INSITE VISION INC - FORM 10-Q

Attached files

Attached files

Stock widget

Investing forum

INSITE VISION INC Reports

Also read

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

file	filename
EXCEL - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - INSITE VISION INC	Financial_Report.xls
EX-32.2 - SECTION 906 CFO CERTIFICATION - INSITE VISION INC	d320636dex322.htm
EX-32.1 - SECTION 906 CEO CERTIFICATION - INSITE VISION INC	d320636dex321.htm
EX-31.2 - SECTION 302 CFO CERTIFICATION - INSITE VISION INC	d320636dex312.htm
EX-31.1 - SECTION 302 CEO CERTIFICATION - INSITE VISION INC	d320636dex311.htm

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

March 31, 2012 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission file number 0-22332

INSITE VISION INCORPORATED

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Delaware		94-3015807
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(IRS Employer Identification No.)

965 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, California		94501
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

(510) 865-8800

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Sections 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 x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

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

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

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


Class		Outstanding as of May 2, 2012
Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share		131,951,033 shares

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS


		Page
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.	Financial Statements

	Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2012 (unaudited) and December 31, 2011		1

	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)		2

	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)		3

	Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)		4

Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		11

Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		15

Item 4.	Controls and Procedures		15

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings		16

Item 1A.	Risk Factors		16

Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds		30

Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities		30

Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures		30

Item 5.	Other Information		30

Item 6.	Exhibits		30

Signatures			31

PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

InSite Vision Incorporated

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets


(in thousands, except share data)	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
	(UNAUDITED)			(1)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	2,788		$	1,900
Short-term investments		19,492			24,495
Accounts receivable		2,154			2,564
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		194			12

Total current assets		24,628			28,971
Property and equipment, net		325			345
Debt issuance costs, net		2,981			3,085

Total assets	$	27,934		$	32,401

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	1,449		$	703
Accrued liabilities		946			411
Accrued compensation and related expense		453			978
Accrued royalties		962			964
Accrued interest		1,604			1,171
Non-recourse secured notes payable, current		6,710			6,286
Warrant liability		3,136			4,155

Total current liabilities		15,260			14,668
Non-recourse secured notes payable		51,848			52,272

Total liabilities		67,108			66,940

Commitments and contingencies
Stockholders’ deficit:
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 5,000,000 shares authorized, none issued and outstanding		—			—
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 240,000,000 shares authorized; 131,951,033 shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011		1,320			1,320
Additional paid-in capital		163,880			163,668
Accumulated deficit		(204,374	)		(199,527	)

Total stockholders’ deficit		(39,174	)		(34,539	)

Total liabilities and stockholders’ deficit	$	27,934		$	32,401

(1)

Derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2011.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

InSite Vision Incorporated

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Unaudited)


	Three months ended March 31,
(in thousands, except per share data)	2012			2011
Revenues:
Royalties	$	2,273		$	2,916
Other product and service revenues		—			194

Total revenues		2,273			3,110

Expenses:
Research and development		4,017			1,166
General and administrative		1,403			1,243
Cost of revenues, principally royalties to third parties		265			577

Total expenses		5,685			2,986

Income (loss) from operations		(3,412	)		124
Interest expense and other, net		(2,454	)		(2,564	)
Change in fair value of warrant liability		1,019			—

Net loss	$	(4,847	)	$	(2,440	)

Net loss per share:
Loss per share - basic	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.03	)

Loss per share - diluted	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.03	)

Weighted average shares used in per-share calculation:
- Basic		131,951			94,823

- Diluted		131,951			94,823

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

InSite Vision Incorporated

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)


	Three months ended March 31,
(in thousands)	2012			2011
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net loss	$	(4,847	)	$	(2,440	)
Adjustment to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		26			15
Amortization of debt issuance costs		104			104
Stock-based compensation		212			134
Change in fair value of warrant liability		(1,019	)		—
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable		410			529
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(182	)		(384	)
Accounts payable		746			252
Accrued liabilities		535			(232	)
Accrued compensation and related expense		(525	)		(299	)
Accrued royalties		(2	)		(14	)
Accrued interest		433			(377	)

Net cash used in operating activities		(4,109	)		(2,712	)

INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Purchase of property and equipment		(6	)		(6	)
Decrease (increase) in short-term investments		5,003			(3,000	)

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		4,997			(3,006	)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		888			(5,718	)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		1,900			11,469

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	2,788		$	5,751

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Interest received	$	2		$	5

Interest paid	$	1,918		$	2,842

Income taxes	$	1		$	1

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

InSite Vision Incorporated

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

March 31, 2012

(Unaudited)

Note 1. Significant Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of InSite Vision Incorporated (“InSite” or the “Company”) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any future period.

The Company operates in one segment using one measure of profitability to manage its business. All of the Company’s long-lived assets are located in the United States. Revenues are primarily royalties from the North American license (the “Merck License Agreement”) of AzaSite to Merck & Co. (“Merck”). For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, the Company received $15 million in minimum royalties from Merck. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012, the Company will receive $17 million in minimum royalties from Merck.

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and notes should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Short-Term Investments

The Company’s investment policy is to limit the risk of principal loss of invested funds by generally attempting to limit market risk. Accordingly, as of March 31, 2012, the Company’s short-term investments of $19.5 million are currently invested in U.S. Treasury securities with original maturities of twelve months or less. They are classified as trading securities principally bought and held for the purpose of selling them in the near term with unrealized gains and losses included in earnings. As of March 31, 2012, the unrealized gain (loss) on these short-term investments was insignificant.

Warrant Liability

On July 18, 2011, the Company issued warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock in connection with a private placement financing transaction. The Company accounted for these warrants as a liability measured at fair value due to a provision included in the warrant agreements that provide the warrant holders with an option to require the Company (or its successor) to purchase their warrants for cash in the event of a “Fundamental Transaction” (as defined in the warrant agreements). The actual amount of cash required if the option is exercised would be determined using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model (the “Black-Scholes Model”) as determined in accordance with the terms of the warrant agreements. The fair value of the warrant liability is estimated using the Black-Scholes Model which requires inputs such as the remaining term of the warrants, share price volatility and risk-free interest rate. These assumptions are reviewed on a monthly basis and changes in the estimated fair value of the outstanding warrants are recognized each reporting period in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations under “Change in fair value of warrant liability.”

Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is the price that would be received from selling an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Fair value is estimated by applying the following hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value into three levels and bases the categorization within the hierarchy upon the lowest level of input that is available and significant to the fair value measurement:


Level 1:		Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2:		Observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in inactive markets, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3:		Inputs that are generally unobservable and typically reflect management’s estimate of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.

At March 31, 2012, $22.0 million of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments consisted of Level 1 U.S. Treasury-backed money market funds that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis.

The Company’s financial instruments consist mainly of cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, accounts receivable, accounts payable, accrued liabilities and debt obligations. Accounts receivable and accounts payable are reflected in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements at cost, which approximates fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. While the Company believes its valuation methodologies are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.

The Company has debt in the form of non-recourse, secured notes payable with a fixed interest rate, which constitute $58.6 million of Level 2 borrowings outstanding at March 31, 2012, measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, with an interest rate of 16%. At March 31, 2012, the Company’s debt was reflected in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements at face value. Due to a decline and uncertainty of AzaSite royalty revenues, it is reasonably possible that the fair value of the debt has declined. The decline in value of debt is not reasonably determinable at this time.

As discussed above, the fair value of the warrant liability (Level 3) was initially recorded on the grant date and remeasured at March 31, 2012 using the Black-Scholes Model, which requires inputs such as the remaining term of the warrants, share price volatility and risk-free interest rate. These inputs are subjective and generally require significant analysis and judgment to develop.

The fair value of the warrant liability was estimated using the following assumptions, as determined in accordance with the terms of the warrant agreements, at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:


	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
Risk-free interest rate		1.0	%		0.8	%
Remaining term (years)		4.3			4.5
Expected dividends		0.0	%		0.0	%
Volatility		100.0	%		100.0	%

The following table provides a summary of changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial liabilities for the three months ended March 31, 2012 (in thousands):


Balance at December 31, 2011	$	4,155
Net decrease in fair value of warrant liability on remeasurment		(1,019	)

Balance at March 31, 2012	$	3,136

The net decrease in the estimated fair value of the warrant liability was recognized as income under “Change in fair value of warrant liability” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The warrant liability’s exposure to market risk will vary over time depending on interest rates and the Company’s stock price. Although the table above reflects the current estimated fair value of the warrant liability, it does not reflect the gains or losses associated with market exposures which will depend on actual market conditions during the remaining life of the warrants.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-04 (“ASU 2011-04”), Fair Value Measurement - Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The amendments in this update will ensure that fair value has the same meaning in U.S. GAAP and in IFRS and that their respective fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are the same. This update is effective prospectively for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company adopted ASU 2011-04 effective January 1, 2012. The adoption of this amendment did not materially impact the Company’s consolidated statement of financial position or results of operations.

Note 2. Stock-Based Compensation

Equity Incentive Program

In 2007, the Company’s stockholders approved the Company’s 2007 Performance Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”), that provides for grants of options and other equity-based awards to the Company’s employees, directors and consultants. Options granted under this plan, and its predecessor plan, expire 10 years after the date of grant and become exercisable at such times and under such conditions as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors

(generally, with 25% vesting after one year and the balance vesting on a daily basis over the next three years of service). Upon termination of the optionee’s service, unvested options terminate and vested options generally expire three months thereafter, if not exercised. Only nonqualified stock options have been granted under these plans to date. On January 1 of each calendar year during the term of the 2007 Plan, the shares of common stock available for issuance under the 2007 Plan will be increased by the lesser of (i) 2% of the total outstanding shares of common stock on December 31 of the preceding calendar year and (ii) 3,000,000 shares.

