceutical company. From 1992 to 2002, Dr. Trân was a physician in clinical research within the Neuroscience Group of Eli Lilly and Company. He received an M.D. from the Université de Franche-Comté (Besançon) in France and a Masters in Medical Management (M.M.M.) from Tulane University. Dr. Trân completed his residency training at Duke University and earned board certification in general adult psychiatry. Dr. Trân holds an academic appointment as Assistant Consulting Professor at the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University.

 

William J. Dower is one of our founders and has been our vice president of discovery biology since 1999. From 1989 to 1999, he held various positions at Affymax Research Institute, the most recent of which was senior director of molecular biology. Prior to Affymax Research Institute, Dr. Dower held the position of senior research biochemist at Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., a company providing tools and services to the clinical diagnostics and life sciences research markets, from 1984 to 1989. He received a B.A. and a Ph.D. in biological sciences from the University of California, San Diego.

 

We were incorporated in Delaware in May 1999. Our principal offices are located at 3410 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, California 95051, and our telephone number is (408) 616-7200. Our website address is

www.xenoport.com. Information found on, or accessible through, our website is not a part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K. XENOPORT, the XenoPort logo and Transported Prodrug are our trademarks. Service marks, trademarks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “the company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to XenoPort, Inc.

 

We file electronically with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We make available on our website at www.xenoport.com, free of charge, copies of these reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Further, copies of these reports are located at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding our filings, at www.sec.gov.

 

The following risks and uncertainties may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Investors should carefully consider the risks described below before making an investment decision. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may also significantly impair our business operations. Our business could be harmed by any of these risks. The trading price of our common stock could decline due to any of these risks, and investors may lose all or part of their investment.

 

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

 

We have incurred operating losses since inception and expect to continue to incur substantial and increasing losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.

 

We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception, including losses applicable to common stockholders of approximately $43.9 million, $31.3 million and $25.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. We expect our research and development expenses to continue to increase as we expand our development programs, and, subject to regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses associated with the establishment of a North American specialty sales force and increased manufacturing expenses. As a result, we expect to continue to incur substantial and increasing losses for the foreseeable future. These losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

 

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if we will be able to achieve or sustain profitability. Currently, we have no products approved for commercial sale, and, to date, we have not generated any product revenue. We have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities, non-equity payments from collaborative partners, capital lease and equipment financings and government grants. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development, including clinical trials. If we are unable to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates, if development is delayed or if sales revenue from any product candidate that receives marketing approval is insufficient, we may never become profitable. Even if we do become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Our success depends substantially on our most advanced product candidates, which are still under development. If we are unable to bring any or all of these product candidates to market, or experience significant delays in doing so, our ability to generate product revenue and our likelihood of success will be harmed.

 

Our ability to generate product revenue in the future will depend heavily on the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our most advanced product candidate has commenced a Phase 3 clinical program. Our other product candidates are either in Phase 2 clinical development or in various stages of preclinical development. Any of our product candidates could be unsuccessful if it:

 

 

We do not expect any of our current product candidates to be commercially available before 2009, if at all. If we are unable to make our product candidates commercially available, we will not generate substantial product revenues and we will not be successful. The results of our clinical trials to date do not provide assurance that acceptable efficacy or safety will be shown upon completion of Phase 3 clinical trials.

 

If we or our partners are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we or our partners will not be able to commercialize our product candidates, our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired and our business will not be successful.

 

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization are subject to comprehensive regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. The inability to obtain FDA approval or approval from comparable authorities in other countries would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates in the United States or other countries. We may never receive regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates. Moreover, if the FDA requires that any of our product candidates be scheduled by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, we will be unable to begin commercial sale of that product until the DEA completes scheduling proceedings. If any of our product candidates is classified as a controlled substance by the DEA, we would have to register annually with the DEA and those product candidates would be subject to additional regulation. We have not received regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates in any jurisdiction and have only limited experience in preparing and filing the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals. The process of applying for regulatory approval is expensive, often takes many years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved.

 

Changes in the regulatory approval policy during the development period, changes in, or the enactment of additional regulations or statutes or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Even if the FDA or other regulatory agency approves a product candidate, the approval may impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses, conditions for use, labeling, advertising, promotion, marketing and/or production of such product and may impose ongoing requirements for post-approval studies, including additional research and development and clinical trials. The FDA and other agencies also may impose various civil or criminal sanctions for failure to comply with regulatory requirements, including withdrawal of product approval.

 

The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. For example, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval of a product candidate.

We and our partners will need to obtain regulatory approval from authorities in foreign countries to market our product candidates in those countries. Neither we nor Astellas Pharma Inc. has initiated the regulatory process in any foreign jurisdictions. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. If we or our partners fail to obtain approvals from foreign jurisdictions, the geographic market for our product candidates would be limited.

 

We will need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

 

We will need to raise additional capital to fund our operations and complete the development of our product candidates. If any product candidates receive regulatory approval for commercial sale, we will need to raise additional capital to fund our commercialization efforts. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

 

 

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue, if ever, we expect to finance future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements, as well as through interest income earned on cash balances.

 

If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience dilution. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to our stockholders or us. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish some rights to our technologies or our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

 

We do not expect our existing capital resources to be sufficient to enable us to fund the completion of the development of any of our product candidates. We expect that our existing capital resources and committed funding will enable us to maintain currently planned operations into the second quarter of 2007. However, our operating plan may change, and we may need additional funds sooner than planned to meet operational needs and capital requirements for product development and commercialization. We currently have no credit facility or committed sources of capital other than milestones receivable from Astellas based on the commencement and conclusion of our initial Phase 3 clinical trial in Restless Legs Syndrome, or RLS.

 

Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available on a timely basis, we may:

 

 

 

If our preclinical studies do not produce successful results or our clinical trials do not demonstrate safety and efficacy in humans, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates.

 

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate, through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials, that the product candidate is safe and effective in humans. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive, can take many years and has an uncertain outcome. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials could occur at any stage of testing. In addition, success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, preclinical testing and the clinical trial process, which could delay or prevent our ability to commercialize our product candidates, including:

 

 

As an example of an unforeseen event, after having been discharged from a Phase 1 clinical trial in which a single dose of XP13512 was administered almost two days earlier, a volunteer died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound following a domestic dispute. We do not believe that this incident was related to XP13512. However, any unforeseen event could cause us to experience significant delays in, or the termination of, clinical trials. Any such events would increase our costs and could delay or prevent our ability to commercialize our product candidates, which would adversely impact our financial results.

 

Any failure or delay in commencing or completing clinical trials for our product candidates could severely harm our business.

 

To date, we have not completed the clinical trials of any product candidate. The commencement and completion of clinical trials for our product candidates may be delayed or terminated as a result of many factors, including:

 

 

Any delay in commencing or completing clinical trials for our product candidates would delay commercialization of our product candidates and severely harm our business and financial condition. It is also possible that none of our product candidates will complete clinical trials in any of the markets in which we or our collaborators

intend to sell those product candidates. Accordingly, we or our collaborators would not receive the regulatory approvals needed to market our product candidates, which would severely harm our business and financial condition.

 

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not perform as contractually required or expected, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates.

 

We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials for our product candidates, and we must rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories, to conduct our clinical trials. We have, in the ordinary course of business, entered into agreements with these third parties. Nonetheless, we are responsible for confirming that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its general investigational plan and protocol. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with regulations and standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, for conducting and recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the trial participants are adequately protected. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if the third parties need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our preclinical development activities or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, our product candidates.

 

If some or all of our patents expire, are invalidated or are unenforceable, or if some or all of our patent applications do not yield issued patents or yield patents with narrow claims, competitors may develop competing products using our intellectual property and our business will suffer.

 

Our success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and trade secret protection for our technologies and product candidates both in the United States and other countries. We cannot guarantee that any patents will issue from any of our pending or future patent applications. Alternatively, a third party may successfully circumvent our patents. Our rights under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection against competitive products or otherwise cover commercially valuable products or processes.

 

The degree of future protection for our proprietary technologies and product candidates is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

 

 

Even if valid and enforceable patents cover our product candidates and technologies, the patents will provide protection only for a limited amount of time.

