Company: TVRD
Filing Date: 2025-02-14
Form Type: S-4/A
Source: 0001104659-25-013053
Chunk: 177

Company: Tvardi Therapeutics, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-02-14
Form: S-4/A
Chunk 177
---
 to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (the Bayh-Dole Act). On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

Tvardi’s ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted if litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of another company’s drug continues. In April 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product, which was originally approved in 2000, and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a REMS. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market but did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone, which the FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021, were arbitrary and capricious. In June 2024, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded that decision after unanimously finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring this legal action against the FDA. Depending on the outcome of this litigation, if it continues, Tvardi’s ability to develop TTI-101, TTI-109 or future product candidates Tvardi may develop may be at risk and could be delayed, undermined or subject to protracted litigation. Finally, Tvardi could be adversely affected by several significant administrative law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , for example, the court overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , which for 40 years required federal courts to defer to permissible agency interpretations of statutes that are silent or ambiguous on a particular topic. The Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA). Additionally, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , the court held that actions to