Stock-based Compensation

The Company’s stock-based compensation cost is measured at the grant date, based on the fair value of the award, and is recognized as expense over the requisite service period.

The effect of recording stock-based compensation for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was as follows (in thousands):


	Three months ended March 31,
	2012		2011
Stock-based compensation expense by type of award:
Employee stock options	$	195	$	134
Non-employee stock options		17	$	—

Total stock-based compensation	$	212	$	134

Stock-based compensation included in expense line items in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was as follows (in thousands):


	Three months ended March 31,
	2012		2011
Research and development	$	62	$	32
General and administrative		150		102

	$	212	$	134

During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company granted options to purchase 2,010,000 and 1,537,500 shares of common stock, respectively, with an estimated total grant date fair value of $693,000 and $408,000, respectively. Based on the Company’s historical experience of option pre-vesting cancellations and estimates of future forfeiture rates, the Company has assumed an annualized forfeiture rate of 10% for its options for all periods disclosed. Accordingly, for the quarters ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company estimated that the stock-based compensation for the awards not expected to vest was $337,000 and $307,000, respectively.

As of March 31, 2012, unrecorded deferred stock-based compensation balance related to stock options was $1.7 million and will be recognized over an estimated weighted-average amortization period of 2.6 years.

Valuation assumptions

The Company estimates the fair value of stock options using a Black-Scholes valuation model using the graded-vesting method with the following weighted-average assumptions:


	Three months ended March 31,
Stock Options	2012			2011
Risk-free interest rate		0.8	%		2.0	%
Expected term (years)		5			5
Expected dividends		0.0	%		0.0	%
Volatility		90.6	%		89.1	%

The expected dividend yield is set at zero because the Company has never paid cash dividends and has no present intention to pay cash dividends. Expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of the Company’s common stock and the expected moderation in future volatility over the period commensurate with the expected life of the options and other factors. The risk-free interest rates are taken from the Daily Federal Yield Curve Rates as of the grant dates as published by the Federal Reserve and represent the yields on actively traded U.S. Treasury securities for terms equal to the expected term of the options. The expected term calculation is based on the terms utilized by the Company’s peers, observed historical option exercise behavior and post-vesting forfeitures of options by the Company’s employees.

The following is a summary of activity for the indicated periods:


	Number of shares			Weighted- Average Exercise Price		Weighted-Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value (in thousands)
Outstanding at December 31, 2011		11,003,963		$	0.41
Granted		2,010,000			0.50
Exercised		—			0.00
Forfeited		—			0.00
Expired		(180,000	)		0.40

Outstanding at March 31, 2012		12,833,963		$	0.42		8.29	$	274

Options vested and expected to vest at March 31, 2012		12,040,884		$	0.42		8.22	$	272
Options exercisable at March 31, 2012		5,355,064		$	0.42		7.24	$	202

At March 31, 2012, the Company had 6,146,355 shares of common stock available for grant or issuance under its 2007 Plan. The weighted average grant date fair value of options granted during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was $0.34 and $0.27 per share, respectively. No options were exercised during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.

The following table details the Company’s nonvested option activity for the period ended March 31, 2012:


	Number of shares			Weighted-Average Grant-Date Fair Value
Outstanding at December 31, 2011		6,285,949		$	0.27
Granted		2,010,000			0.34
Vested		(817,050	)		0.24
Forfeited		—			0.00

Outstanding at March 31, 2012		7,478,899		$	0.29

Note 3. Net Loss per Share

Basic net loss per share has been computed using the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Dilutive net loss per share is computed using the sum of the weighted average number of common shares outstanding and the potential number of dilutive common shares outstanding during the period. Potential common shares consist of the shares issuable upon exercise of stock options and warrants. Potentially dilutive securities have been excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share in 2012 and 2011 as their inclusion would be antidilutive. For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, 27,625,339 and 11,410,978 options and warrants, respectively, were excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per share because the effect was anti-dilutive.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share:


	Three months ended March 31,
( in thousands, except per share data)	2012			2011
Numerator:
Net loss	$	(4,847	)	$	(2,440	)

Denominator:
Weighted-average shares outstanding		131,951			94,823
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options		—			—

Weighted-average shares outstanding for diluted loss per share		131,951			94,823

Net loss per share:
Basic	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.03	)

Diluted	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.03	)

Note 4. Warrant Liability

On July 18, 2011, the Company completed a private placement financing transaction in which it sold shares of its common stock and warrants to purchase shares of its common stock. The Company sold a total of 36,978,440 shares of common stock, at a price of $0.60 per share, and issued warrants to purchase up to 14,791,376 shares of common stock. The warrants are exercisable at $0.75 per share and expire five years from the date of issuance. Piper Jaffray & Co. served as the exclusive placement agent for this transaction which resulted in $22.2 million in gross proceeds and approximately $20.4 million in net proceeds to the Company after deducting placement agent fees, legal, accounting and other costs associated with the transaction. The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the transaction to fund clinical trials and for general corporate purposes, including working capital.

As discussed in Note 1, the warrants issued in July 2011 include a provision that provides the warrant holders with an option to require the Company (or its successor) to purchase the warrants for cash in an amount equal to the Black-Scholes value in the event of a “Fundamental Transaction” (as defined in the warrant agreements). Accordingly, the fair value of the warrants at the issuance date was estimated using the Black-Scholes Model, as determined in accordance with the terms of the warrant agreements, and the Company recorded a warrant liability of $6.4 million in July 2011 and remeasured to $4.2 million at December 31, 2011. The Company remeasured the warrant liability to $3.1 million at March 31, 2012 and recorded a decrease to the warrant liability of approximately $1.0 million, which was recognized as income in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2012. Additional disclosures regarding assumptions used in calculating the fair value of the warrant liability are included in Note 1.

Note 5. Common Stock Warrants

The following table shows outstanding warrants as of March 31, 2012, all of which were issued in the July 2011 private placement financing transaction. All of the outstanding warrants have cashless exercise provisions in the event the registration statement registering the resale of the shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the warrants is not effective or the prospectus forming a part of the registration statement is not current. All warrants are exercisable for common stock.


Date Issued	Warrant Shares		Exercise Price		Expiration Date		Potential Proceeds if Exercised for Cash
July 18, 2011		14,791,376	$	0.75		July 18, 2016	$	11,093,532

Note 6. Subsequent Events

The Company evaluated subsequent events through the date on which the financial statements were issued and determined that there were no other subsequent events that required adjustments or disclosures to the financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The discussion in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws that involve risks and uncertainties, such as statements of our plans, objectives, expectations and intentions. The cautionary statements made in this document should be read as applicable to all related forward-looking statements wherever they appear in this document. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed herein. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those discussed below in “Risk Factors,” as well as elsewhere herein. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence or identification of unanticipated events.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Overview

We are an ophthalmic product development company advancing ophthalmic pharmaceutical products to address unmet eye care needs. Our current portfolio of products is based on our proprietary DuraSite^® sustained drug delivery technology.

Our DuraSite sustained drug delivery technology is a proven synthetic polymer-based formulation designed to extend the residence time of a drug relative to conventional topical therapies. It enables topical delivery of a drug as a solution, gel or suspension and can be customized for delivering a wide variety of drug candidates. We have focused our research and development and commercial support efforts on the following topical products formulated with our DuraSite drug delivery technology. We may also utilize our DuraSite technology platform for the formulation of new ocular product candidates using either non-proprietary drugs or compounds originally developed by others for non-ophthalmic indications.

•

AzaSite^® (azithromycin ophthalmic solution) 1% is a DuraSite formulation of azithromycin, a broad spectrum ocular antibiotic approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2007 to treat bacterial conjunctivitis (pink eye). It was commercialized in the United States by Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Inspire) beginning in August 2007. The key advantages of AzaSite are a significantly reduced dosing regimen leading to better compliance and outcome, with a broad spectrum antibiotic, and a lowered probability of bacterial resistance based on high tissue concentration. On May 16, 2011, Merck & Co. (Merck) acquired Inspire and Inspire became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck. Merck is now responsible for commercializing AzaSite in North America. We receive a 25% royalty on net sales of AzaSite in North America.

•

Besivance^® (besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension) 0.6% is a DuraSite formulation of besifloxacin, a broad spectrum ocular antibiotic approved by the FDA in May 2009 to treat bacterial conjunctivitis (pink eye). An advantage of Besivance is a faster rate of resolution of the infection that may reduce the duration of the illness and reduce the chances of infecting others. Besivance was developed by Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (Bausch & Lomb) and launched in the United States in the second half of 2009. In 2011, Besivance was launched internationally in select countries. We receive a middle single-digit royalty on net sales of Besivance globally.

•

AzaSite Plus^TM (ISV-502) is a fixed combination of azithromycin and dexamethasone in DuraSite for the treatment of ocular inflammation and infection (blepharitis and/or blepharoconjunctivitis) for which there is no FDA approved indicated treatment. We completed a Phase 3 trial in November 2008 and AzaSite Plus was very well tolerated. Although efficacious, the trial did not achieve its primary clinical endpoint as defined by the previous protocol. We discussed the results of this trial with the FDA and determined a new development plan for this product candidate. In May 2011, we reached an agreement with the FDA on a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) for the design of a Phase 3 clinical trial of AzaSite Plus in patients with

blepharitis. An SPA is a written agreement with the FDA that the study design and planned analysis of the sponsor’s Phase 3 clinical trial adequately addresses the objectives necessary to support a regulatory submission. We initiated a new Phase 3 clinical trial for this product candidate in the fourth quarter of 2011.