 

Our and our collaborators’ ability to obtain patents is highly uncertain because, to date, some legal principles remain unresolved, there has not been a consistent policy regarding the breadth or interpretation of claims allowed in patents in the United States and the specific content of patents and patent applications that are necessary to support and interpret patent claims is highly uncertain due to the complex nature of the relevant legal, scientific and factual issues. Furthermore, the policies governing biotechnology patents outside the United States are even more

uncertain. Changes in either patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

 

Even if patents are issued regarding our product candidates or methods of using them, those patents can be challenged by our competitors who can argue such patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. Patents also may not protect our product candidates if competitors devise ways of making these or similar product candidates without legally infringing our patents. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations and policies provide incentives to manufacturers to challenge patent validity or create modified, non-infringing versions of a drug in order to facilitate the approval of generic substitutes. These same types of incentives encourage manufacturers to submit new drug applications that rely on literature and clinical data not prepared for or by the drug sponsor.

 

As of March 1, 2006, we held nine U.S. patents and had 83 patent applications pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO. For some of our inventions, corresponding non-U.S. patent protection is pending. Of the nine U.S. patents that we hold, six patents are compound- and composition-related, having expiration dates in 2021 to 2023; one patent is synthesis-method related, having an expiration date in 2022; and two patents are screening methodology-related, having expiration dates in 2022. Subject to possible patent term extension, the entitlement for which and the term of which we cannot predict, patent protection in the United States covering the compound for XP13512, our product candidate that is a Transported Prodrug of gabapentin, will expire no earlier than 2022. We believe that in all countries in which we hold or have licensed rights to patents or patent applications related to XP13512, the composition-of-matter patents relating to gabapentin have expired. In addition, for XP19986, our product candidate that is a Transported Prodrug of R-baclofen, three U.S. and 34 non-U.S. patent applications are pending, but no patents have yet issued. Although third parties may challenge our rights to, or the scope or validity of, our patents, to date, we have not received any communications from third parties challenging our patents or patent applications covering our product candidates.

 

We also rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe that patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

 

Our research and development collaborators may have rights to publish data and other information in which we have rights. In addition, we sometimes engage individuals or entities to conduct research that may be relevant to our business. The ability of these individuals or entities to publish or otherwise publicly disclose data and other information generated during the course of their research is subject to certain contractual limitations. In most cases, these individuals or entities are, at the least, precluded from publicly disclosing our confidential information and are only allowed to disclose other data or information generated during the course of the research after we have been afforded an opportunity to consider whether patent and/or other proprietary protection should be sought. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our technology and other confidential information, then our ability to receive patent protection or protect our proprietary information may be jeopardized.

 

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement would require us to spend significant time and money and could prevent us from developing or commercializing our products.

 

Our commercial success depends in part on not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of other parties and not breaching any licenses that we have entered into with regard to our technologies and products. Because others may have filed, and in the future are likely to file, patent applications covering products or other technologies of interest to us that are similar or identical to ours, patent applications or issued patents of others may have priority over our patent applications or issued patents. For example, we are aware of a third party patent application relating to prodrugs of gabapentin that, if it issues, if it is determined to be valid and if it is construed to cover XP13512, could affect the development and commercialization of XP13512. Additionally, we are aware of third-party patents relating to the use of baclofen in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD. If the patents are determined to be valid and construed to cover XP19986, the development and commercialization of XP19986 could be affected. With respect to the claims contained in these patent applications and patents, we believe that our

activities do not infringe the patents at issue and/or that the third-party patent or patent applications are invalid. However, it is possible that a judge or jury will disagree with our conclusions regarding non-infringement and/or invalidity, and we could incur substantial costs in litigation if we are required to defend against patent suits brought by third parties or if we initiate these suits. Any legal action against our collaborators or us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to the affected products and processes could, in addition to subjecting us to potential liability for damages, require our collaborators or us to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market the affected products and processes. Licenses required under any of these patents may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Failure to obtain such licenses could materially and adversely affect our ability to develop, commercialize and sell our product candidates. We believe that there may continue to be significant litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. If we become involved in litigation, it could consume a substantial portion of our management and financial resources and we may not prevail in any such litigation.

 

Furthermore, our commercial success will depend, in part, on our ability to continue to conduct research to identify additional product candidates in current indications of interest or opportunities in other indications. Some of these activities may involve the use of genes, gene products, screening technologies and other research tools that are covered by third-party patents. Court decisions have indicated that the exemption from patent infringement afforded by 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) does not encompass all research and development activities associated with product development. In some instances, we may be required to obtain licenses to such third-party patents to conduct our research and development activities, including activities that may have already occurred. It is not known whether any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Failure to obtain such licenses could materially and adversely affect our ability to maintain a pipeline of potential product candidates and to bring new products to market. If we are required to defend against patent suits brought by third parties relating to third-party patents that may be relevant to our research activities, or if we initiate such suits, we could incur substantial costs in litigation. Moreover, an adverse result from any legal action in which we are involved could subject us to damages and/or prevent us from conducting some of our research and development activities.

 

If third parties do not manufacture our product candidates in sufficient quantities or at an acceptable cost, clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates would be delayed.

 

We presently do not have in inventory sufficient quantities of our product candidates to complete clinical trials of either XP13512 or XP19986. We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities, and we rely and expect to continue to rely on a small number of third-party compound manufacturers and active pharmaceutical ingredient formulators for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our product candidates. We do not have long-term agreements with any of these third parties, and our agreements with these parties are generally terminable at will by either party at any time. If, for any reason, these third parties are unable or unwilling to perform under our agreements or enter into new agreements, we may not be able to locate alternative manufacturers or formulators or enter into favorable agreements with them. Any inability to acquire sufficient quantities of our product candidates in a timely manner from these third parties could delay clinical trials and prevent us or our partners from developing and commercializing our product candidates in a cost-effective manner or on a timely basis.

 

We purchase substantial amounts of gabapentin, which is used to make XP13512, from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. pursuant to purchase orders issued from time to time. Teva’s sale of gabapentin is the subject of ongoing litigation brought by Pfizer Inc alleging infringement of a patent held by Pfizer. In the event that Teva decides not to sell gabapentin to us, or decides to sell gabapentin to us at a price that is not commercially attractive, or, as a result of this litigation, ceases producing gabapentin, we would not be able to manufacture XP13512 until a qualified alternative supplier was identified. This could delay the development of, and impair our ability to commercialize, this product candidate.

 

We have agreed to purchase XP13512 in active pharmaceutical ingredient form, known as API, from Lonza Ltd. under a manufacturing services and product supply agreement. In the event that Lonza terminates the agreement in response to a breach by us, we would not be able to manufacture the API until a qualified alternative supplier was identified. This could delay the development of, and impair the ability of us or our partners to commercialize, this product candidate. In addition, our current agreement with Lonza does not provide for the entire

supply of API that we require to complete all of our planned clinical trials or for full-scale commercialization. However, the manufacturing services and product supply agreement obligates the parties to negotiate in good faith on the terms and conditions for Lonza to supply some or all of our total requirements for the commercial supply of the API for XP13512. In the event that the parties cannot agree to the terms and conditions for Lonza to provide some or all of our API commercial supply needs, we would not be able to manufacture API until a qualified alternative supplier was identified, which could also delay the development of, and impair the ability of us or our partners to commercialize, this product candidate.

 

In addition, we currently rely on Patheon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as our single source supplier for XP13512 formulated in sustained-release tablets for clinical trials at specified transfer prices under a quotation agreed upon by the parties that forms a part of master services agreements. In the event that Patheon terminates the agreement under specified circumstances, we would not be able to manufacture XP13512 sustained-release tablets until a qualified alternative supplier is identified. This could delay the development of, and impair the ability of us or our partners to commercialize, XP13512.

 

We currently rely on Heumann Pharma GmbH as our single source supplier of R-baclofen, the active agent used to make XP19986, under purchase orders issued from time to time. We are not aware of any alternative suppliers of R-baclofen. If we were unable to identify a qualified alternative supplier of R-baclofen, this could delay the development of, and impair our ability to commercialize, this product candidate.

