In January 2020, the Company announced positive topline results of the three-year, open-label extension of its Phase III PEPITES

trial (the “PEOPLE trial”) evaluating the long-term efficacy and safety of investigational Viaskin Peanut in peanut-allergic children ages 4 to 11 years. The results demonstrated long-term clinical benefit as shown by an increase in eliciting dose (“ED”), which may decrease the chance of reacting to an accidental peanut exposure. After three years, the Company observed

that 75.9% (107/141) of patients had increased their ED from baseline, and 51.8% (73/141) of patients reached an ED of at least 1,000 mg peanut protein by year three. The safety profile of Viaskin Peanut was consistent with that observed in the clinical program to date in over 1,000 patients. During the PEOPLE trial, the most common adverse events were mild to moderate skin reactions localized to the administration site, and there was no epinephrine use deemed related to treatment. No treatment related serious adverse events were reported. One patient experienced one case of mild anaphylaxis that was determined by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment and resolved without anti-anaphylactic treatment. Treatment compliance remained high throughout the study at a mean of 98% over three years of treatment. Low discontinuations due to adverse events were observed.

In February 2020, the FDA announced an Allergenic Products Advisory Committee meeting to be held on May 15, 2020 to discuss the BLA for Viaskin Peanut. On March 16, 2020, the Company announced that the FDA had informed the Company that during its ongoing review of the Company’s BLA for Viaskin Peanut, it had identified questions regarding efficacy, including the impact of patch-site adhesion. Therefore, the Advisory Committee meeting to discuss the BLA originally scheduled on May 15, 2020 was cancelled.

In August 2020, the Company announced that the FDA has issued a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) in which the FDA indicated it could not approve the Viaskin Peanut BLA in its current form. The FDA identified concerns regarding the impact of patch-site adhesion on efficacy and indicated the need for patch modifications, and subsequently a new human factor study. The FDA also indicated that supplementary clinical data would need to be generated to support the modified patch. In addition, the FDA requested additional Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (“CMC”) data. The FDA did not raise any safety concerns related to Viaskin Peanut.

In January 2021,

the Company received written responses from the FDA to questions provided in the Type A meeting request the Company submitted in October 2020 following the CRL. In exchanges with the FDA, the Company proposed potential resolutions to two main concerns identified by the FDA in the CRL: the impact of patch adhesion and the need for patch modifications. The FDA agreed with the Company’s position that a modified Viaskin Peanut patch should not be considered as a new product entity provided the occlusion chamber of the current Viaskin Peanut patch and the peanut protein dose of 250 µg (approximately 1/1000 one peanut) remains unchanged and performs in the same way it has performed previously. In order to confirm the consistency of efficacy data between the existing and modified patches, the FDA has requested an assessment comparing the uptake of allergen (peanut protein) between the patches in peanut allergic children ages 4 to 11 years. The FDA also recommended conducting a

6-month,

well-controlled safety and adhesion trial to assess the modified Viaskin Peanut patch in the intended patient population.

In the second quarter of 2021, the Company completed CHAMP (Comparison of adHesion Among Modified Patches), a trial in healthy adult volunteers to evaluate the adhesion of five modified Viaskin Peanut patches in order to identify the top performers. Based on the adhesion parameters studied, the Company was pleased to learn that all modified Viaskin Peanut patches demonstrated better adhesion performance as compared to the current Viaskin Peanut patch. The Company then selected two modified patches that performed best out of the five modified patches studied for further development.

The difference between the two selected patches is their shape—one is circular and the other is rectangular with rounded corners. They are both approximately 50% larger than the current patch but maintain the same structure of the occlusion chamber (i.e., foam ring and backing). The Company also conducted advisory boards with patient caregivers and key opinion leaders to obtain qualitative feedback on the consumer experience with both patches.

n the second quarter of 2021, the Company initiated PREQUAL, a Phase 1 study in healthy adult volunteers to optimize the allergen sample collection methodologies and validate the assays DBV intends to use in EQUAL (EQuivalence in Uptake of ALergen) to demonstrate the protein uptake comparability of the modified patch (mVP) to the reference or current patch (cVP).

The Company submitted the protocol for STAMP, the

6-month

adhesion and safety study of the modified patch, to the FDA on May 6, 2021, and received feedback from the FDA on October 14, 2021. The FDA has requested a stepwise approach to DBV’s modified Viaskin Peanut (mVP) development program. The FDA would like to review the data from DBV’s protein uptake release study prior to providing additional comments on the STAMP protocol design. I

n its communication, the FDA st

ated that guidance is forthcoming on how best to demonstrate the protein uptake comparability of the mVP to the reference or current patch (cVP). The STAMP trial will not be initiated until DBV receives complete feedback from the FDA.