•

DexaSite^TM (ISV-305) is a DuraSite formulation of dexamethasone in development for the treatment of ocular inflammation. We have met with the FDA to discuss the development pathway for this product candidate. DexaSite is included in the Phase 3 clinical trial SPA for AzaSite Plus. Accordingly, we initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial for this product candidate in the fourth quarter of 2011.

•

BromSite^TM (ISV-303) is a DuraSite formulation of bromfenac in development for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and eye pain. We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for this product candidate in August 2010 and completed patient enrollment in December 2010. In the first quarter of 2011, we received positive top-line results from this study, which demonstrated the efficacy and safety of BromSite. In the third quarter of 2011, we completed an additional Phase 2 clinical trial to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of BromSite in humans. We received positive top-line results that showed that the mean concentration of bromfenac in the aqueous humor of patients using BromSite was more than double compared to the currently available bromfenac eye product. We have discussed the design of the Phase 3 clinical trial with the FDA. We plan to start a Phase 3 clinical trial for this product candidate in mid-2012.

•

ISV-101 is a DuraSite formulation with a low concentration of bromfenac for the treatment of dry eye disease. We filed an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) with the FDA for this product candidate in the first quarter of 2011. We anticipate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for this product candidate, but no time period has been set.

Business Strategy.

Our business strategy consists of the following:

Develop our pipeline of ocular product candidates. We seek to identify new product candidates from proven drugs that can be improved by formulation in DuraSite, which substantially reduces the clinical risk in these product candidates. We plan to conduct preclinical and clinical testing of our portfolio product candidates.

Monetize our product candidates. At the appropriate time, we seek to partner with larger pharmaceutical companies to possibly complete the clinical development of, and to manufacture and market, these products. Partnering agreements generally include upfront and milestone payments, as well as on-going royalty payments upon commercialization, payable to us.

Major Developments

As of March 2012, we had 361 patients enrolled in the AzaSite Plus/DexaSite Phase 3 clinical trial.

Results of Operations

Revenues.

Total revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 were $2.3 million and $3.1 million, respectively. Revenues in the first quarter of 2012 primarily consisted of $1.9 million of royalties from net sales of AzaSite by Merck compared to $2.7 million in the first quarter of 2011. This decrease was driven by a 30% decrease in AzaSite net sales. Revenues in the first quarter of 2012 also included $0.4 million of royalties from net sales of Besivance by Bausch & Lomb compared to $0.2 million in the first quarter of 2011. Revenues in the first quarter of 2011 also included $0.2 million from the sale of azithromycin to Merck under a supply agreement (the “Supply Agreement”).

Research and development expenses.

Our research and development (R&D) expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 were:

R&D Cost by Program

(in millions)


	Three months ended March 31,
Program	2012		2011
AzaSite Plus/DexaSite	$	2.1	$	0.1
BromSite		0.4		0.1
New products and other		0.1		0.2
Programs - non-specific		1.4		0.8

Total	$	4.0	$	1.2

For the three months ended March 31, 2012, our AzaSite Plus/DexaSite program expenses primarily related to costs for our Phase 3 clinical trial. As of March 31, 2012, we have 361 patients enrolled. Our BromSite program expenses primarily related to the costs to prepare for a Phase 3 clinical trial. Non-specific program costs, which comprised of facility, internal personnel and stock-based compensation costs that are not allocated to a specific development program, increased primarily due to an increase in headcount as a direct result of the Phase 3 clinical trials for AzaSite Plus/DexaSite and BromSite. In addition, we continue to develop new product candidates.

For the three months ended March 31, 2011, program expenses primarily consisted of non-specific program costs which comprised facility, internal personnel and stock-based compensation costs that are not allocated to a specific development program. Our AzaSite Plus/DexaSite program expenses primarily related to costs to prepare for a new Phase 3 clinical trial. Our BromSite program expenses primarily related to the Phase 1/2 clinical trial that was initiated in August 2010.

General and administrative expenses.

General and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 were $1.4 million and $1.2 million, respectively. In 2012, we incurred higher personnel-related costs due to an increase in headcount.

Cost of revenues.

Cost of revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 were $0.3 million and $0.6 million, respectively. Cost of revenues were primarily comprised of royalties accrued for third parties, including Pfizer. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, cost of revenues also included $0.2 million for the cost of the azithromycin supplied to Merck under the Supply Agreement.

Interest expense and other, net.

Interest expense and other, net, for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was an expense of $2.5 million and $2.6 million, respectively. The expense is primarily related to interest on our secured notes payable.

Change in fair value of warrant liability.

Change in fair value of warrant liability was income of $1.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012. The income resulted from a decrease in the fair value of our warrant liability that was previously valued as of December 31, 2011 and revalued as of March 31, 2012. The decrease in fair value was primarily driven by a decrease in our stock price.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

In recent years, we have financed our operations primarily through private placements, debt financings and payments from corporate collaborations. At March 31, 2012, our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments were $2.8 million and $19.5 million, respectively. It is our policy to invest our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments in highly liquid securities, such as interest-bearing money market funds, treasury and federal agency notes. The current uncertain credit markets may affect the liquidity of such money market funds or other cash investments.

Net cash used in operating activities was $4.1 million and $2.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The increase primarily resulted from costs incurred in our AzaSite/DexaSite Phase 3 clinical trial.

Net cash provided by investing activities was $5.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012. Net cash used in investing activities was $3.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011. In 2012, we converted short-term investments to cash and cash equivalents.

For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, we undertook no financing activities.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-04 (“ASU 2011-04”), Fair Value Measurement - Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The amendments in this update will ensure that fair value has the same meaning in U.S. GAAP and in IFRS and that their respective fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are the same. This update is effective prospectively for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We adopted ASU 2011-04 effective January 1, 2012. The adoption of this amendment did not materially impact our consolidated statement of financial position or results of operations.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

We have debt in the form of non-recourse, secured notes payable with fixed interest rates. As a result, our exposure to market risk caused by fluctuations in interest rates is minimal. We had $58.6 million in borrowings outstanding as of March 31, 2012, with a fixed interest rate of 16%. If the market interest rates increase by 10% from the March 31, 2012 levels, it would not result in an increase in interest expense. As of March 31, 2012, the face value of our debt was estimated to be approximately the fair value based on current market rates.

The securities in our investment portfolio are not leveraged and are subject to minimal interest rate risk. Due to their original maturities of twelve months or less, the securities are classified as cash and cash equivalents or short-term investments. They are classified as trading securities principally bought and held for the purpose of selling them in the near term, with unrealized gains and losses included in earnings. Because of the short-term maturities of our investments, we do not believe that a change in market rates would have a significant negative impact on the value of our investment portfolio. While a hypothetical decrease in market interest rates by 10% from the March 31, 2012 levels would cause a decrease in interest income, it would not likely result in loss of principal.

The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive from our investments without significantly increasing risk. To achieve this objective in the current economic environment, we maintain our portfolio in cash equivalents or short-term investments, including obligations of U.S. government-sponsored enterprises and money market funds. These securities are classified as cash and cash equivalents or short-term investments and consequently are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value. We do not utilize derivative financial instruments to manage our interest rate risks.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures. Our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, Timothy Ruane and Louis Drapeau, respectively, reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-Q (the Evaluation Date). Based on that evaluation, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Drapeau concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the Evaluation Date in providing them with material information relating to us in a timely manner, as required to be disclosed in the reports we file under the Exchange Act.

(b) Changes in internal control over financial reporting. There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the first quarter of 2012 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Part II OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

We are subject to various claims and legal actions during the ordinary course of our business. On November 30, 2009, a patent interference was declared before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on certain U.S. patents covering AzaSite. Regents of the University of California, or University, assert that the inventions contained in these patents were made by a former employee of the University alone, and without collaboration with us. They are asserting that they own those inventions, and that they are entitled to an award of priority of invention and a judgment that the inventions are not patentable to us. On November 25, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office , or USPTO, entered judgment against the University. On December 23, 2011, the University filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and on January 4, 2012, we filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal. We continue to believe the University’s assertions are without merit and we will continue to vigorously defend our position.

We received the Notice Letter that Sandoz, Inc. or Sandoz, has filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA seeking marketing approval for a 1% azithromycin ophthalmic solution, or Sandoz Product, prior to the expiration of the five U.S. patents listed in the Orange Books for AzaSite, which include four of our patents and one patent licensed to us by Pfizer. In the paragraph IV Certification accompanying the Sandoz ANDA filing, Sandoz alleges that the claims of the Orange Book listed patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the Sandoz Product. On May 26, 2011, we, Merck and Pfizer filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sandoz and related entities. The plaintiff companies have agreed that Merck will take the lead in prosecuting this lawsuit. The filing of this lawsuit triggered an automatic stay, or bar, of the FDA’s approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months or until a final district court decision of the infringement lawsuit, whichever comes first. We and the other plaintiffs intend to vigorously enforce our patent rights relating to AzaSite and vigorously contest any Sandoz assertions that these patents are invalid or unenforceable.