 

We currently rely on Lonza as the single source supplier of our current worldwide requirements of XP19986 in API form through our initial Phase 2a clinical trial under a manufacturing services and product supply agreement. In the event that Lonza terminates the agreement in response to a breach by us, we would not be able to manufacture the API until a qualified alternative supplier was identified. Our current agreement with Lonza does not provide for the entire supply of the API necessary for additional Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials or for full-scale commercialization. In the event that the parties cannot agree to the terms and conditions for Lonza to provide some or all of our API clinical and commercial supply needs, we would not be able to manufacture API until a qualified alternative supplier is identified, which could also delay the development of, and impair our ability to commercialize, this product candidate.

 

Cardinal Health PTS, LLC provides our requirements of XP19986 for clinical trials in the form of capsules containing controlled-release beads, at specified transfer prices under a quotation agreed upon by the parties as a part of a master services agreement. We rely on Cardinal Health as a single source supplier for capsules of XP19986. In the event that Cardinal Health terminates the agreement under specified circumstances, we would not be able to manufacture XP19986 until a qualified alternative supplier is identified. This could delay the development of, and impair our ability to commercialize, XP19986.

 

We have generated data demonstrating that XP13512 is stable at room temperature when packaged appropriately. While we currently ship XP13512 using refrigerated containers, we anticipate that the packaging improvements that we have made will alleviate the need to ship this product candidate for commercial sale using refrigerated containers. If we are unable to achieve these packaging and shipping improvements, we may incur additional expenses and delays that could impair our ability to generate product revenue.

 

If we are required to obtain alternate third-party manufacturers, it could delay or prevent the clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates.

 

We may not be able to maintain or renew our existing or any other third-party manufacturing arrangements on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to continue relationships with Teva, Lonza or Patheon for XP13512, or Heumann, Lonza or Cardinal Health for XP19986, or to do so at an acceptable cost, or if these suppliers fail to meet our requirements for these product candidates for any reason, we would be required to obtain alternative suppliers. Any inability to obtain qualified alternative suppliers, including an inability to obtain or delay in obtaining approval of an alternative supplier from the FDA, would delay or prevent the clinical development and commercialization of these product candidates, and could impact our ability to meet our supply obligations to Astellas.

 

Prior to the commencement of our Phase 3 clinical trial, the formulation of XP13512 that had been tested in humans had been produced by entities other than Patheon. We recently completed an additional Phase 1 clinical trial to assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of single doses of XP13512 manufactured by Patheon. This

clinical trial utilized a new, sustained-release formulation of XP13512 produced at a larger scale. These new tablets are similar in characteristics compared to the sustained-release formulation used in the previous trials. We conducted this additional Phase 1 single-dose, crossover clinical trial in 12 healthy volunteers at one site. Preliminary results from this clinical trial suggest that the new, larger-scale, sustained-release formulation of XP13512 produces blood levels of gabapentin that are similar to the sustained-release formulation used in the previous clinical trials.

 

Use of third-party manufacturers may increase the risk that we will not have adequate supplies of our product candidates.

 

Our current and anticipated future reliance on third-party manufacturers will expose us to risks that could delay or prevent the initiation or completion of clinical trials by us or our partners, the submission of applications for regulatory approvals, the approval of our products by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities or the commercialization of our products or could result in higher costs or lost product revenues. In particular, our contract manufacturers:

 

 

If we are not able to obtain adequate supplies of our product candidates, it will be more difficult to develop our product candidates and compete effectively. Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. For example, gabapentin is also marketed as generic gabapentin by Teva, one of our third-party manufacturers.

 

In addition, the manufacturing facilities of Heumann, Lonza and Teva are located outside of the United States. This may give rise to difficulties in importing our product candidates or their components into the United States or other countries as a result of, among other things, regulatory agency import inspections, incomplete or inaccurate import documentation or defective packaging.

 

Safety issues with the parent drugs or other components of our product candidates, or with approved products of third parties that are similar to our product candidates, could give rise to delays in the regulatory approval process.

 

Discovery of previously unknown problems with an approved product may result in restrictions on its permissible uses, including withdrawal of the medicine from the market. The FDA approved gabapentin, the parent drug for our XP13512 product candidate, in 1993, and, to date, it has been used in at least 12 million patients. Baclofen, the R-isomer of which is the parent drug for our XP19986 product candidate, has been used since 1977. The FDA has not approved the R-isomer of baclofen for use in humans. Although gabapentin and baclofen have been used successfully in patients for many years, newly observed toxicities, or worsening of known toxicities, in patients receiving gabapentin or baclofen could result in increased regulatory scrutiny of XP13512 or XP19986.

 

Our product candidates are engineered to be broken down by the body’s natural metabolic processes and to release the parent drug and other metabolic substances. While these breakdown products are generally regarded as safe, it is possible that there will be unexpected toxicity associated with these breakdown products that could cause either or both of XP13512 and XP19986 to be poorly tolerated by, or toxic to, humans. Any unexpected toxicity of, or suboptimal tolerance to, our Transported Prodrugs would delay or prevent commercialization of these product candidates.

Additionally, problems with approved products marketed by third parties that utilize the same therapeutic target as the parent drug of our product candidates could adversely affect the development of our product candidates. For example, the product withdrawals of Vioxx by Merck & Co., Inc. and Bextra from Pfizer in 2005 due to safety issues has caused other drugs that have the same therapeutic target, such as Celebrex from Pfizer, to receive additional scrutiny from regulatory authorities. If either gabapentin or pregabalin encounters unexpected toxicity problems in humans, the FDA may delay or prevent the regulatory approval of XP13512 since it is a member of the same class of drugs and shares the same therapeutic target as gabapentin and pregabalin. In 2005, the FDA requested that all makers of epilepsy drugs, including Neurontin, analyze their clinical trial data to determine whether these drugs increase the risk of suicide in patients. Finally, if the FDA determines that a drug may present a risk of substance abuse, it can recommend to the DEA that the drug be scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act. While gabapentin is not a scheduled drug at the present time, pregabalin has been scheduled as a controlled substance. Since pregabalin is a scheduled drug, it is possible that the FDA may require additional testing of XP13512, the results of which could lead the FDA to conclude that XP13512 should be scheduled as well. Scheduled substances are subject to DEA regulations relating to manufacturing, storage, distribution and physician prescription procedures, and the DEA regulates the amount of a scheduled substance that is available for clinical trials and commercial distribution. Accordingly, any scheduling action that the FDA and DEA may take with respect to XP13512 may delay its clinical trial and approval process. Any failure or delay in commencing or completing clinical trials or obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates would delay commercialization of our product candidates and severely harm our business and financial condition.

 

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional Transported Prodrug candidates.

 

An important element of our strategy is to identify, develop and commercialize Transported Prodrugs that improve upon the absorption, distribution and/or metabolism of drugs that have already received regulatory approval. Other than XP13512 and XP19986, all of our research and development programs are at a preclinical stage. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. These research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

 

 

If we are unable to develop suitable product candidates through internal research programs or otherwise, we will not be able to increase our revenues in future periods, which could result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price.

 

Our product candidates will remain subject to ongoing regulatory review, even if they receive marketing approval. If we fail to comply with continuing regulations, we could lose these approvals and the sale of our products could be suspended.

 

Even if we receive regulatory approval to market a particular product candidate, the approval could be conditioned on us conducting additional, costly, post-approval studies or could limit the indicated uses included in our labeling. Moreover, the product may later cause adverse effects that limit or prevent its widespread use, force us to withdraw it from the market or impede or delay our ability to obtain regulatory approvals in additional countries. In addition, the manufacturer of the product and its facilities will continue to be subject to FDA review and periodic inspections to ensure adherence to applicable regulations. After receiving marketing approval, the manufacturing, labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and record keeping related to the product will remain subject to extensive regulatory requirements.

 

If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA and other applicable U.S. and foreign regulatory authorities or previously unknown problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

 

 

 

Because we have a number of product candidates and are considering a variety of target indications, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

 

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on research programs and product candidates for the specific indications that we believe are the most commercially promising. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. For example, we have decided to postpone additional development efforts on XP20925, our Transported Prodrug of propofol, so that we can dedicate those resources to the development of XP21279, our Transported Prodrug of L-Dopa. In addition, we may spend valuable time and managerial and financial resources on research programs and product candidates for specific indications that ultimately do not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in situations where it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole rights to development and commercialization.