In November 2020, the Company announced that its Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”) for Viaskin Peanut had been validated by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”). The validation of the MAA confirmed that the submission was sufficiently complete to begin the formal review process for Viaskin Peanut to treat peanut allergies in children

ages 4 to 11

years. The Company received the first set of questions from the EMA, during the first quarter of 2021, which were consistent with the Company’s expectations and prefiling conversations with the EMA. The Company did not receive questions about the impact of adhesion on efficacy. The EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use will provide a recommendation to the European Commission (“EC”) on whether to grant a marketing authorization when its review of the Viaskin Peanut MAA is complete.

In July 2021, the Company received from the EMA a Day 180 list of outstanding issues. The review of the Viaskin Peanut MAA is progressing according to established EMA processes and ongoing conversations with the EMA. Many of EMA’s Objections and Major Objections have been answered; one Major Objection remained.

DBV is preparing its responses to the Day 180 letter and evaluating how to best address the Objections, including the remaining Major Objection which questions the limitations of the data, for example, the clinical relevance and effect size supported by a single pivotal study. Further exchanges with EMA are anticipated. DBV estimates the EMA could issue its decision on potential marketing authorization for Viaskin Peanut in the first quarter of 2022.

n June 2020, the Company announced that in Part A, patients in both treatment arms showed consistent treatment effects after 12 months of therapy, as assessed by a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge and biomarker results. Part A subjects were not included in Part B and the efficacy analyses from Part A were not statistically powered to demonstrate superiority of either dose versus placebo. These results validate the ongoing investigation of the 250 µg dose in this age group, which is the dose being studied in Part B of the study. Enrollment for Part B of EPITOPE was completed in the first quarter of 202

In February 2020,

the Company announced the closing of an underwritten global offering of an aggregate of 7,500,000 ordinary shares in (i) a public offering of 4,535,581 ordinary shares in the form of 9,071,162 American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) in the United States, Canada and certain countries outside Europe at a public offering price of $10.25 per ADS (on the basis of an exchange rate of $1.0999 = €1.00), and (ii) an offering exclusively addressed to qualified investors in Europe (including France) of 2,964,419 ordinary shares at an offering price of €18.63 per ordinary share (together, the “Global Offering”).

In March 2020,

the Company announced that the underwriters partially exercised their option to purchase 338,687 additional ordinary shares in the form of 677,374 ADSs at an offering price of $10.25 per ADS, before deducting commissions and estimated offering expenses (the “Option”). The Option closed on March 4, 2020.

Consequently, following partial exercise of the Option, the total number of ordinary shares sold in the global offering was 7,838,687 ordinary shares, including 4,874,268 ordinary shares in the form of 9,748,536 ADSs, bringing the total gross proceeds from the global offering to $160.7 million and net proceeds of $150.0 million.

The Company initiated a global restructuring plan in June 2020 to provide operational latitude to progress in the clinical development and regulatory review of investigational Viaskin Peanut in the United States and European Union. The Company expects full implementation of the organization-wide costs reduction measures to be completed in the second half of 2021.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared

COVID-19

a pandemic. This global health crisis led many countries to impose national containment measures and travel bans. In view of this exceptional situation, the Company decided to take all measures aimed primarily at guaranteeing the safety of its employees and the continuation of ongoing clinical trials, in compliance with the directives of the authorities in each country. The Company has experienced a decrease in new patients enrolling in the ongoing clinical studies and it has had to adapt the protocols of its clinical trials because patients remain subject to travel restrictions.

The Company has assessed the impact of the uncertainties created by the pandemic, such as the duration of the outbreak, the efficacy of vaccines and the evolution of variations strains of

COVID-19,

travel restrictions, social distancing requirements and business restrictions in the United States, France and other countries. As of September 30, 2021, those uncertainties were taken into account in the assumptions underlying the estimates and judgments used by the Company. The Company continues to update these estimates and assumptions as the situation evolves. The effects of the

COVID-19

pandemic are presented in the relevant line items of the condensed consolidated statement of financial position and the condensed consolidated statement of operations according to the function or nature of the income or expense.

A class action complaint was filed on January 15, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled Travis

Ito-Stone

v. DBV Technologies, et al., Case No.

2:19-cv-00525.

The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Executive Officer, its former Deputy Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Business officer violated certain federal securities laws, specifically under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule

10b-5

promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons that purchased the Company’s securities between February 14, 2018 and August 4, 2020 and also held the Company’s securities on December 20, 2018 and/or March 16, 2020 and/or August 4, 2020.

A hearing was held on July 29, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey where the Court entered an order granting the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice. As the dismissal was without prejudice, the Plaintiffs repled their case by filing a Third Amended Class Action Complaint on September 30, 2021 in the same Court.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the amended complaint are without merit and will continue to defend the case vigorously. The Company believes this complaint will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.