There are currently no other claims or legal actions that would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, operations or potential performance.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The following description of the risk factors associated with our business includes any material changes to and supersedes the description of the risk factors associated with our business previously disclosed in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

It is difficult to evaluate our business because we are in an early stage of commercializing our products, our technology is untested and successful development of pharmaceutical products is highly uncertain and requires significant expenditures and time

We are in the early stages of commercializing our products. AzaSite received regulatory approval in the U.S. in April 2007 and commercial sales of AzaSite began in the third quarter of 2007. Besivance received regulatory approval in May 2009 and commercial sales of Besivance began in the second half of 2009. We must receive approval in other countries prior to marketing AzaSite in such countries. Before regulatory authorities grant us marketing approval for additional products, we need to conduct significant additional research and development and preclinical and clinical testing and submit a New Drug Application (NDA). Successful development of pharmaceutical products is highly uncertain. Products that appear promising in research or development, may be delayed or fail to reach later stages of development or the market for several reasons, including:

•

preclinical tests may show the product to be toxic or lack efficacy in animal models;

•

failure to receive the necessary U.S. and international regulatory approvals or a delay in receiving such approvals due to, among other things, slow enrollment in clinical studies, failure to achieve study endpoints within the time period prescribed by the study, or at all, additional time requirements for data analysis or Biological License Application or NDA preparation, discussions with the FDA, FDA requests for additional preclinical or clinical data, analyses or changes to study design; or safety, efficacy or manufacturing issues;

•

clinical trial results may show the product to be less effective than desired or to have harmful or problematic side effects;

•

difficulties in formulating the product, scaling the manufacturing process, or getting approval for manufacturing;

•

even if safe and effective, manufacturing costs, pricing, reimbursement issues or other factors may make the product uneconomical;

•

proprietary rights of others and their competing products and technologies may prevent the product from being developed or commercialized; or

•

inability to compete with superior, equivalent, more cost-effective or more effectively promoted products offered by competitors.

Therefore, our research and development activities may not result in any commercially viable products.

We have a history of operating losses and we expect to continue to have losses in the future

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception in 1986 and have pursued numerous drug development candidates that failed to achieve clinical end points or did not prove to have commercial potential. We expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future or until we are able to achieve significant royalties or other revenues from sales of our products. Attaining significant revenue or profitability depends upon our ability, alone or with third parties, to develop our potential products successfully, conduct clinical trials, obtain required regulatory approvals and manufacture and market our products successfully. We may not ever achieve or be able to maintain significant revenue or profitability, including with respect to AzaSite, our lead product which has not yet been commercially launched outside the United States.

Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design, enroll and implement and there can never be any assurance that the results of such clinical trials will be favorable

Human clinical trials for our product candidates are very expensive and difficult to design, enroll and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. The clinical trial process is also time-consuming. We may experience difficulties or delays in enrolling our clinical trials, which can delay the trials and our ability to obtain ultimate approval of our product candidates. In addition, we require various clinical materials to conduct our clinical trials and any unavailability or delay in our ability to obtain these materials may delay our trials, cause them to be more expensive or preclude us from completing these trials, which would harm our ability to obtain approval for our product candidates and therefore harm our business. We estimate that any particular clinical trial may take over a year to complete and will be very expensive. Furthermore, we could encounter problems that might cause us to abandon or repeat clinical trials resulting in additional expense, further delays and potentially preventing the completion of such trials. The commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed or terminated due to several factors, including, among others:

•

unforeseen safety issues;

•

lack of effectiveness during clinical trials;

•

difficulty in determining dosing and trial protocols;

•

slower than expected rates of patient recruitment;

•

difficulties in obtaining clinical materials or participants necessary for the conduct of our clinical trials;

•

inability to monitor patients adequately during or after treatment; and

•

inability or unwillingness of clinical investigators to follow our clinical protocols.

In addition, we or the FDA may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks or if the FDA finds deficiencies in our submissions or the conduct of these trials. In any such case, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, in which case we would not obtain any benefit from our substantial investment in developing the product and conducting clinical trials for such products.

The results of our clinical trials may not support our product candidate claims

Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that the results will support our product candidate claims. Even if pre-clinical testing and early clinical trials for a product candidate are successful, this does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful and we cannot be sure that the results of later clinical trials will replicate the results of prior clinical trials and pre-clinical testing, meet our expectations or satisfy the FDA or other regulatory bodies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe for humans or effective for indicated uses. In addition, our clinical trials involve relatively small patient populations. Because of the small sample size, the results of these clinical trials may not be indicative of future results. Any such failure would likely cause us to abandon the product candidate and may delay development of other product candidates. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials will delay or preclude the filing of our NDAs with the FDA and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate product revenues.

For example, results from our Phase 3 clinical trial of AzaSite Plus for the treatment of blepharoconjunctivitis showed improved clinical outcomes as compared to treatment with a corticosteroid alone or antibiotic alone in the reduction of inflammatory signs and symptoms and bacterial eradication, respectively. In addition, AzaSite Plus was very well tolerated. However, the trial did not achieve its primary clinical endpoint as defined by the protocol. We discussed the results of this trial with the FDA and determined a development plan for AzaSite Plus. We cannot assure you that any additional clinical trials for AzaSite Plus will meet the prescribed clinical endpoint as defined in the protocol for that study or that we will ultimately achieve FDA approval for the commercialization of AzaSite Plus.

Our strategy for commercialization of our products requires us to enter into successful arrangements with corporate collaborators

We generally intend to enter into partnering and collaborative arrangements with respect to the commercialization of our product candidates, such as AzaSite Plus, DexaSite and BromSite. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to enter into such arrangements or that they will be beneficial to us. The success of our partnering and collaboration arrangements will depend upon many factors, including, among others:

•

the progress and results of our preclinical and clinical testing and research and development programs;

•

the time and cost involved in obtaining regulatory approvals;

•

our ability to negotiate favorable terms with potential collaborators;

•

the efforts and success of our collaborators in further developing or marketing the product;

•

our ability to prosecute, defend and enforce patent claims and other intellectual property rights;

•

the outcome of possible future legal actions; and

•

competing technological and market developments.

We may not be able to conclude arrangements with third parties to support the commercialization of our products on acceptable terms, or at all, and may not be able to maintain any arrangement that we do enter into. If we pursue a partnership for AzaSite Plus, DexaSite or our other product candidates prior to completing the Phase 3 trials, we will likely receive less favorable economic terms than if we completed successful Phase 3 trials.

The commercial success of our products is dependent on the diligent efforts of our corporate collaborators

Because we generally rely on third parties for the marketing and sale of our products, revenues that we receive will be highly dependent on the efforts and success of these third parties, particularly our partner Merck. Upon Merck’s acquisition of Inspire, we are now reliant on Merck’s efforts to commercialize AzaSite. Since Merck’s acquisition of Inspire, net sales of AzaSite have decreased. There can be no assurance that our royalty revenues from net sales of AzaSite will return to prior levels or will grow as originally anticipated. Our partners, including Merck, may terminate their relationships with us and/or may not diligently or successfully market or sell our products. These partners may also pursue alternative or competing technologies or develop alternative products either on their own or in collaboration with others, including our competitors. In addition, marketing consultants and contract sales organizations that we may use in the future for our products may market products that compete with our products and we must rely on their efforts and ability to market and sell our products effectively.

If we fail to enter into future collaborations or our current collaborations are terminated, we will need to enter into new collaborations or establish our own sales and marketing organization

We may not be able to enter into or maintain collaborative arrangements with third parties, including Merck. If we are not successful in entering into future collaborations or maintaining our existing collaborations, particularly with Merck, we may be required to find new corporate collaborators or establish our own sales and marketing organization. We do not have a long-standing relationship with Merck and have limited information with respect to AzaSite and its marketing. There can be no assurance that we will receive higher, or equivalent, royalty revenues from Merck than we did from Inspire as an independent company. The number of monthly prescriptions and sales of,AzaSite have significantly declined since Merck took over marketing and sales of AzaSite after its acquisition of Inspire. While the minimum royalty payments from Merck have made up for this decline, there can be no assurance that Merck will devote significant resources to, or successfully market and sell, AzaSite. In addition, under the terms of the Merck License, Merck’s obligation to make minimum royalty payments may be suspended upon the occurrence of certain events, such as a requirement by the FDA or other governmental agency to suspend the marketing of AzaSite or withdraw it from the market in the United States or if we are unable to obtain commercial quantities of AzaSite for Merck to market and sell. Furthermore, Merck may terminate the Merck License at any time. If Merck were to terminate the Merck License, we would have to find a new marketing partner or market AzaSite ourselves. There can be no assurance that any new partnership would be on similar terms as the Merck License. We have no experience in sales, marketing or distribution and establishing such an organization would be costly. Moreover, there is no guarantee that a sales and marketing organization established by us would be successful. If we are unable to maintain existing collaborations, enter into additional collaborations or successfully market our products ourselves, our revenues and financial results would be significantly harmed.

Our future success depends on our ability to engage third parties to assist us with the development of new products, new indications for existing products and the conduct of our clinical trials to achieve regulatory approval for commercialization and any failure or delay by those parties to fulfill their obligations could adversely affect our development and commercialization plans

For our business model to succeed, we must continually develop new products or discover new indications for our existing products. As part of that process, we rely on third parties such as clinical research organizations, clinical investigators and outside testing labs for development activities, such as Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 clinical testing, and to assist us in obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates. We rely heavily on these parties for successful execution of their responsibilities but have no control over how these parties manage their businesses and cannot assure you that such parties will diligently or effectively perform their activities. For example, the clinical investigators that are conducting our clinical trials, including our current Phase 3 clinical trial for AzaSite Plus and DexaSite are not our employees and we anticipate that any future clinical trials of AzaSite Plus, DexaSite or BromSite will also be conducted by a third party. However, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with applicable protocols, rules and regulations or in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial as well as the various rules and regulations governing clinical trials in the United States and abroad. Any failure by those parties to perform their duties effectively and on a timely basis could harm our ability to develop and commercialize new products, harm our business and subject us to potential liabilities.