 

We depend on collaborations to complete the development and commercialization of some of our product candidates. These collaborations may place the development of our product candidates outside our control, may require us to relinquish important rights or may otherwise be on terms unfavorable to us.

 

In December 2005, we entered into a collaboration with Astellas for the development and commercialization of XP13512 in Japan and five other Asian countries. We plan to enter into additional collaborations with third parties to develop and commercialize some of our product candidates. Dependence on collaborators for development and commercialization of our product candidates will subject us to a number of risks, including:

 

 

 

If we do not establish additional collaborations for XP13512 or collaborations for XP19986, we will have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

 

Our strategy includes selectively collaborating with leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to assist us in furthering development and potential commercialization of some of our product candidates, including XP19986 as well as XP13512 outside of the Astellas territory. We intend to do so especially for indications that involve a large, primary care market that must be served by large sales and marketing organizations. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and these collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. We may not be able to negotiate additional collaborations on acceptable terms, or at all. We are unable to predict when, if ever, we will enter into any additional collaborations because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with establishing additional collaborations. If we are unable to negotiate additional collaborations, we may have to curtail the development of a particular product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of our sales or marketing activities or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we will not be able to bring our product candidates to market and generate product revenue.

 

The commercial success of any products that we may develop will depend upon the degree of market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community.

 

Any products that result from our product candidates may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate material product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any products resulting from our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

 

 

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into additional agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate product revenue.

 

We do not have a sales and marketing organization and have no experience in the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities, as well as entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. Developing an internal sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. On the other hand, if we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenues are likely to be lower than if we market and sell any products that we develop ourselves.

 

We plan to establish our own specialty sales force and engage pharmaceutical or other healthcare companies with an existing sales and marketing organization and distribution system to sell, market and distribute our products. We may not be able to establish these sales and distribution relationships on acceptable terms, or at all. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products without collaborators or licensees include:

 

 

Because the establishment of sales and marketing capabilities depends on the progress towards commercialization of our product candidates and because of the numerous risks and uncertainties involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities, we are unable to predict when we will establish our own sales and marketing capabilities. If we are not able to partner with a third party and are not successful in recruiting sales and marketing personnel or in building a sales and marketing infrastructure, we will have difficulty commercializing our product candidates, which would adversely affect our business and financial condition.

 

Our ability to generate revenue from any products that we may develop will depend on reimbursement and drug pricing policies and regulations.

 

Many patients may be unable to pay for any products that we may develop. In the United States, many patients will rely on Medicare, Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors to pay for their medical needs. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of reimbursement for drug treatments by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize, and attract additional collaborators to invest in the development of, our product candidates. We cannot be sure that reimbursement in the United States, Europe or elsewhere will be available for any products that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated in the future. Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for medical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide reimbursement for particular drugs when an equivalent generic drug is available. Although we believe any products that we may develop will represent an improvement over the parent drugs upon which they are based and be considered unique and not subject to substitution by a generic parent drug, it is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidate and the generic parent drug as equivalents and only offer to reimburse patients for the generic drug. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidate, pricing of the existing parent drug may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidate. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on products that we may develop.

 

The trend toward managed healthcare in the United States and the changes in health insurance programs, as well as legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce government insurance programs, may result in lower prices for pharmaceutical products, including any products that may be offered by us. In addition, any future regulatory changes regarding the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may affect demand for any products that we may develop and could harm our sales and profitability.

In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, or the 2003 Medicare Act, was enacted. Under this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries are eligible to obtain a Medicare-endorsed, drug-discount card from a pharmacy benefit manager, managed care organization or other private sector provider. Beginning on January 1, 2006, Medicare beneficiaries were eligible to obtain subsidized prescription drug coverage from a private sector provider. It remains difficult to predict the impact of the 2003 Medicare Act on pharmaceutical companies. Usage of pharmaceuticals may increase as the result of the expanded access to medicines afforded by the partial reimbursement under Medicare. Such potential sales increases, however, may be offset by increased pricing pressures due to the enhanced purchasing power of the private sector providers that will negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

 

If our competitors are able to develop and market products that are more effective, safer or less costly than any products that we may develop, our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated.

 

We face competition from established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. In addition, significant delays in the development of our product candidates could allow our competitors to bring products to market before us and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

 

We estimate that we have at least five competitors in the neuropathic pain and RLS therapeutic areas, including GlaxoSmithKline plc, Eli Lilly and Company and Pfizer. Competition for XP13512 could include approved drugs that act on the same target as XP13512, such as pregabalin, Neurontin and generic gabapentin; anti-Parkinson’s disease product candidates, such as ropinirole, which is approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RLS, and pramipexole from Boehringer Ingelheim for RLS, for which a new drug application, or NDA, was filed with the FDA in the fall of 2005; serotonin norepinephrine inhibitors, such as duloxetine, which is approved for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy; and Gabapentin GR from Depomed, Inc., which has completed a Phase 2 trial for post-herpetic neuralgia, or PHN. We are aware that generic gabapentin is marketed by Alpharma Inc., Pfizer, Teva and IVAX Corp, among others, and that it is prescribed off-label to treat a variety of conditions. We estimate that XP19986 could have several generic drug competitors in the spasticity area. There are several drugs approved for the treatment of spasticity, such as baclofen, diazepam, dantrolene sodium and tizanidine, and many therapies in development, such as Fampridine-SR from Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., that could compete with XP19986. We estimate that we have at least three competitors in the GERD therapeutic area, including AstraZeneca, GSK and TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. In addition, there may be other compounds of which we are not aware that are at an earlier stage of development and may compete with our product candidates. If any of those compounds are successfully developed and approved, they could compete directly with our product candidates.

 

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to quickly discover and develop novel compounds that could make our product candidates obsolete. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. In addition, these third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies and technology licenses complementary to our programs or advantageous to our business. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, receiving FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing medicines before we do. We are also aware of other companies that may currently be engaged in the discovery of medicines that will compete with the product candidates that we are developing. In addition, in the markets that we are targeting, we expect to compete against current market-leading medicines. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition will suffer.

Off-label sale or use of generic gabapentin products could decrease sales of XP13512 and could lead to pricing pressure if such products become available at competitive prices and in dosages that are appropriate for the indications for which we are developing XP13512.

 

Physicians are permitted to prescribe legally available drugs for uses that are not described in the drug’s labeling and that differ from those uses tested and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Various products are currently sold and used off-label for some of the diseases and conditions that we are targeting, and a number of companies are or may be developing new treatments that may be used off-label. The occurrence of such off-label uses could significantly reduce our ability to market and sell any products that we may develop.

 

We believe that in all countries in which we hold or have licensed rights to patents or patent applications related to XP13512, the composition-of-matter patents relating to gabapentin have expired. Off-label prescriptions written for gabapentin could adversely affect our ability to generate revenue from the sale of XP13512, if approved for commercial sale. This could result in reduced sales and pricing pressure on XP13512, if approved, which in turn would reduce our ability to generate revenue and have a negative impact on our results of operations.

 

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates.

 

Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, clinical and scientific personnel and on our ability to develop and maintain important relationships with leading clinicians. If we are not able to retain Drs. Ronald Barrett, Kenneth Cundy, William Dower, Mark Gallop and Pierre Trân, we may not be able to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates. Competition for experienced scientists may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms. In addition, none of our employees have employment commitments for any fixed period of time and could leave our employment at will. We do not carry “key person” insurance covering members of senior management or key scientific personnel. If we fail to identify, attract and retain qualified personnel, we may be unable to continue our development and commercialization activities.

 

We will need to hire additional employees in order to commercialize our product candidates. Any inability to manage future growth could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates, increase our costs and adversely impact our ability to compete effectively.

 

In order to commercialize our product candidates, we will need to expand the number of our managerial, operational, financial and other employees. We currently anticipate that we will need at least 250 additional employees by the time that XP13512 or XP19986 is initially commercialized, including at least 80 sales representatives. Because the projected timeframe of hiring these additional employees depends on the development status of our product candidates and because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to project when we will hire these additional employees. While to date we have not experienced difficulties in recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified individuals, the competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology field is intense.

 

Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain and integrate additional employees. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively.

 

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we will incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

 

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products that we may develop caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

 

 

 

We have product liability insurance that covers our clinical trials up to a $5 million annual aggregate limit. We intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if marketing approval is obtained for any products that we may develop. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive, and we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost and we may not be able to obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

 

If we use biological and hazardous materials in a manner that causes contamination, injury or violates laws, we may be liable for damages.

 

Our research and development activities involve the use of potentially harmful biological materials as well as hazardous materials, chemicals and various radioactive compounds. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from the use, storage, handling or disposal of these materials. In the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages that result, and any liability could exceed our resources. We, the third parties that conduct clinical trials on our behalf and the third parties that manufacture our product candidates are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and waste products. The cost of compliance with these laws and regulations could be significant. The failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in significant fines and work stoppages and may harm our business.

 

Our facility is located in California’s Silicon Valley, in an area with a long history of industrial activity and use of hazardous substances, including chlorinated solvents. Environmental studies conducted prior to our leasing of the site found levels of metals and volatile organic compounds in the soils and groundwater at our site. While these constituents of concern predated our occupancy, certain environmental laws, including the U.S. Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, impose strict, joint and several liability on current operators of real property for the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous substances. These laws often impose liability even if the owner or operator did not know of, or was not responsible for, the release of such hazardous substances. As a result, while we have not been, we cannot rule out the possibility that we could in the future be held liable for costs to address contamination at the property beneath our facility, which costs could be material.

 

We will need to implement additional finance and accounting systems, procedures and controls in the future as we grow our business and organization and to satisfy new reporting requirements.

 

As a public reporting company, we must comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including expanded disclosures and accelerated reporting requirements and more complex accounting rules. Compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other requirements will increase our costs and require additional management resources. We recently have been upgrading our finance and accounting systems, procedures and controls and will need to continue to implement additional finance and accounting systems, procedures and controls as we grow our business and organization and to satisfy new reporting requirements. Compliance with Section 404 will first apply to our annual report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. If we are unable to complete the required assessment as to the adequacy of our internal controls over financial reporting or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an unqualified report as to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our internal controls over financial reporting, which could adversely affect our stock price.

Our facility is located near known earthquake fault zones, and the occurrence of an earthquake, extremist attack or other catastrophic disaster could cause damage to our facilities and equipment, which could require us to cease or curtail operations.

 

Our facility is located near known earthquake fault zones and, therefore, is vulnerable to damage from earthquakes. In October 1989, a major earthquake struck this area and caused significant property damage and a number of fatalities. We are also vulnerable to damage from other types of disasters, including power loss, attacks from extremist organizations, fire, floods and similar events. If any disaster were to occur, our ability to operate our business could be seriously impaired. In addition, the unique nature of our research activities and of much of our equipment could make it difficult for us to recover from this type of disaster. We currently may not have adequate insurance to cover our losses resulting from disasters or other similar significant business interruptions, and we do not plan to purchase additional insurance to cover such losses due to the cost of obtaining such coverage. Any significant losses that are not recoverable under our insurance policies could seriously impair our business and financial condition.

 

Risks Related to Ownership of our Common stock

 

Our stock price is volatile, and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.

 

The market prices for securities of biopharmaceutical companies in general have been highly volatile. The market price of our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

 

 

The stock markets in general, and the markets for biotechnology stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. In the past, class action litigation has often been instituted against companies whose securities have experienced periods of volatility in market price. Any such litigation brought against us could result in substantial costs, which would hurt our financial condition and

results of operations, divert management’s attention and resources, and possibly delay our clinical trials or commercialization efforts.

 

Fluctuations in our operating results could cause our stock price to decline.

 

The following factors are likely to result in fluctuations of our operating results from quarter to quarter and year to year:

 

 

Due to these fluctuations in our operating results, a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular financial period the actual or anticipated fluctuations could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors and our stock price could decline.

 

Because a small number of existing stockholders own a large percentage of our voting stock, they may be able to exercise significant influence over our affairs, acting in their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders.

 

As of March 1, 2006, our executive officers, directors and holders of 5% or more of our outstanding common stock beneficially owned approximately 42.6% of our common stock. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders. This concentration of ownership could also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in our control or otherwise discouraging a potential acquiror from attempting to obtain control of us, which in turn could reduce the price of our common stock.

 

Our stockholder rights plan and anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

 

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may delay or prevent an acquisition of us, a change in our management or other changes that stockholders may consider favorable. These provisions include:

 

 

Moreover, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us

for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

 

We have adopted a rights agreement under which certain stockholders have the right to purchase shares of a new series of preferred stock at an exercise price of $140.00 per one one-hundredth of a share, if a person acquires more than 15% of our common stock. The rights plan could make it more difficult for a person to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock. The rights plan could also reduce the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock and result in the market price being lower than it would be without the rights plan. In addition, the existence of the rights plan itself may deter a potential acquiror from acquiring us. As a result, either by operation of the rights plan or by its potential deterrent effect, mergers and acquisitions of us that our stockholders may consider in their best interests may not occur.

 

If there are substantial sales of our common stock, the market price of our common stock could drop substantially.

 

If our existing stockholders sell a large number of shares of our common stock or the public market perceives that existing stockholders might sell shares of our common stock, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly. As of March 1, 2006, we had 19,893,214 outstanding shares of common stock. Of these shares, the 5,009,569 shares of common stock sold in our initial public offering were freely tradable without restriction or further registration, unless purchased by our affiliates. The remaining 14,883,645 shares of common stock outstanding as of March 1, 2006 were eligible for sale in the public market, subject in some cases to various vesting agreements and holding periods of Rule 144 or Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, of which 3,842,874 are held by our directors and executive officers and their affiliates and will be subject to volume, manner of sale and other limitations under Rule 144 under the Securities Act and various vesting agreements.

 

We have filed a registration statement covering the shares of common stock that are authorized for issuance under our stock option plans and employee stock purchase plan that can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting agreements and Rules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act. If these additional shares are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

 

Not applicable.

 

We lease approximately 103,000 square feet of office and laboratory space in one building in Santa Clara, California where we conduct our operations. The lease expires in September 2011, although we have the option to extend the lease for two additional terms of five years each. The 2005 annual rental amount payable under this lease was approximately $3.6 million, subject to periodic increases. In May 2004, we entered into a sublease for approximately 21,000 square feet of our facility for a term of two years, although the subtenant has recently exercised its option to extend the sublease for an additional term of one year. Although our facilities are adequate for our existing needs, we may require additional space as our business expands.

 

None.

 

None.

 

Our common stock has traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “XNPT” since June 2, 2005. As of March 1, 2006, there were approximately 260 holders of record of our common stock. No cash dividends have been paid on our common stock to date, and we currently intend to utilize any earnings for development of our business and for repurchases of our common stock. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the range of high and low closing sales prices of our common stock as quoted on the Nasdaq National Market for the period since our initial public offering on June 2, 2005.

 

 

The closing price for our common stock as reported by the Nasdaq National Market on March 1, 2006 was $18.90 per share.

 

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

 

From January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, we issued and sold the following unregistered securities:

 

(1) On January 4, 2005, we granted stock options to employees, consultants and directors under our 1999 stock option plan covering an aggregate of 361,103 shares of our common stock, at a weighted-average exercise price of $6.00 per share and an aggregate price of approximately $2,166,618.

 

(2) On January 21, 2005, we granted stock options to employees, consultants and directors under our 1999 stock option plan covering an aggregate of 16,000 shares of our common stock, at a weighted-average exercise price of $7.50 per share and an aggregate price of approximately $120,000.

 

(3) In March 2005, pursuant to the exercise of a warrant, we issued 10,208 shares of our Series A convertible preferred stock, convertible into the same number of shares of our common stock, to Comdisco Ventures Fund A, LLC.

 

(4) In March 2005, pursuant to the exercise of a warrant, we issued 2,041 shares of our Series A convertible preferred stock, convertible into the same number of shares of our common stock, to CNC Holdings I LLC.

 

(5) On June 7, 2005, immediately prior to the closing of our initial public offering, we issued 71,080 shares of our Series D convertible preferred stock payable as in-kind dividends on the outstanding Series D convertible preferred stock pursuant to the terms of our Restated Certificate of Incorporation in effect prior to our initial public offering. Concurrently with the closing of our initial public offering, this Series D convertible preferred stock automatically converted into 71,080 shares of common stock.