Physicians and patients may not accept or use our products

Even if the FDA approves our product candidates, physicians and patients may not accept or use them. Acceptance and use of our products will depend upon a number of factors including:

•

perceptions by members of the health care community, including physicians, about the safety and effectiveness of our products, among others;

•

effectiveness of marketing and distribution efforts by us and our licensees and distributors;

•

cost-effectiveness of our products relative to competing products or treatments;

•

actual or perceived benefits of competing products or treatments;

•

physicians’ comfort level and prior experience with and use of competing products or treatments; and

•

availability of reimbursement for our products from government or other healthcare payers.

We may require additional licenses or be subject to expensive and uncertain patent litigation in order to sell our products

A number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and research and academic institutions have developed technologies, filed patent applications or received patents on various technologies that may be related to our business. Some of these technologies, applications or patents may conflict with our technologies or patent applications. As is common in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, from time to time we receive notices from third parties alleging various challenges to our patent rights. Such conflicts, if proven, could invalidate our issued patents, limit the scope of the patents, if any, that we may be able to obtain, result in the denial of our patent applications or block our rights to exploit our technology. If the USPTO or foreign patent agencies have issued or in the future issue patents to other companies that cover our activities, we may not be able to obtain licenses to these patents at a reasonable cost, or at all, or be able to develop or obtain alternative technology. If we do not obtain such licenses, we could encounter delays in or be precluded altogether from introducing products to the market. If we are required to obtain additional licenses from third parties for the sale by Merck of AzaSite in the United States and Canada, we will be required to pay for such additional licenses from our existing cash under the terms of the $60 million in aggregate principal amount of non-convertible, non-recourse promissory notes due in 2019 (AzaSite Notes).

In addition, we may need to litigate in order to defend against claims of infringement by others, to enforce patents issued to us or to protect trade secrets or know-how owned or licensed by us. Litigation could result in substantial cost to and diversion of effort by us, which may harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Such costs can be particularly harmful to companies such as ours, without significant existing revenue streams or cash resources. We have also agreed to indemnify our licensees against infringement claims by third parties related to our technology, which could result in additional litigation costs and liability for us. In addition, our efforts to protect or defend our proprietary rights may not be successful or, even if successful, may result in substantial cost to us, thereby utilizing our limited resources for purposes other than product development and commercialization.

If our products, methods, processes and other technologies infringe the proprietary rights of other parties, we could incur substantial costs and we may have to:

•

obtain licenses, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all;

•

redesign our products or processes to avoid infringement;

•

stop using the subject matter claimed in the patents held by others, which could preclude us from commercializing our products;

•

pay damages; or

•

defend litigation or administrative proceedings, which may be costly whether we win or lose, and which could result in a substantial diversion of our valuable management resources.

Our business depends upon our proprietary rights and we may not be able to protect, enforce, or secure our intellectual property rights adequately

Our future success will depend in large part on our ability to obtain patents, protect trade secrets, obtain and maintain rights to technology developed by others, and operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. A substantial number of patents in the field of ophthalmology and genetics have been issued to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies. Moreover, competitors may have filed patent applications, may have been issued patents or may obtain additional patents and proprietary rights relating to products or processes competitive with ours. Our patent applications may not be approved. We may not be able to develop additional proprietary products that are patentable. Even if we receive patent issuances, those issued patents may not be able to provide us with adequate protection for our inventions or may be challenged by others.

A patent interference was declared before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on certain U.S. patents covering AzaSite. Regents (Regents) of the University of California (University) assert that the inventions contained in these patents were made by a former employee of the University alone, and without collaboration with us. They are asserting that they own those inventions, and that they are entitled to an award of priority of invention and a judgment that the inventions are not patentable to us. On November 25, 2011, the USPTO entered judgment against the University. On December 23, 2011, the University filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and on January 4, 2012, we filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal. We continue to believe the University’s assertions are without merit and intend to vigorously contest those assertions. An adverse outcome of this interference could impact our royalty stream from Merck for AzaSite.

We received a letter (Notice Letter) dated April 15, 2011 from Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz) providing notice that Sandoz has filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA seeking marketing approval for a 1% azithromycin ophthalmic solution (Sandoz Product) prior to the expiration of the five U.S. patents listed in the Orange Books for AzaSite which include four of

our patents and one patent licensed to us by Pfizer. In the paragraph IV Certification accompanying the Sandoz ANDA filing, Sandoz alleges that the claims of the Orange Book listed patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the Sandoz Product. On May 26, 2011, we, Merck and Pfizer filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sandoz and related entities. The plaintiff companies have agreed that Merck will take the lead in prosecuting this lawsuit. Merck, with the assistance of Pfizer and us, will vigorously defend the five U.S. patents related to AzaSite. We own four U.S. patents covering AzaSite and its use, and have an exclusive license to a Pfizer-owned azithromycin patent. The filing of this lawsuit triggered an automatic stay, or bar, of the FDA’s approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months or until a final district court decision of the infringement lawsuit, whichever comes first. We believe that our four patents and the Pfizer patent were properly prosecuted with the USPTO and are valid, and that three of these patents will provide AzaSite with exclusivity until March 2019. We and the other plaintiffs intend to vigorously enforce our patent rights relating to AzaSite and vigorously contest any Sandoz assertions that these patents are invalid or unenforceable. An adverse decision on the issues of validity or enforceability would significantly harm our royalty revenue stream from AzaSite.

Furthermore, the patents of others may impair our ability to commercialize our products. The patent positions of firms in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries generally are highly uncertain, involve complex legal and factual questions, and have recently been the subject of significant litigation. The USPTO and the courts have not developed, formulated, or presented a consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed or the degree of protection afforded under pharmaceutical and genetic patents. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, others may independently develop similar products, duplicate any of our products or design around any of our patents. In addition, third parties from whom we have licensed or otherwise obtained technology may attempt to terminate or scale back our rights.

We also depend upon unpatented trade secrets to maintain our competitive position. Others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Our trade secrets may also be disclosed, and we may not be able to protect our rights to unpatented trade secrets effectively. To the extent that we, our consultants or our research collaborators use intellectual property owned by others, disputes also may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

In certain circumstances, we may lose the potential to receive future royalty payments or we may be required to pay damages for breaches of representations, warranties or covenants under certain of the AzaSite Note financing agreements

In February 2008, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, we issued $60 million in aggregate principal amount of AzaSite Notes, which are secured principally by royalty payments from future sales of AzaSite in North America, but not the right to receive such payments and by a pledge by us of all the outstanding equity interest in our subsidiary. If the AzaSite royalty payments are insufficient to repay the AzaSite Notes or if an event of default occurs under the indenture governing the AzaSite Notes, in certain circumstances, we would have to make payments on the AzaSite Notes out of our own cash resources, the royalty payments and our equity interest in our subsidiary may be foreclosed upon and we would lose the potential to receive future royalty payments and lose our intellectual property and other rights related to AzaSite. In addition, in connection with the issuance of the AzaSite Notes, we have made certain representations, warranties and covenants to our subsidiary and the holders of the AzaSite Notes (Noteholders). If we breach these representations, warranties or covenants, such breach could trigger an event of default under the indenture and we could also be liable to our subsidiary or the Noteholders for substantial damages in respect of any such breach, which could harm our financial condition and ability to conduct our business as currently planned. See Note 7 of the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for a more complete description of the terms of the AzaSite Notes.

Merck’s failure to successfully market and commercialize AzaSite would harm sales of AzaSite and, therefore, would delay or prevent repayment of the AzaSite Notes, which would delay or prevent us from receiving future revenue from sales of AzaSite

The AzaSite Notes issued by our subsidiary will be repaid solely from royalties on net sales of AzaSite in the United States and Canada by Merck under the Merck License. Merck has full control of all promotional, sales and marketing activities for AzaSite in these territories, and has sole control over the pricing of AzaSite. The number of monthly prescriptions and sales of AzaSite have declined since Merck took over marketing and sales of AzaSite after its acquisition of Inspire. While the minimum royalty payments from Merck have made up for this decline, there can be no assurance that Merck will devote significant resources to, or successfully market and sell, AzaSite. Accordingly, royalty payments in respect of net sales of AzaSite in the United States and Canada, if Merck markets AzaSite in Canada, will be entirely dependent on the actions, efforts and success of Merck, over whom neither we nor our subsidiary have control. The success of Merck’s commercialization of AzaSite and the timely repayment of the AzaSite Notes will depend on a number of factors, including, among others:

•

the scope of Merck’s marketing of AzaSite in the United States and, if launched, in Canada;

•

the effectiveness and extent of Merck’s promotional, sales and marketing efforts;

•

Merck’s ability to successfully market AzaSite to physicians and patients;

•

Merck’s deployment of resources to market and sell AzaSite;

•

Merck’s ability to build, train and retain an effective sales force;

•

Merck’s marketing efforts outside of ophthalmologists;

•

Merck’s pricing decisions regarding AzaSite;

•

Merck’s marketing and selling of any current or future competing products;

•

Merck’s ability to compete against competitors;

•

the discovery of any side effects or negative efficacy findings for AzaSite;

•

product recalls or product liability claims relating to AzaSite;

•

the introduction of generic competition;

•

the extent to which competing products for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis obtain more favorable formulary status than AzaSite; and

•

the relevant parties’ ability to adequately maintain or enforce the intellectual property rights relevant to AzaSite.

Merck may determine to focus its resources on its other products, internal development and other activities, which may harm its successful marketing of AzaSite and therefore impact our royalty payments.

Inspire historically promoted AzaSite to eye care professionals. Pediatricians and primary care physicians write more than 67% of prescriptions for ophthalmic antibiotics. However, Inspire had no experience calling on pediatricians and primary care physicians. To date, Merck has continued to market AzaSite exclusively to ophthalmologists. There can be no assurance that Merck will more broadly market AzaSite. Inspire’s focus on eye care professionals rather than pediatricians and primary care providers may have resulted, and if continued by Merck, may continue to result in lower AzaSite sales and therefore lower royalties paid to us. A large number of pharmaceutical companies, including those with competing products and those with products for indications that are completely unrelated to AzaSite, compete for the time and attention of eye care professionals, pediatricians and primary care physicians. Neither we nor our subsidiary have any control over how Merck manages and operates its sales force, how effective Merck’s sales efforts will be or Merck’s pricing decisions regarding AzaSite.

In addition, Merck depends on three pharmaceutical wholesalers for the vast majority of its AzaSite sales in the United States. These companies are Cardinal Health, McKesson Corporation and AmerisourceBergen. The loss of any of these wholesalers could harm sales of AzaSite. It is also possible that these wholesalers, or others, could decide to change their policies or fees, or both, in the future. This could cause Merck to incur higher product distribution costs, which would result in lower net sales of AzaSite.

Merck could deemphasize, sell, terminate or sublicense its rights to AzaSite. Neither we nor our subsidiary can prevent Merck from developing or licensing a product that competes with AzaSite or limiting or withdrawing its support of AzaSite. Our subsidiary’s ability to pay amounts due on the AzaSite Notes may be materially harmed to the extent Merck is unable or unwilling to successfully market and sell AzaSite. To the extent that our subsidiary fails to meet its payment obligations, we will have to make such payments out of our own cash resources in order to avoid a default under the AzaSite Notes, which we have done in the past. Our subsidiary again received insufficient royalties to make the interest payment in full that will be due on May 15, 2012. We have the ability to make-up this shortfall with our own cash resources. This shortfall in interest payments constitutes a default under the indenture but not an event of default. To the extent that we pay in full the recent shortfall (plus interest thereon) by August 15, 2012, we will avoid triggering an event of default under the indenture. To the extent that an event of default occurs, the bondholders could seek available remedies, including foreclosure on our subsidiary. Our ability to receive future revenue from sales of AzaSite is dependent on our subsidiary repaying the AzaSite Notes in a timely fashion. If our subsidiary takes longer than anticipated to repay the AzaSite Notes, or if it defaults on the AzaSite Notes, we may not receive future revenue from AzaSite as currently planned, or at all.

Royalties under the Merck License may not be sufficient for our subsidiary to meet its payment obligations under the AzaSite Notes

Merck’s obligation to pay royalties on net sales of AzaSite under the Merck License expires on a country-by-country basis upon the later of 11 years from the first commercial sale of AzaSite or when the last valid claim under one of our licensed patents covering a subject product under the Merck License in the United States and Canada expires. In the United States, first commercial sales occurred in August 2007, therefore, the obligation to pay royalties expires in August 2018. While our subsidiary will be entitled to minimum royalties under the Merck License for five years after the first year of a commercial sale, such minimum royalties will not be sufficient for our subsidiary to meet its payment obligations under the AzaSite Notes and, therefore, it will be dependent on Merck’s successful sales and marketing efforts for AzaSite in order for it to receive royalties in excess of these minimum amounts. In addition, under the terms of the Merck License, Merck’s obligation to make minimum royalty payments may be suspended upon the occurrence of certain events, such as a requirement by the FDA or other governmental agency to suspend the marketing of AzaSite or withdraw it from the market in the United States or if we are unable to obtain commercial quantities of AzaSite for Merck to market and sell. Merck also has the right to terminate the Merck License at any time, in which case we would not receive any future royalties, including minimum royalties, from Merck. To the extent that royalties, including minimum royalties, are insufficient for our subsidiary to meet its payment obligations, we will have to make such payments out of our own cash resources in order to avoid a default under the notes, which we have done in the past. In addition, Merck’s obligation to pay minimum royalties is suspended during any period in which (i) the FDA or any other applicable regulatory authority has required any Merck licensed product to be withdrawn from the market or the marketing thereof otherwise to be suspended in the United States or (ii) Merck is unable, despite use of commercially reasonable efforts, to obtain supply of any Merck licensed product in finished form in commercially reasonable amounts necessary to launch or market such Merck licensed product in the United States.

Royalties under the Merck License are subject to a cumulative reduction or offset in the event of patent invalidity, generic competition, uncured material breaches by us or in the event that Merck is required to pay royalties, milestone payments or license fees to third parties for the continued use of AzaSite. The applicable royalty rate is also subject to reduction by up to 50% in any country during any period in which AzaSite does not have patent protection. These cumulative reductions or offsets could result in our subsidiary receiving significantly reduced or no royalties under the Merck License, which would delay repayment of the AzaSite Notes, or result in a default under the AzaSite Notes. In such circumstances we may not receive future revenue from AzaSite as currently planned, or at all.

If the Merck License is terminated in whole or in part while the AzaSite Notes remain outstanding, we will be forced to find a new third party collaborator for AzaSite, pursue commercialization efforts ourselves or else we will lose our right to certain intellectual property rights related to AzaSite to our subsidiary

In February 2008, in connection with our subsidiary’s issuance of the AzaSite Notes, we entered into the residual license agreement with our subsidiary (Residual License Agreement). Under the terms of the Residual License Agreement, if the Merck License is terminated in the United States or Canada while the AzaSite Notes are outstanding, all of our rights to AzaSite in such country or countries will be licensed to our subsidiary and we have three months under the terms of an interim sublicense (Interim Sublicense), which is a part of the Residual License Agreement, to find a new third party collaborator to undertake commercialization efforts with respect to AzaSite or pursue commercialization efforts ourselves in such country or countries. Merck can terminate the Merck License unilaterally in a variety of circumstances, including at any time in its discretion. If the Merck License is terminated, our efforts to find a new third-party collaborator or pursue direct commercialization efforts ourselves will divert the attention of senior management from our current business operations, which could delay the development or licensing of our other product candidates. If we elect to commercialize AzaSite ourselves, we would have to expend significant resources as we currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities or experience, and have no current plans to establish any such resources, which may not be successful and could harm our financial condition and results of operation. We may not be able to find a new third-party collaborator within the time period allowed and there can be no assurance that any such collaboration will be on acceptable terms or will be successful.

If we are unsuccessful in finding a new third party collaborator for AzaSite or elect not to pursue commercialization efforts ourselves, the Interim Sublicense will terminate and our subsidiary will retain all rights to the intellectual property with respect to AzaSite in the related country or countries in which the Merck License was terminated. If the Interim Sublicense terminates in accordance with the Residual License Agreement, our subsidiary may grant a sublicense under the license granted under the Residual License Agreement or pursue commercialization efforts itself. In any such circumstances, our subsidiary will remit for payment on the AzaSite Notes any royalties and other payments arising from the exercise of the license under the Residual License Agreement. As all economic value arising from the intellectual property subject to the Merck License shall remain with our subsidiary (whether or not the

Merck License remains in effect and whether or not our subsidiary continues to be owned by us or our equity in the subsidiary is foreclosed upon by the Noteholders), while the AzaSite Notes are outstanding and following repayment thereof, we may never receive any future royalties or economic benefit from AzaSite and may lose rights to the intellectual property relating thereto.

We rely on a sole source for the supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient for AzaSite

We currently have a single supplier for azithromycin, the active drug incorporated into AzaSite. Under the Merck License and the Supply Agreement, we have agreed to provide a supply of azithromycin to Merck for the manufacture of AzaSite in the Territory, which we currently arrange through one supplier. The supplier of azithromycin has a drug master file on the compound with the FDA and is subject to the FDA’s review and oversight. The supplier’s manufacturing facility is subject to potential natural disasters, including earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires or explosions, and other interruptions in operation due to factors including labor unrest or strikes, failures of utility services or microbial or other contamination. If the supplier failed or refused to continue to supply us, if the FDA were to identify issues in the production of azithromycin that the supplier was unable to resolve quickly and cost-effectively, or if other issues were to arise that impact production, Merck’s ability to manufacture and commercialize AzaSite could be interrupted, and our subsidiary’s ability to pay amounts due on the AzaSite Notes may be materially harmed, which could force us to make such payments out of our own cash resources in order to avoid a default under the AzaSite Notes and prevent or delay our ability to receive future revenue from AzaSite. Additional suppliers for azithromycin exist, but qualification of an alternative source could be time consuming and expensive and, during such qualification process, could negatively impact the sales of AzaSite. There is also no guarantee that these additional suppliers can supply sufficient quantities or quality product at a reasonable price, or at all. While we are required to maintain a certain level of inventory of azithromycin to support Merck’s manufacturing needs, that inventory may not be sufficient to prevent an interruption in the availability of AzaSite.

In addition, certain of the raw materials that we use in formulating DuraSite, the drug delivery system used in AzaSite and our other products, are available only from Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc. (Lubrizol). Although we do not have a current supply agreement with Lubrizol, we have not encountered any difficulties obtaining necessary materials from Lubrizol. Any significant interruption in the supply of these raw materials could delay sales of AzaSite, which could then harm our subsidiary’s ability to pay amounts due on the AzaSite Notes and affect our ability to receive future revenue from AzaSite.

We compete in highly competitive markets and our competitors’ financial, technical, marketing, manufacturing and human resources may surpass ours and limit our ability to develop and/or market our products and technologies

Our success depends upon developing and maintaining a competitive advantage in the development of products and technologies in our areas of focus. We have many competitors in the United States and abroad, including pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other companies with varying resources and degrees of concentration in the ophthalmic market. Our competitors may have existing products or products under development which may be technically superior to ours or which may be less costly or more acceptable to the market. Our competitors may obtain cost advantages, patent protection or other intellectual property rights that would block or limit our ability to develop our potential products. Competition from these companies is intense and is expected to increase as new products enter the market and new technologies become available. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, marketing, manufacturing and human resources than we do, particularly in light of our current financial condition. In addition, they may succeed in developing technologies and products that are more effective, safer, less expensive or otherwise more commercially acceptable than any that we have or will develop. Our competitors may also obtain regulatory approval for commercialization of their products more effectively or rapidly than we will. If we decide to manufacture and market our products by ourselves, we will be competing in areas in which we have limited or no experience such as manufacturing efficiency and marketing capabilities.

If we cannot compete successfully for market share against other drug companies, we may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer

The market for our product candidates is characterized by intense competition and rapid technological advances. If our product candidates receive FDA approval, they will compete with a number of existing and future drugs and therapies developed, manufactured and marketed by others. Existing or future competing products may provide greater therapeutic convenience or clinical or other benefits for a specific indication than our products or may offer comparable performance at a lower cost. If our products fail to capture and maintain market share, we may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will be harmed.

We compete against fully integrated pharmaceutical companies and smaller companies that are collaborating with larger pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations. Many of these competitors have products competitive with AzaSite already approved or in development, including Zymar and Ocuflox by Allergan, Vigamox and Ciloxan by Alcon, and Quixin by Johnson & Johnson. In addition, many of these competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development programs and have substantially greater financial resources than we do, as well as significantly greater experience in:

•

developing drugs;

•

undertaking pre-clinical testing and human clinical trials;

•

obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of drugs;

•

formulating and manufacturing drugs;

•

launching, marketing and selling drugs; and

•

attracting qualified personnel, parties for acquisitions, joint ventures or other collaborations.

We have to attract and retain key employees to be successful

A critical factor to our success will be retaining our personnel or recruiting replacement personnel. Competition for skilled individuals in the biotechnology business, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, is highly competitive, and we may not be able to continue to attract and retain personnel necessary for the development of our business. Our ability to attract and retain such individuals may be reduced by our current financial situation and the challenges we face. The loss of key personnel, the failure to recruit replacement personnel or to develop needed expertise would harm our business.

We may need to raise additional funds in the future, which could be difficult to obtain or could dilute the value and rights of our common stock, and if not obtained in satisfactory amounts, may prevent us from developing our products, conducting clinical trials or otherwise taking advantage of future opportunities or growing our business, any of which could harm our business

We may need to raise additional funds through equity or public or private debt, and we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain additional financing on favorable terms, if at all. The current worldwide financing environment is challenging, particularly for smaller capitalized businesses such as ours, which could make it more difficult for us to raise funds on reasonable terms, or at all. If we issue additional equity securities, our stockholders will experience dilution and the new equity securities may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of existing holders of common stock. If we raise funds through debt, we will have to pay interest and may be subject to restrictive covenants, which would restrict operating flexibility and could harm our business. If we cannot raise sufficient funds on acceptable terms, if and when needed, we may not be able to develop our products, conduct clinical trials, have the financial strength and leverage to negotiate favorable terms with potential marketing partners, market our products, take advantage of future opportunities, grow our business or respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated industry changes, any of which could harm our business.

If we engage in acquisitions, we will incur a variety of costs and the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions may never be realized

In the future, we may pursue acquisitions of companies, product lines, technologies or businesses that our management believes may be complementary or otherwise beneficial to us. Any of these acquisitions, if completed, could harm our business. Future acquisitions may result in substantial dilution to our stockholders, the expenditure of our current cash resources, the incurrence of additional debt and amortization expenses related to goodwill, research and development and other intangible assets. In addition, acquisitions would involve many risks for us, including, among others:

•

assimilating employees, operations, technologies and products from the acquired companies with our existing employees, operations, technologies and products;

•

the potential need for additional funding to support our combined business;

•

diverting our management’s attention from day-to-day operation of our business;

•

entering markets in which we have no or limited direct experience; and

•

potentially losing key employees from the acquired companies.

If we fail to adequately manage these risks we may not achieve the intended benefits from our acquisitions.

Our products are subject to government regulations and approvals which may delay or prevent the marketing of potential products and impose costly procedures upon our activities

The FDA and comparable agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon preclinical and clinical testing, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. Lengthy and detailed preclinical and clinical testing, validation of manufacturing and quality control processes, and other costly and time-consuming procedures are required. Satisfaction of these requirements typically takes several years and the time needed to satisfy them may vary substantially, based on the type, complexity and novelty of the pharmaceutical product. The effect of government regulation may be to delay or to prevent marketing of potential products for a considerable period of time and to impose costly procedures upon our activities. The FDA or any other regulatory agency may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all, for any products we develop. Success in preclinical or early stage clinical trials does not assure success in later stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval may impose limitations on the indicated uses for which a product may be marketed. Further, even after we have obtained regulatory approval, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product, including withdrawal of the product from the market. Moreover, the FDA has recently reduced previous restrictions on the marketing, sale and prescription of products for indications other than those specifically approved by the FDA. Accordingly, even if we receive FDA approval of a product for certain indicated uses, our competitors, including our collaborators, could market products for such indications even if such products have not been specifically approved for such indications. If the FDA determines regulatory approval is required, any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain regulatory approvals would make it difficult or impossible to market our products and would harm our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.

The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated which could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our potential products. Moreover, increased attention to the containment of health care costs in the United States could result in new government regulations that could harm our business. Adverse governmental regulation might arise from future legislative or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. See “Uncertainties regarding healthcare reform and third-party reimbursement may impair our ability to raise capital, form collaborations and sell our products.”

We have no experience in commercial manufacturing and if contract manufacturing is not available to us or does not satisfy regulatory requirements, we will have to establish our own regulatory compliant manufacturing capability and may not have the financial resources to do so

We have no experience manufacturing products for Phase 3 clinical trials and commercial purposes at our own facility. We have a pilot facility licensed by the State of California to manufacture a number of our products for Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials but not for late stage clinical trials or commercial purposes. Therefore, we rely on a single contract manufacturer for a substantial portion of our manufacturing requirements. Any delays or difficulties that we may encounter in establishing and maintaining a relationship with qualified manufacturers to produce, package and distribute our products may harm our clinical trials, regulatory filings, market introduction and subsequent sales of our products.

Contract manufacturers must adhere to cGMP regulations that are strictly enforced by the FDA on an ongoing basis through the FDA’s facilities inspection program, as well as by foreign governmental associations outside the United States. Contract manufacturing facilities must pass a pre-approval plant inspection before the FDA will approve an NDA. Some of the material manufacturing changes that occur after approval are also subject to FDA review and clearance or approval. While the FDA has approved the AzaSite manufacturing process and facility, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may not approve the process or the facilities by which any of our other products may be manufactured or could rescind their approval of the AzaSite manufacturing process or facility. Our dependence on third parties to manufacture our products may harm our ability to develop and deliver products on a timely and competitive basis. To the extent that we change manufacturers or engage additional manufacturers in the United States or abroad, we may experience delays, increased costs, quality-control issues and other issues that could harm our ability to conduct clinical trials and market and sell our products. Should we be required to manufacture products ourselves, we will:

•

be required to expend significant amounts of capital to install a manufacturing capability;

•

be subject to the regulatory requirements described above;

•

be subject to similar risks regarding delays or difficulties encountered in manufacturing any such products; and

•

require substantially more additional capital than we otherwise may require.

Therefore, we may not be able to manufacture any products successfully or in a cost-effective manner.

Uncertainties regarding healthcare reform and third-party reimbursement may impair our ability to raise capital, form collaborations and sell our products

The continuing efforts of governmental and third-party payers to contain or reduce the costs of healthcare through various means may harm our business. For example, in some foreign markets, the pricing or profitability of healthcare products is subject to government control. In the United States, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement similar government control. The implementation or even the announcement of any of these legislative or regulatory proposals or reforms could harm our business by reducing the prices we or our partners are able to charge for our products, impeding our ability to achieve profitability, raise capital or form collaborations. In addition, the availability of reimbursement from third-party payers determines, in large part, the demand for healthcare products in the United States and elsewhere. Examples of such third-party payers are government and private insurance plans. Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare products and third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. If we or our partners succeed in bringing one or more products to the market, reimbursement from third-party payers may not be available or may not be sufficient to allow the sale of these products on a competitive or profitable basis.

Our insurance coverage may not adequately cover our potential product liability exposure

We are exposed to potential product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing, marketing and sale of human therapeutic products. Product liability insurance for the pharmaceutical industry is expensive. Although we believe our current insurance coverage is adequate to cover likely claims we may encounter given our current stage of development and activities, our present product liability insurance coverage will not be adequate to cover all potential claims we may encounter, particularly as AzaSite is commercialized outside the United States and Canada. Once AzaSite is commercialized in other countries, we may have to increase our coverage, which will be expensive, and we may not be able to obtain or afford adequate insurance coverage against potential claims in sufficient amounts or at a reasonable cost.