 

The issuances described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above were deemed exempt from registration under the Securities Act in reliance on either (i) Rule 701 promulgated under the Securities Act as offers and sale of securities pursuant to certain compensatory benefit plans and contracts relating to compensation in compliance with Rule 701 or (ii) Section 4(2) of the Securities Act as transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.

 

The sales and issuances of securities in the transactions described in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) were exempt from registration pursuant to the Securities Act by virtue of Section 4(2) and/or Regulation D promulgated thereunder as transactions not involving any public offering. The purchasers of securities for which the registrant relied on Regulation D represented that they were accredited investors as defined under the Securities Act. We believe that the issuances are exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act on the basis that: (a) the purchasers of the securities represented that they were accredited investors as defined under the Securities

Act; (b) there was no general solicitation; and (c) the purchasers of the securities represented that they were purchasing such shares for their own account and not with a view towards distribution. The shares of our common stock will carry a legend stating that the shares are not registered under the Securities Act and therefore cannot be resold unless they are registered under the Securities Act or unless an exemption to registration is available.

 

Use of Proceeds from the Sale of Registered Securities

 

Our initial public offering of common stock was effected through a Registration Statement on Form S-1, as amended (File No. 333-122156), which was declared effective by the SEC on June 2, 2005 and pursuant to which we sold 5,000,000 shares of our common stock. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated acted as the sole book running and joint lead manager for the offering, Deutsche Bank Securities acted as co-lead manager for the offering, and co-managers for the offering were Pacific Growth Equities, LLC and Lazard Capital Markets. In July 2005, the underwriters partially exercised their over-allotment option and purchased an additional 9,569 shares of our common stock, and we received net cash proceeds of approximately $63,000, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses. As of December 31, 2005, of the approximately $46.3 million in net proceeds received by us in the offering, after deducting approximately $6.2 million in underwriting discounts, commissions and other costs and expenses, all of the proceeds from the offering were invested in various interest-bearing instruments.

 

No payments were made to directors, officers or persons owning ten percent or more of our common stock or to their associates, or to our affiliates, other than payments in the ordinary course of business to officers for salaries and to non-employee directors as compensation for board or board committee service.

 

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

The following table provides information relating to repurchases of our common stock in the three months ended December 31, 2005:

 

 

 

 

You should read the following selected financial data together with our audited financial statements and related notes and the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section and other financial information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

Overview

 

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing a portfolio of internally discovered product candidates that utilize the body’s natural nutrient transporter mechanisms to improve the therapeutic benefits of drugs. Our most advanced product candidate has successfully completed a Phase 2 clinical program for the treatment of restless legs syndrome, or RLS, and is currently being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical program for this indication. RLS is a common, under-diagnosed neurological disorder that frequently manifests itself as a sleep disorder. This product candidate has also successfully completed a Phase 2a clinical trial for the management of post-herpetic neuralgia, or PHN. PHN is a chronic type of neuropathic pain, which is pain resulting from nerve damage. Our second product

candidate is being evaluated in a Phase 2a clinical trial for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD. Our current portfolio of proprietary product candidates includes the following:

 

 

 

We were incorporated in May 1999 and commenced active operations in August 1999. To date, we have not generated any product revenues. We have funded our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities, non-equity payments from collaborative partners, capital lease and equipment financings and government grants. We have incurred net losses since inception and expect to incur substantial and increasing losses for the next several years as we expand our research and development activities and move our product candidates into later stages of development. We expect our research and development expenses to continue to increase as we expand our development programs, and, subject to regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses associated with the establishment of a North American specialty sales force and increased manufacturing expenses. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when we plan to establish a North American specialty sales force. As of December 31, 2005, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $140.0 million.

 

From our inception in 1999 through 2001, our principal activities were focused on identifying and characterizing natural nutrient transporter mechanisms and developing the technology necessary to utilize them for the active transport of drugs. Beginning in 2002, our activities expanded to include the preclinical and clinical development of internally discovered product candidates based on this proprietary technology. The process of carrying out the development of our product candidates to later stages of development and our research programs will require significant additional research and development expenditures, including preclinical testing and clinical trials, as well as manufacturing development efforts and seeking regulatory approval. We outsource a substantial portion of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials and manufacturing development activities to third parties to maximize efficiency and minimize our internal overhead.

 

In December 2002, we entered into a collaboration with ALZA Corporation to discover, develop and commercialize Transported Prodrugs of certain generic parent drugs that are poorly absorbed in the intestines. This collaboration ended in March of 2005. ALZA made an up-front, non-refundable cash payment upon initiation of the collaboration and provided annual research funding on a full-time equivalent employee basis. As of December 31, 2005, we had recognized an aggregate of $12.2 million of revenue pursuant to the agreement.

In November 2003, we entered into a collaboration with Pfizer Inc to develop technologies to assess the role of active transport mechanisms in delivering drugs into the central nervous system. Pfizer made an up-front payment and supported a number of full-time equivalent employees through November 2005. As of December 31, 2005, we had recognized all of the $6.5 million of revenue pursuant to the agreement. The program was exclusive during the term of the collaboration and provided Pfizer with non-exclusive rights to resulting technologies.

 

In December 2004, we issued 1,666,651 shares of our Series D convertible preferred stock, raising net proceeds of approximately $24.9 million. Holders of the Series D convertible preferred stock were entitled to receive dividends in shares of Series D convertible preferred stock at the rate of $1.35 per share per annum. We have reported the loss applicable to common stockholders after giving effect to the dividends paid. In connection with the closing of our initial public offering in June 2005, 71,080 shares of our Series D convertible preferred stock were issued as in-kind dividends payable on our Series D convertible preferred stock, and all of the outstanding shares of Series D convertible preferred stock, including the in-kind dividends, were automatically converted into 1,737,731 shares of common stock.

 

In June 2005, we issued 5,000,000 shares of our common stock, raising net proceeds of approximately $46.3 million in connection with our initial public offering. In July 2005, the underwriters partially exercised their over-allotment option and purchased an additional 9,569 shares of our common stock, for which we received net cash proceeds of approximately $63,000, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses.

 

In December 2005, we entered into an agreement in which we licensed to Astellas Pharma Inc. exclusive rights to develop and commercialize XP13512 in Japan and five other Asian countries. Under the terms of the agreement, Astellas has obtained exclusive rights to develop and commercialize XP13512 in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Taiwan. Astellas plans to initiate Phase 1 clinical trials in the middle of the this year. Under the terms of this agreement, we received an initial license payment of $25 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $60 million, including milestone payments of $10 million at the initiation and $5 million at the subsequent completion of our first Phase 3 clinical trial of XP13512 in RLS patients in the United States. We will receive royalties on any sales of XP13512 in the Astellas territory at a royalty rate in the mid-teens on a percentage basis.

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

 

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments related to revenue recognition and clinical development costs. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

 

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 1 to our financial statements, we believe the following accounting policies are critical to the process of making significant judgments and estimates in the preparation of our financial statements.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

Our collaboration agreements with Astellas, ALZA and Pfizer each contain some or all of the following elements; non-refundable, up-front license fees, research payments for ongoing research and development, payments associated with achieving development and regulatory milestones, payments under a supply agreement and royalties to be paid based on specified percentages of net product sales, if any. We consider a variety of factors in determining the appropriate method of revenue recognition under these arrangements, such as whether the elements are separable, whether there are determinable fair values and whether there is a separate earnings process associated with a particular element of an agreement.

We recognize revenue from non-refundable, up-front fees ratably over the term of our performance under the agreements. These payments are recorded as deferred revenue pending recognition. We recognize revenue related to collaborative research payments as the services are performed over the related funding periods for each agreement. Generally, the payments received are not refundable and are based on contractual cost per full-time equivalent employee working on the project. As of December 31, 2005, we had not received payments or recognized revenues for achieving development and regulatory milestones, providing supplies or earning royalties on product sales.

 

Grant revenues are recognized as research is performed. Grant revenues are not refundable.

 

Accrued Expenses

 

As part of the process of preparing financial statements, we are required to estimate accrued expenses. This process involves communicating with our applicable personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of actual cost. The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us. We periodically confirm the accuracy of our estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary. To date, we have not adjusted our estimate at any particular balance sheet date in any material amount. Examples of estimated accrued expenses include:

 

 

We base our expenses related to clinical trials on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contracts with multiple research institutions and clinical research organizations that conduct and manage clinical trials on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. Payments under some of these contracts depend on factors such as the successful enrollment of patients and the completion of clinical trial milestones. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, we will adjust the accrual accordingly. If we do not identify costs that we have begun to incur or if we underestimate or overestimate the level of services performed or the costs of these services, our actual expenses could differ from our estimates.

 

Stock-Based Compensation

 

We account for employee stock options using the intrinsic-value method in accordance with Accounting Principles Board, or APB, Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation, or FIN, No. 44, Accounting for Certain Transactions Involving Stock Compensation, an Interpretation of APB No. 25, and have adopted the disclosure-only provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, or SFAS, No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.

 

In December 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation — Transition and Disclosure.  SFAS No. 148 amends SFAS No. 123 to provide alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, SFAS No. 148 amends the disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 123 and APB Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial Reporting, to require disclosure in the summary of significant accounting policies of the effects of an entity’s accounting policy with respect to employee stock compensation on reported net loss. We have elected to continue to follow the intrinsic-value method of accounting as prescribed by APB Opinion No. 25.

 

The information regarding net loss as required by SFAS No. 123, presented in Note 1 to our financial statements, has been determined as if we had accounted for our employee stock options under the fair value method of SFAS No. 123. The resulting effect on net loss to date pursuant to SFAS No. 123 is not likely to be representative

of the effects on net loss pursuant to SFAS No. 123R in future years, since future years are likely to include additional grants and the irregular impact of future years’ vesting.

 

We account for stock compensation arrangements to non-employees in accordance with SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS No. 148, and Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF, No. 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services, using a fair value approach. The compensation costs of these arrangements are subject to remeasurement over the vesting terms as earned.

 

Stock compensation expense, which is a non-cash charge, results from stock option grants at exercise prices that, for financial reporting purposes, are deemed to be below the estimated fair value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant. During the period from January 1, 2004 through June 1, 2005, we granted options to employees and directors to purchase a total of 1,006,488 shares of common stock at exercise prices ranging from $2.70 to $10.50 per share. We did not obtain contemporaneous valuations from an unrelated valuation specialist during this period. Instead, we relied on our board of directors, the members of which have extensive experience in the biotechnology industry and a majority of which was comprised of non-employee directors, to determine a reasonable estimate of the then-current value of our common stock. Given the absence of an active market for our common stock, our board of directors determined the estimated fair value of our common stock on the date of grant based on several factors, including:

 

 

In connection with the preparation of our financial statements, we reassessed the estimated fair value of our common stock. Stock compensation expense per share equals the difference between the reassessed fair value per share of our common stock on the date of grant and the exercise price per share and is amortized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the underlying option, generally four years.

 

Based upon the reassessment discussed above, we determined that the reassessed fair value of the options to purchase shares of common stock ranged from $4.02 to $14.46 per share during the period from January 1, 2004 through June 1, 2005. In determining the reassessed fair value of the common stock as of each grant date, the factors identified above were taken into account. We also considered other material factors and business developments in reassessing fair value as of the respective option grant dates, including the following specific factors:

 

 

From inception through June 1, 2005, we recorded deferred stock compensation of $7.9 million, which is amortized over the vesting period of the options. At December 31, 2005, we had a total of $4.8 million remaining to

be amortized. The total unamortized deferred stock compensation recorded for all option grants at December 31, 2005 will be reversed upon the adoption of SFAS No. 123R on January 1, 2006.

 

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, Share-Based Payment, which is a revision of SFAS No. 123 and supersedes APB Opinion No. 25, and its related implementation guidance. SFAS No. 123R clarifies and expands SFAS No. 123’s guidance in several areas, including measuring fair value, classifying an award as equity or as a liability, and attributing compensation cost to reporting periods. Additionally, SFAS No. 123R amends FASB Statement No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows, to require that excess tax benefits be reported as a financing cash inflow rather than as reduction of taxes paid. Beginning with our first quarter of fiscal year 2006, we will be required to adopt SFAS No. 123R, and will recognize share-based compensation costs in our results of operations. We currently provide pro forma disclosures under SFAS No. 123 reflecting the effects of share-based compensation costs on our results of operations in our notes to consolidated financial statements. See Note 1, Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies — Stock-Based Compensation. Although such pro forma effects of applying SFAS No. 123 may be indicative of the effects of adopting SFAS No. 123R, the provisions of these two statements differ in some important respects. The actual effects of adopting SFAS No. 123R will be dependent on numerous factors including, but not limited to, levels of share-based payments granted in the future and the timing thereof; the valuation model chosen by us to value stock-based awards; the assumed award forfeiture rate; the accounting policies adopted concerning the method of recognizing the fair value of awards over the service period; and the transition method chosen for adopting SFAS No. 123R, which permits public companies to adopt its requirements using various methods, including the “modified prospective application method” and the “modified retrospective application method”. We plan to adopt SFAS No. 123R using the modified prospective application method and the Black-Scholes valuation model. We expect that the adoption of SFAS No. 123R will have a material impact on our results of operations subsequent to adoption.

 

Research and Development Expenses

 

Research and development expenses consist of costs associated with both partnered and unpartnered research activities, as well as costs associated with our drug discovery efforts, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, manufacturing development efforts and activities related to regulatory filings. Research and development expenses are comprised of: external research and development expenses incurred under agreements with third-party contract research organizations and investigative sites, where a substantial portion of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials are conducted, third-party manufacturing organizations, where a substantial portion of our preclinical supplies and all of our clinical supplies are produced, and consultants; employee-related expenses, which include salaries and benefits; and facilities, depreciation and other allocated expenses, which include direct and allocated expenses for rent and maintenance of facilities, depreciation of leasehold improvements and equipment, and laboratory and other supplies. We use our employee and infrastructure resources across multiple research projects, including our drug development programs. We do not allocate our employee and infrastructure costs on a project-by-project basis.

 

The following table summarizes our principal product development initiatives, including the related stages of development for each product candidate in development and the direct, third-party research and development expenses recognized in connection with each product candidate. The information in the column labeled “Estimated Completion of Current Phase” is our current estimate of the timing of completion. The actual timing of completion could differ materially from the estimates provided in the table. For a discussion of the risks and uncertainties associated with the timing of completing a product development phase, see the “If our preclinical studies do not produce successful results or our clinical trials do not demonstrate safety and efficacy in humans, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates,” “Any failure or delay in commencing or completing clinical trials for our product candidates could severely harm our business,” “We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not perform as contractually required or expected, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates” and “If third parties do not manufacture our product

candidates in sufficient quantities or at an acceptable cost, clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates would be delayed” sections of “Risk Factors.”

 

 

 

 

The largest component of our total operating expenses is our ongoing investments in our research and development activities, including the clinical development of our product candidate pipeline. While we expect that our total research and development expenses, specifically those expenses related to clinical development activities, will increase in future periods, we expect that our future expenses related to research and preclinical activities will remain relatively consistent with the amounts incurred in each of the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003. The process of conducting the clinical research necessary to obtain FDA approval is costly and time consuming. We consider the active management and development of our clinical pipeline to be crucial to our long- term success. The actual probability of success for each product candidate and clinical program may be impacted by a variety of factors, including, among others, the quality of the product candidate, early clinical data, investment in the program, competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability. Furthermore, our strategy includes entering into additional collaborations with third parties to participate in the development and commercialization of at least some of our product candidates. In situations in which third parties have control over the preclinical development or clinical trial process for a product candidate, the estimated completion date is largely under the control of that third party and not under our control. We cannot forecast with any degree of certainty which of our product candidates, if any, will be subject to future collaborations or how such arrangements would affect our development plans or capital requirements.

 

As a result of the uncertainties discussed above, we are unable to determine the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects or when and to what extent we will generate revenues from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates.

 

Results of Operations

 

Years Ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

 

Revenues

 

Revenues in 2005 resulted primarily from our research collaborations with ALZA and Pfizer. Revenues in 2004 resulted primarily from our research collaborations with ALZA and Pfizer, as well as our federal grants under the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Technology Program, or ATP, and Small Business Innovation Research, or SBIR, programs. Revenues in 2003 resulted primarily from our ALZA collaboration as well as our ATP and SBIR Phase 1/2 grants.