Our use of hazardous materials may pose environmental risks and liabilities which may cause us to incur significant costs

Our research, development and manufacturing processes involve the controlled use of small amounts of hazardous solvents used in pharmaceutical development and manufacturing, including acetic acid, acetone, acrylic acid, calcium chloride, chloroform, dimethyl sulfoxide, ethyl alcohol, hydrogen chloride, nitric acid, phosphoric acid and other similar solvents. We retain a licensed outside contractor that specializes in the disposal of hazardous materials used in the biotechnology industry to properly dispose of these materials, but we cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. Our cost for the disposal services rendered by our outside contractor was not material for the years ended 2011, 2010, or 2009, respectively. In the event of an accident involving these materials, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources. Moreover, as our business develops we may be required to incur significant costs to comply with federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and policies, especially to the extent that we manufacture our own products.

Management and principal stockholders may be able to exert significant control on matters requiring approval by our stockholders

As of March 31, 2012, our management and principal stockholders (those owning more than 5% of our outstanding shares) together beneficially owned approximately 45% of our shares of common stock. As a result, our management and principal stockholders, acting together or individually, may be able to exert significant control on matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of all or at least a majority of our Board of Directors, the approval of amendments to our charter, and the approval of business combinations and certain financing transactions. In September 2008, a group of our stockholders prevailed in a proxy contest that resulted in the replacement of all members of our Board of Directors.

The market prices for securities of biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies such as ours have been and are likely to continue to be highly volatile due to reasons that are related and unrelated to our operating performance and progress; we have not paid dividends in the past and do not anticipate doing so in the future

The market prices for securities of biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including ours, have been highly volatile. The market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that are unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. In addition, future announcements and circumstances, the status of our relationships or proposed relationships with third-party collaborators, the results of testing and clinical trials, future sales of equity or debt securities by us, the exercise of outstanding options and warrants that could result in dilution to our current holders of common stock, developments in our patents or other proprietary rights or those of our competitors, our own or Merck’s failure to meet analyst

expectations, any litigation regarding the same, technological innovations or new therapeutic products, governmental regulation, or public concern as to the safety of products developed by us or others and general market conditions concerning us, our competitors or other biopharmaceutical companies may have a significant effect on the market price of our common stock. For example, in the twelve months ended March 31, 2012, our closing stock price fluctuated from a high of $0.93 to a low of $0.36. Such fluctuations can lead to securities class action litigation and make it difficult to obtain financing. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

Our common stock was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange Alternext US

On April 21, 2009, our common stock was delisted from the NYSE Alternext US LLC (Exchange) for our failure to comply with the Exchange’s stockholders equity requirements. Our common stock currently trades on the over-the-counter bulletin board (OTCBB) market, although there are no assurances that it will continue to trade on this market. Over-the-counter (OTC) transactions involve risks in addition to those associated with transactions on a stock exchange. The delisting and OTC status could harm the trading volume and liquidity of our common stock and, as a result, the market price for our common stock might become more volatile. The delisting and OTC status could also cause a reduction in the number of investors willing or able to hold or acquire our common stock, transactions in our common stock could be delayed and securities analysts’ and news media coverage of us may be reduced. These factors could result in lower prices and larger spreads in the bid and ask prices for shares of common stock. Delisting and OTC status could also make our common stock substantially less attractive as collateral for loans, for investment by potential financing sources under their internal policies or state and federal securities laws or as consideration in future capital raising transactions. Furthermore, the delisting and OTC status may have other negative implications, including the potential loss of confidence by suppliers, partners and employees. Our OTC status may also make it more difficult and expensive for us to comply with state and federal securities laws in connection with future financings, acquisitions or equity issuances to employees and other service providers, thereby making it more difficult and expensive for us to raise capital, acquire other businesses using our stock and compensate our employees using equity.

We have adopted and are subject to anti-takeover provisions that could delay or prevent an acquisition of our Company and could prevent or make it more difficult to replace or remove current management

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may constrain or discourage a third party from acquiring or attempting to acquire control of us. Such provisions could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. In addition, such provisions could also prevent or make it more difficult for our stockholders to replace or remove current management and could adversely affect the price of our common stock if they are viewed as discouraging takeover attempts, business combinations or management changes that stockholders consider in their best interest. Our Board of Directors has the authority to issue up to 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock (Preferred Stock). Our Board of Directors has the authority to determine the price, rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions, including voting rights, of the unissued shares of Preferred Stock without any further vote or action by the stockholders. The rights of the holders of common stock will be subject to, and may be harmed by, the rights of the holders of any Preferred Stock that may be issued in the future. The issuance of Preferred Stock, while providing desirable flexibility in connection with possible financings, acquisitions and other corporate purposes, could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock, even if the transaction might be desired by our stockholders. Provisions of Delaware law applicable to us could also delay or make more difficult a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving us, including Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any business combination with any interested stockholder for a period of three years unless conditions set forth in the Delaware General Corporation Law are met. The issuance of Preferred Stock or Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law could also be deemed to benefit incumbent management to the extent that these provisions deter offers by persons who would wish to make changes in management or exercise control over management. Other provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may also have the effect of delaying, deterring or preventing a takeover attempt or management changes that our stockholders might consider in their best interest. For example, our bylaws limit the ability of stockholders to remove directors and fill vacancies on our Board of Directors. Our bylaws also impose advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations of directors and prohibit stockholders from calling special meetings or acting by written consent.

If earthquakes and other catastrophic events strike, our business may be negatively affected

Our corporate headquarters, including our research and development and pilot plant operations, are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region known for seismic activity. A significant natural disaster such as an earthquake would have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. If we were able to use the equipment at our contract manufacturing site we could conduct our pilot plant operations although we would incur significant additional costs and delays in our product development timelines.

We face the risk of a decrease in our cash balances and losses in our investment portfolio

Our investment policy is structured to limit credit risk and manage interest rate risk. By policy, we only invest in what we view as very high quality debt securities, such as U.S. government securities. However, the recent uncertainties in the credit markets, including the recent downgrade by Standard & Poor’s of the U.S. debt rating, could negatively affect our ability to liquidate our positions in securities that we currently believe constitute high quality investments and could also result in the loss of some or all of our principal if the issuer of such securities defaults on its credit obligations. Following completion of our $60.0 million financing on February 21, 2008 and our $22.2 million financing in July 2011, investment income has become a more substantial component of our income. The ability to achieve our investment objectives is affected by many factors, some of which are beyond our control. Our interest income will be affected by changes in interest rates, which are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies and domestic and international economic and political conditions. The outlook for our investment income is dependent on the future direction of interest rates and the amount of cash flows from operations, if any, that are available for investment. Any significant decline in our investment income or the value of our investments as a result of falling interest rates, deterioration in the credit of the securities in which we have invested or general market conditions, could harm our ability to liquidate our investments, our cash position and our income.

Sales of shares of common stock issued in our July 2011 financing may cause the market price of our common stock to decline

We issued 36,978,440 shares of common stock and warrants to purchase up to 14,791,376 shares of common stock in our July 2011 financing. We subsequently registered the resale of the shares of common stock issued in the transaction and issuable upon exercise of the warrants with the SEC and, therefore, an aggregate of 51,769,816 shares of common stock issued in the transaction and issuable upon exercise of the warrants may be freely sold in the open market. The sale of a significant amount of these shares of common stock in the open market, or the perception that these sales may occur, could cause the market price of our common stock to decline or become highly volatile.

We may have to pay liquidated damages to the Investors, which would increase our expenses and reduce our cash resources

In connection with the July 2011 financing, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the investors (Registration Rights Agreement). Under the terms of the Registration Rights Agreement, subject to certain limited exceptions, if we fail to keep the registration statement filed with the SEC effective within the time periods specified in the Registration Rights Agreement or we otherwise fail to comply with certain provisions set forth in the Registration Rights Agreement, we will be required to pay the investors, as liquidated damages, 1.0% of the amount invested for each 30-day period (or a pro rata portion thereof) during which such failure continues until the shares are sold or can be sold without restriction under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act). There can be no assurance that the registration statement will remain effective for the time periods necessary to avoid payment of liquidated damages. Any payment of liquidated damages would increase our expenses, reduce our cash resources and may limit or preclude us from advancing our product candidates through clinical trials or otherwise growing our business.

We are subject to risks related to our information technology systems and the information gathered in our clinical trials

We rely on information technology systems in order to conduct business, including internal and external communications, ordering materials for our operations, storing operational information and maintaining and reporting our results. These systems are vulnerable to interruption or failure due to the age of certain of our systems, viruses, malware, security breaches, fire, power loss, system malfunction and other events, which may be beyond our control. Systems interruptions or failures could reduce our ability to develop our products or continue our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial performance.

Additionally, federal and state laws governing our ability to obtain and, in some cases, to use and disclose data we need to conduct research activities, including our clinical trials, could increase our costs of doing business. These laws’ requirements could further complicate our ability to obtain necessary research data from our collaborators. In the event that our systems are breached and certain clinical data is compromised, we could become subject to costs arising from failure to maintain the privacy of protected health information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights or breached our privacy obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.

None.

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities.

None.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not Applicable.

Item 5. Other Information.

None.

Item 6. Exhibits.

The information required under this Item appears under the heading “Exhibit Index” of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


	INSITE VISION INCORPORATED

Dated: May 4, 2012	by:	/s/ Louis Drapeau
		Louis Drapeau
		Chief Financial Officer
		(Principal Financial Officer)

EXHIBIT INDEX


Number		Exhibit Table

31.1		Certificate of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2		Certificate of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1		Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.2		Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

101		The following materials from InSite Vision, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) the Consolidated Statement of Income, (ii) the Consolidated Balance Sheet, (iii) the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flow, and (iv) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

Smaller reporting company