 

The decrease in revenues in 2005 compared to 2004 was primarily the result of the following factors:

 

 

The increase in revenues in 2004 compared to 2003 was primarily the result of a $3.7 million increase in revenues from the Pfizer collaboration due to its commencement in the fourth quarter of 2003.

 

We expect revenues to fluctuate in future years primarily resulting from the:

 

 

Research and Development Expenses

 

Of the total research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, the costs associated with research and preclinical and clinical development activities approximated the following:

 

 

The increase in research and development expenses for 2005 compared to 2004 was principally due to the following increased costs:

 

 

The increase in research and development expenses for 2004 compared to 2003 was principally due to the following increased costs:

 

 

 

We expect that research and development expenses will increase in the future due to increased manufacturing and clinical development costs primarily relating to our XP13512 and XP19986 programs. The timing and amount of these expenses will depend upon the costs associated with our recently initiated Phase 3 clinical program in RLS for XP13512 and the outcome of our ongoing Phase 2a clinical trial for XP19986, as well as the related expansion of our research and development organization, regulatory requirements, advancement of our preclinical programs and product candidate manufacturing costs.

 

General and Administrative Expenses

 

 

The increase in general and administrative expenses in 2005 compared to 2004 was primarily due to increased personnel costs of $1.4 million, including an increase in non-cash stock-based employee compensation of $1.2 million, as well as an increase in professional service costs of $1.0 million.

 

The increase in general and administrative expenses in 2004 compared to 2003 was primarily due to increased personnel costs of $0.8 million, including an increase in non-cash, stock-based employee compensation of $0.3 million, as well as increased patent legal costs of approximately $0.6 million, increased professional services costs of approximately $0.5 million and increased equipment costs of approximately $0.3 million.

 

We expect that general and administrative expenses will increase in the future due to:

 

 

Interest Income and Interest Expense

 

 

Interest income for 2005, 2004 and 2003 resulted primarily from earnings on investments. The increase in interest income in 2005 compared to 2004 was due to higher average cash and cash equivalents and short-term investment balances combined with higher average interest rates in 2005. The increase in interest income in 2004 compared to 2003 was due to higher average interest rates in 2004, partially offset by lower average cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments balances.

 

The decrease in interest expense in 2005 compared to 2004, and 2004 compared to 2003, was due to the ongoing reduction of our equipment financing and capital lease obligations.

In the following table we present selected items from our recent quarterly financial results (in thousands except per share amounts):

 

 

Financial Condition, Liquidity and Capital Resources

 

 

 

Due to our significant research and development expenditures and the lack of any approved products to generate revenue, we have not been profitable and have generated operating losses since we incorporated in 1999. As such, we have funded our research and development operations primarily through sales of our preferred stock, through our initial public offering and through non-equity payments from collaborative partners. As of December 31, 2005, we had derived aggregate net proceeds of $151.5 million from sales of our preferred stock and approximately $46.3 million from our initial public offering. We have received additional funding from non-equity payments from collaborative partners, capital lease financings, interest earned on investments and government grants, each as described more fully below. At December 31, 2005, we had available cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $91.9 million. Our cash and investment balances are held in a variety of interest-bearing instruments, including obligations of U.S. government agencies and money market accounts. Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested with regard to liquidity and capital preservation. Wherever possible, we seek to minimize the potential effects of concentration and degrees of risk.

 

Net cash used in operating activities was $14.9 million, $27.2 million and $16.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The net cash used in each of these periods primarily reflects the net loss for those periods, offset in part by the impact of non-cash depreciation and stock-based employee compensation and changes in operating assets and liabilities.

 

Net cash used in investing activities was $46.9 million, $8.9 million and $12.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Cash used in investing activities was primarily related to purchases of investments, net of proceeds from maturities of investments, and to a lesser extent, purchases of property and equipment.

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities was $47.3 million, $61.3 million and $(2.0) million in the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Net cash provided by investing activities is primarily attributable to the proceeds of the initial public offering of $46.3 million in 2005 and the sales of our preferred stock in 2004, partially offset in both 2005 and 2004 by principal payments on our equipment financings. Net cash used in financing activities of $(2.0) million in 2003 was primarily attributable to principal payments on our equipment financings.

 

We believe that our existing capital resources and committed funding, together with interest thereon, will be sufficient to meet our projected operating requirements into the second quarter of 2007. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement and involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary as a result of a number of factors, including the factors discussed in “Risk Factors.” Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development and commercialization of our product candidates, and the extent to which we enter into additional collaborations with third parties to participate in their development and commercialization, we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital outlays and operating expenditures associated with our current and anticipated clinical trials. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

 

 

If we need to raise additional money to fund our operations, funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may not be able to continue development of our product candidates or we could be required to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of our research and development programs. We may seek to raise any necessary additional funds through equity or debt financings, additional collaborations or other sources. To the extent that we raise additional capital through licensing arrangements or additional arrangements with collaborators, we may be required to relinquish, on terms that are not favorable to us, rights to some of our technologies or product candidates that we would otherwise seek to develop or commercialize ourselves. To the extent that we raise additional capital through equity financings, dilution to our stockholders would result.

Contractual Obligations

 

Our future contractual obligations at December 31, 2005 were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve our capital to fund operations. We also seek to maximize income from our investments without assuming significant risk. To achieve our objectives, we maintain a portfolio of cash equivalents and investments in a variety of securities of high credit quality. As of December 31, 2005, we had cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $91.9 million consisting of cash and highly liquid investments deposited in a highly rated financial institution in the United States. A portion of our investments may be subject to interest rate risk and could fall in value if market interest rates increase. However, because our investments are short-term in duration, we believe that our exposure to interest rate risk is not significant, and a 1% movement in market interest rates would not have a significant impact on the total value of our portfolio. We actively monitor changes in interest rates.

 

We contract for the conduct of certain manufacturing activities with a contract manufacturer in Europe. We made payments in the aggregate amount of approximately $5.6 million, $0.7 million and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively, to this European contract manufacturer. We may be subject to exposure to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates in connection with these agreements. To date, the effect of the exposure to these fluctuations in foreign exchange rates has not been material, and we do not expect it to be material in the foreseeable future. We do not hedge our foreign currency exposures. We have not used derivative financial instruments for speculation or trading purposes.

 

The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the financial statements and schedule listed in Item 15 (1) and (2) of Part IV of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

None.

 

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

 

Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act) required by Rules 13a-15(b) or 15d-15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded that as of the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file with the SEC is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.

 

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

 

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting.

 

There were no significant changes in our internal controls over financial reporting during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls.

 

Our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all errors and all fraud. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the company have been detected.

 

None.

 

Certain information required by Part III is omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K since we intend to file our definitive proxy statement for our 2006 annual meeting of stockholders, pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act, not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and certain information to be included in the proxy statement is incorporated herein by reference.

 

The information required by this item with respect to our executive officers may be found under the caption, “Executive Officers of the Registrant” in Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The information required by this item relating to our directors and nominees, including information with respect to audit committee financial experts, may be found under the section entitled “Proposal 1 — Election of Directors” appearing in the proxy statement for our 2006 annual meeting of stockholders. Such information is incorporated herein by reference. Information regarding compliance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act may be found under the section entitled “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” appearing in our proxy statement for our 2006 annual meeting of stockholders. Such information is incorporated herein by reference.

 

In 2005, we adopted a code of ethics that applies to our employees, officers and directors and incorporates guidelines designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote the honest and ethical conduct and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, the code of ethics incorporates our guidelines pertaining to topics such as conflicts of interest and workplace behavior. We have posted the text of our code of ethics on our website at www.xenoport.com in connection with “Investor Relations/Corporate Governance” materials. In addition, we intend to promptly disclose (1) the nature of any amendment to our code of ethics that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions and (2) the nature of any waiver, including an implicit waiver, from a provision of our code of ethics that is granted to one of these specified officers, the name of such person who is granted the waiver and the date of the waiver on our website in the future.

 

The information required by this item is included in our proxy statement for our 2006 annual meeting of stockholders under the section entitled “Executive Compensation” and is incorporated herein by reference.

 

Equity Compensation Plan Information

 

The following table provides certain information regarding our equity compensation plans in effect as of December 31, 2005: