Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2018

FibroGen, Inc. (“FibroGen” or the “Company”) was incorporated in 1993 in Delaware and is a research-based biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeutics agents to treat serious unmet medical needs. The Company’s focus in the areas of fibrosis and hypoxia-inducible factor (“HIF”) biology has generated multiple programs targeting various therapeutic areas. The Company’s most advanced product candidate, roxadustat, or FG-4592, is an oral small molecule inhibitor of HIF prolyl hydroxylases (“HIF-PHs”) in Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of anemia in chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) and myelodysplastic syndromes (“MDS”). Pamrevlumab, or FG-3019, is the Company’s monoclonal antibody in Phase 2 clinical development for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”), pancreatic cancer and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (“DMD”). The Company is taking a global approach with respect to the development and future commercialization of its product candidates, and this includes development and commercialization in the People’s Republic of China (“China”). The Company is capitalizing on its extensive experience in fibrosis and HIF biology and clinical development to advance a pipeline of innovative medicines for the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease cancer, corneal blindness and other serious unmet medical needs.

Basis of Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of FibroGen, its wholly owned subsidiaries and its majority-owned subsidiaries, FibroGen Europe Oy and FibroGen China Anemia Holdings, Ltd. (“FibroGen China”). All inter-company transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company operates in one segment — the discovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat serious unmet medical needs.

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and related disclosures have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) applicable to interim financial reporting and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X of the United States (“U.S.”) Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and, therefore, do not include all information and footnote disclosures normally included in the annual consolidated financial statements. The financial information included herein should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the year ended December 31, 2017 (“2017 Form 10-K”).

The accounting policies used by the Company in its presentation of interim financial results are consistent with those presented in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included in the 2017 Form 10-K, except for the following:

Revenue Recognition

Substantially all of the Company’s revenues to date have been generated from its collaboration agreements.

The Company’s collaboration agreements include multiple performance obligations comprised of promised services, or bundles of services, that are distinct. Services that are not distinct are combined with other services in the agreement until they form a distinct bundle of services. The Company’s process for identifying performance obligations and an enumeration of each obligation for each agreement is outlined in Note 2 “Collaboration Agreements.” Determining the performance obligations within a collaboration agreement often involves significant judgment and is specific to the facts and circumstances contained in each agreement.

The Company identified the following material promises under its collaboration agreements: (1) license of FibroGen technology, (2) the performance of co-development services, including manufacturing of clinical supplies and other services during the development period, and (3) manufacture of commercial supply. The evaluation as to whether these promises are distinct, and therefore represent separate performance obligations, is described in more details in Note 2 “Collaboration Agreements.”

For revenue recognition purposes, the Company determines that the term of its collaboration agreements begin on the effective date and ends upon the completion of all performance obligations contained in the agreements. In each agreement, the contract term is defined as the period in which parties to the contract have present and enforceable rights and obligations. The Company believes that the existence of what it considers to be substantive termination penalties on the part of the counterparty create sufficient incentive for the counterparty to avoid exercising its right to terminate the agreement unless in exceptionally rare situations.

The transaction price for each collaboration agreement is determined based on the amount of consideration the Company expects to be entitled for satisfying all performance obligations within the agreement. The Company’s collaboration agreements include payments to the Company of one or more of the following: non-refundable upfront license fees; co-development billings; development, regulatory, and commercial milestone payments; and royalties on net sales of licensed products.

Upfront license fees are non-contingent and non-refundable in nature and are included in the transaction price at the point when the license fees become due to the Company. The Company does not assess whether a contract has a significant financing component if the expectation at contract inception is such that the period between payment by the customer and the transfer of the promised goods or services to the customer will be one year or less.

Co-development billings resulting from the Company’s research and development efforts, which are reimbursable under its collaboration agreements, are considered variable consideration. Determining the amount of variable consideration from co-development billings requires the Company to make estimates of future research and development efforts, which involves significant judgment. Co-development billings are allocated entirely to the co-development services performance obligation when amounts are related specifically to research and development efforts necessary to satisfy the performance obligation, and such an allocation is consistent with the allocation objective.

Milestone payments are also considered variable consideration, which requires the Company to make estimates of when achievement of a particular milestone becomes probable. Similar to other forms of variable consideration, milestone payments are included in the transaction price when it becomes probable that such inclusion would not result in a significant revenue reversal. Milestone payments are therefore included in the transaction price when achievement of the milestone becomes probable.

For arrangements that include sales-based royalties and for which the license is deemed to be the predominant item to which the royalties relate, the Company recognizes revenue at the later of (i) when the related sales occur, or (ii) when the performance obligation to which some or all of the royalty has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied). To date, the Company has not recognized any royalty revenue resulting from its collaboration arrangements.

The transaction price is allocated to performance obligations based on their relative standalone selling price (“SSP”), with the exception of co-development billings allocated entirely to co-development services performance obligations. The SSP is determined based on observable prices at which the Company separately sells the products and services. If an SSP is not directly observable, then the Company will estimate the SSP considering marketing conditions, entity-specific factors, and information about the customer or class of customer that is reasonably available. The process for determining SSP involves significant judgment and includes consideration of multiple factors, including assumptions related to the market opportunity and the time needed to commercialize a product candidate pursuant to the relevant license, estimated direct expenses and other costs, which include the rates normally charged by contract research and contract manufacturing organizations for development and manufacturing obligations, and rates that would be charged by qualified outsiders for committee services.

Significant judgment may be required in determining whether a performance obligation is distinct, determining the amount of variable consideration to be included in the transaction price, and estimating the SSP of each performance obligation. An enumeration of the Company’s significant judgments is outlined in Note 2 “Collaboration Agreements.”

For each performance obligation identified within an arrangement, the Company determines the period over which the promised services are transferred and the performance obligation is satisfied. Service revenue is recognized over time based on progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. The Company uses an input method to measure progress toward the satisfaction of co-development services and certain other related performance obligations, which is based on costs of labor hours or full time equivalents and out-of-pocket expenses incurred relative to total expected costs to be incurred. The Company believes this measure of progress provides a faithful depiction of the transfer of services because other measures do not measure as accurately how the Company transfers its performance obligations to its collaboration partners.

Investments

The Company’s investments consist of available-for-sale debt investments and marketable equity investments. Those investments with maturities less than 12 months are considered short-term investments. Those investments with maturities greater than 12 months are considered long-term investments. The Company’s investments classified as available-for-sale are recorded at fair value based upon quoted market prices at period end. Unrealized gains and losses for available-for-sale debt investments that are deemed temporary in nature are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) as a separate component of stockholder’ equity. Marketable equity securities are equity securities with readily determinable fair value, and are measured and recorded at fair value. Realized and unrealized gains or losses resulting from changes in value and sale of the Company’s marketable equity investments are recorded in other income (expenses) in the consolidated statement of operations.

A decline in the fair value of any security below cost that is deemed other than temporary results in a charge to earnings and the corresponding establishment of a new cost basis for the security. Premiums and discounts are amortized (accreted) over the life of the related security as an adjustment to its yield. Dividend and interest income are recognized when earned. Realized gains and losses are included in earnings and are derived using the specific identification method for determining the cost of investments sold.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The more significant areas requiring the use of management estimates and assumptions include valuation and recognition of revenue, estimates of accruals related to clinical trial costs, valuation allowances for deferred tax assets, and valuation and recognition of stock-based compensation. On an ongoing basis, management reviews these estimates and assumptions. Changes in facts and circumstances may alter such estimates and actual results could differ from those estimates. In the Company’s opinion, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include all normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair statement of its financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented.

Recently Issued and Adopted Accounting Guidance

New Revenue Standards

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”), which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 605, Revenue Recognition. ASU 2014-09 is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. Subsequently, the FASB has issued the following standards related to ASU 2014-09: ASU No. 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations; ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing; ASU No. 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients; and ASU No. 2016-20, Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (collectively, the “new revenue standards”).

Under ASC 606, the Company recognizes revenue when its customer obtains control of promised goods or services, in an amount that reflects the consideration which the Company expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. To determine revenue recognition for arrangements that the Company determines are within the scope of ASC 606, the Company performs the following five steps: (i) identify the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the Company satisfies a performance obligation. The Company only applies the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that the Company will collect the consideration it is entitled to in exchange for the goods or services it transfers to the customer. At contract inception, once the contract is determined to be within the scope of ASC 606, the Company assesses the goods or services promised within each contract and determines those that are performance obligations and assesses whether each promised good or service is distinct. The Company then recognizes as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when (or as) the performance obligation is satisfied.

The Company adopted the new revenue standards as of January 1, 2018 using the full retrospective method, which required the Company to recast the prior reporting period presented in the condensed consolidated financial statements. The primary impact upon adoption of the new revenue standards relates to the manner in which revenue is recognized for co-development billings and milestone payments under the Company’s collaboration arrangements. Under the new revenue standards, both of these elements of consideration are considered variable consideration which requires the Company to make estimates of when co-development billings become due or when achievement of a particular milestone becomes probable. Payments are included in the transaction price when it becomes probable that inclusion would not lead to a significant revenue reversal.

The Company has recast its condensed consolidated statement of operations and condensed balance sheet from amounts previously reported due to the adoption of the new revenue standards. The adoption of the new revenue standards had no impact to the Company’s previously reported condensed consolidated statement of cash flows.

Select line items from the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations and condensed balance sheet, which reflect the adoption of the new revenue standards are as follows (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended March 31, 2017
	As Previously Reported			New Revenue Standards Adjustment			As Recast
Statement of Operations
License revenue	$	19,581		$	(19,581	)	$	—
Development and other revenue		7,310			22,132			29,442
Total revenue		26,891			2,551			29,442
Net loss		(33,161	)		2,551			(30,610	)
Net loss per share - basic and diluted	$	(0.52	)	$	0.04		$	(0.48	)

	December 31, 2017
	As Previously Reported			New Revenue Standards Adjustment			As Recast
Balance Sheet
Deferred revenue, current	$	7,968		$	8,702		$	16,670
Deferred revenue, net of current		112,231			26,010			138,241
Accumulated deficit		(595,945	)		(34,712	)		(630,657	)

The adoption of the new revenue standards resulted in an increase in revenue of $5.3 million and $3.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and an increase in the opening accumulative deficit of $43.7 million as of January 1, 2016.

ASU 2016-01

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Financial Instruments-Overall (Subtopic 825-10). This guidance requires equity investments that are not accounted for under the equity method of accounting to be measured at fair value with changes recognized in net income, simplifies the impairment assessment of certain equity investments, and updates certain presentation and disclosure requirements. This guidance was effective for the annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those annual periods. The Company adopted this guidance as of January 1, 2018 using the modified retrospective approach. The impacts to the Company’s accumulated other comprehensive loss and accumulated deficit upon adoption of this guidance are as follows (in thousands):

	Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss			Accumulated Deficit
Balance at December 31, 2017	$	(1,795	)	$	(630,657	)	*
Impact of change in accounting principle upon adoption of ASU 2016-01		(1,250	)		1,250
Opening balance as of January 1, 2018	$	(3,045	)	$	(629,407	)

*	Recast to reflect the adoption of the new revenue standards. See above.

The adoption of this guidance had no impact to the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations or condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2018.

ASU 2017-09

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-09, Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Scope of Modification Accounting. This guidance provides guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a stock-based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting in Topic 718. This guidance was effective for annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods. The Company adopted this guidance as of January 1, 2018, and the adoption of this guidance had no impact to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

ASU 2016-16

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-16, Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory. This guidance requires companies to recognize the income tax effects of intercompany sales or transfer of assets, other than inventory, in the income statement as income tax expense (or benefit) in the period the sale or transfer occurs. The exception to recognizing the income tax effects of intercompany sales or transfer sales or transfer of assets remains in place for intercompany inventory sales and transfers. This guidance was effective for annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods. The Company adopted this guidance as of January 1, 2018 using the modified retrospective method. The adoption of this guidance did not result in any recognition of previously unrecognized deferred charges using a modified retrospective method, thus had no impact to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Recently Issued Accounting Guidance Not Yet Adopted

In February 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-02, Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income: Reclassification of Certain Tax effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income. This guidance allows for the reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings for the stranded tax effects arising from the change in the reduction of the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate from 35% to 21%. This guidance is effective for annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods, with early adoption permitted. The Company will adopt this guidance on January 1, 2019 and does not anticipate a material reclassification between its accumulated other comprehensive loss and accumulated deficit upon adoption.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. This guidance requires that financial assets measured at amortized cost be presented at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is based on historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability. This guidance is effective for the annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within that reporting period. The Company is currently evaluating the impact on its consolidated financial statements upon the adoption of this guidance.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). Under this guidance, an entity is required to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities on its balance sheet and disclose key information about leasing arrangements. This guidance offers specific accounting guidance for a lessee, a lessor and sale and leaseback transactions. Lessees and lessors are required to disclose qualitative and quantitative information about leasing arrangements to enable a user of the financial statements to assess the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. This guidance is effective for the annual reporting period beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within that reporting period, and requires a modified retrospective adoption, with early adoption permitted. The Company will adopt this guidance as of January 1, 2019 and is currently evaluating the related accounting, transition, disclosure requirements and the impact on its consolidated financial statements upon the adoption of this guidance.

Collaboration Arrangements

Accounting for the Astellas Agreements

For each of the Astellas agreements, the Company has evaluated the promised services within the respective arrangements and has identified performance obligations representing those services and bundles of services that are distinct.

Promised services that were not distinct have been combined with other promised services to form a distinct bundle of promised services, with revenue being recognized on the bundle of services rather than the individual services. There are no right-of-return provisions for the delivered items in the Astellas agreements.

As of March 31, 2018, the transaction price for the Japan Agreement included $40.1 million of non-contingent upfront payments, $22.5 million of variable consideration related to payments for milestones considered probable of being achieved, and $12.3 million of variable consideration related to co-development billings. The transaction price for the Europe Agreement included $320.0 million of non-contingent upfront payments, $90.0 million of variable consideration related to payments for milestones considered probable of being achieved, and $183.0 million of variable consideration related to co-development billings.

For revenue recognition purposes, the Company determined that the term of each collaboration agreement with Astellas begins on the effective date and ends upon the completion of all performance obligations contained in the agreement. The contract term is defined as the period in which parties to the contract have present and enforceable rights and obligations. The Company believes that the requirement to continue funding development for a substantive period of time and loss of product rights, along with non-refundable upfront payments already remitted by Astellas, create significant disincentive for Astellas to exercise its right to terminate the agreements.

For the Astellas agreements, the Company allocated the transaction price to the various performance obligations based on the relative SSP of each performance obligation, with the exception of co-development billings allocated entirely to co-development services performance obligations.

For the technology license under the Japan Agreement and Europe Agreement, SSP was determined primarily by using the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) method, which aggregates the present value of future cash flows to determine the valuation as of the effective date of each of the agreements. The DCF method involves the following key steps: 1) the determination of cash flow forecasts and 2) the selection of a range of comparative risk-adjusted discount rates to apply against the cash flow forecasts. The discount rates selected were based on expectations of the total rate of return, the rate at which capital would be attracted to the Company and the level of risk inherent within the Company. The discounts applied in the DCF analysis ranged from 17.5% to 20.0%. The Company’s cash flow forecasts were derived from probability-adjusted revenue and expense projections by territory. Such projections included consideration of taxes and cash flow adjustments. The probability adjustments were made after considering the likelihood of technical success at various stages of clinical trials and regulatory approval phases. SSP also considered certain future royalty payments associated with commercial performance of the Company’s compounds, transfer prices and expected gross margins.

The promised services that were analyzed, along with their general timing of satisfaction and recognition as revenue, are as follows:

(1)

License to the Company’s technology existing at the effective date of the agreements. For both of the Astellas agreements, the license was delivered at the beginning of the agreement term. In both cases, the Company concluded at the time of the agreement that its collaboration partner, Astellas, would have the knowledge and capabilities to fully exploit the licenses without the Company’s further involvement. However, the Japan Agreement has contractual limitations that might affect Astellas’ ability to fully exploit the license and therefore, potentially, the conclusion as to whether the license is capable of being distinct. In the Japan Agreement, Astellas does not have the right to manufacture commercial supplies of the drug. In order to determine whether this characteristic of the agreement should lead to a conclusion that the license was not distinct in the context of the agreement, the Company considered the ability of Astellas to benefit from the license together with other resources readily available to Astellas. Finally, the Company considered the fact that at the time of delivery of the license, the development services were beyond the preclinical development phase and any remaining development work in either agreement would not be expected to result in any significant modification or customization to the licensed technology. As such, the development services are separately identifiable from the licensed technology, indicating that the license is a distinct performance obligation.

Manufacturing rights. In the case of the Japan Agreement, the Company retained manufacturing rights largely because of the way the parties chose for FibroGen to be compensated under the agreement. At the time the agreement was signed, the Company believed that it was more advantageous upon commercialization to have a transfer price revenue model in place as opposed to a traditional sales-based model. The manufacturing process does not require specialized knowledge or expertise uniquely held by FibroGen, and notwithstanding contractual restrictions, Astellas could employ manufacturing services from readily available third parties in order to benefit from the license. Therefore, along with the foregoing paragraph, the Company determined that the license in Japan is a distinct performance obligation despite the retention of manufacturing rights by the Company.

In summary, the Company concludes that item (1) represents a performance obligation. The portion of the transaction price allocated to this performance obligation based on a relative SSP basis is recognized as revenue in its entirety at the point in time the license transfers to Astellas.

(2)

Co-development services (Europe Agreement). This promise relates to co-development services that were reasonably expected to be performed by the Company at the time the collaboration agreement was signed and is considered distinct. Co-development billings are allocated entirely to the co-development services performance obligation as amounts are related specifically to research and development efforts necessary to satisfy the performance obligation, and such an allocation is consistent with the allocation objective. Revenue is recognized over time based on progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. The Company uses an input method to measure progress toward the satisfaction of the performance obligation, which is based on costs of labor hours and out-of-pocket expenses incurred relative to total expected costs to be incurred. The measure of progress is updated each reporting period. Co-development services are expected to continue over the development period which is currently estimated to continue through the end of 2019. There was no provision for co-development services in the Japan Agreement.

(3)	License to the Company’s technology developed during the term of the agreement and development (referred to as “when and if available”) and information sharing services. These promises are generally satisfied throughout the term of the agreements.

(4)	Manufacturing of clinical supplies of products. This promise is satisfied as supplies for clinical product are delivered for use in the Company’s clinical trial programs during the development period, or pre-commercialization period.

(5)	Committee service. This promise is satisfied throughout the course of the agreements as meetings are attended.

Items (3)-(5) are bundled into a single performance obligation which is distinct given the fact that all are highly interrelated during the development period (pre-commercial phase of development) such that satisfying them independently is not practicable. Revenue is recognized over time based on progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. The Company uses an input method to measure progress toward the satisfaction of the performance obligation, which is based on costs of labor hours or full time equivalents and out-of-pocket expenses incurred relative to total expected costs to be incurred. The measure of progress is updated each reporting period.

(6)

Manufacturing commercial supplies of products. This promised service is distinct as services are not interrelated with any of the other performance obligations. Payments received for commercial supplies of products represent sales-based payments related predominately to the license of intellectual property under both Astellas agreements. Revenue is recognized as supplies are shipped for commercial use during the commercialization period. To date, no such revenue has been recognized.

Accounting for the AstraZeneca Agreements

The Company evaluated whether the U.S./RoW Agreement and China Agreement should be accounted for as a single or separate arrangements and concluded that the agreements should be accounted for as a single arrangement with the presumption that two or more agreements executed with a single customer at or around the same time should be presumed to be a single arrangement. The key points the Company considered in reaching this conclusion are as follows:

1.	While the two agreements were largely negotiated separately, those negotiations proceeded concurrently, and were intended to be completed contemporaneously, presuming AstraZeneca decided to proceed with licenses in all regions available.

Throughout negotiations for both agreements, the Company and the counterparties understood and considered the possibility that one arrangement may be executed without the execution of the other arrangement. However, the preference for the Company and the counterparties during the negotiations was to execute both arrangements concurrently.

The two agreements were executed as separate agreements because different development, regulatory and commercial approaches required certain terms of the agreements to be structured differently, rather than because the Company or the counterparties considering the agreements to be fundamentally separate negotiations.

Accordingly, as the agreements are being accounted for as a single arrangement, upfront and other non-contingent consideration received and to be received has been and will be pooled together and allocated to each of the performance obligations in both the U.S./RoW Agreement and China Agreement based on their relative SSPs.

For each of the AstraZeneca agreements, the Company has evaluated the promised services within the respective arrangements and has identified performance obligations representing those services and bundled services that are distinct.

Promised services that were not distinct have been combined with other promised services to form a distinct bundle of promised services, with revenue being recognized on the bundle of services rather than the individual promised services. There are no right-of-return provisions for the delivered items in the AstraZeneca agreements.

As of March 31, 2018, the transaction price for the U.S./RoW Agreement and China Agreement included $402.2 million of non-contingent upfront payments, $30.0 million of variable consideration related to payments for milestones considered probable of being achieved, and $682.2 million of variable consideration related to co-development billings.

For the AstraZeneca agreements, the Company allocated the transaction price to the various performance obligations based on the relative SSP of each performance obligation, with the exception of co-development billings. Co-development billings under the U.S./RoW Agreement were allocated entirely to the U.S./RoW co-development services performance obligation, and co-development billings under the China Agreement were allocated entirely to the combined performance obligation under the China Agreement.

For revenue recognition purposes, the Company determined that the term of its collaboration agreements with AstraZeneca begin on the effective date and ends upon the completion of all performance obligations contained in the agreements. The contract term is defined as the period in which parties to the contract have present and enforceable rights and obligations. The Company believes that the requirement to continue funding development for a substantive period of time and the loss of product rights, along with non-refundable upfront payments already remitted by AstraZeneca, represent substantive termination penalties that create significant disincentive for AstraZeneca to exercise its right to terminate the agreement.

For the technology license under the AstraZeneca U.S./RoW Agreement, SSP was determined based on a two-step process. The first step involved determining an implied royalty rate that would result in the net present value of future cash flows to equal to zero (i.e. where the implied royalty rate on the transaction would equal the target return for the investment). This results in an upper bound estimation of the magnitude of royalties that a hypothetical acquirer would reasonably pay for the forecasted cash flow stream. The Company’s cash flow forecasts were derived from probability-adjusted revenue and expense projections. Such projections included consideration of taxes and cash flow adjustments. The probability adjustments were made after considering the likelihood of technical success at various stages of clinical trials and regulatory approval phases. The second step involved applying the implied royalty rate, which was determined to be 40%, against the probability-adjusted projected net revenues by territory and determining the value of the license as the net present value of future cash flows after adjusting for taxes. The discount rate utilized was 17.5%.

U.S./RoW Agreement:

The promised services that were analyzed, along with their general timing of satisfaction and recognition as revenue, are as follows:

(1)

License to the Company’s technology existing at the effective date of the agreements. For the U.S./RoW Agreement, the license was delivered at the beginning of the agreement term. The Company concluded that AstraZeneca has the knowledge and capabilities to fully exploit the license under the U.S./RoW Agreement without the Company’s further involvement. Finally, the Company considered the fact that at the time of delivery of the license, the development services were beyond the preclinical development phase and any remaining development work would not be expected to result in any significant modification or customization to the licensed technology. As such, the development services are separately identifiable from the licensed technology, indicating that the license is a distinct performance obligation. Therefore, the Company has concluded that the license is distinct and represents a performance obligation. The portion of the transaction price allocated to this performance obligation based on a relative SSP basis is recognized as revenue in its entirety at the point in time the license transfers to AstraZeneca.

(2)

Co-development services. This promise relates to co-development services that were reasonably expected to be performed by the Company at the time the collaboration agreement was signed and is distinct. Co-development billings are allocated entirely to the co-development services performance obligation as amounts are related specifically to research and development efforts necessary to satisfy the performance obligation, and such an allocation is consistent with the allocation objective. Revenue is recognized over time based on progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. The Company uses an input method to measure progress toward the satisfaction of the performance obligation, which is based on costs of labor hours or full time equivalents and out-of-pocket expenses incurred relative to total expected costs to be incurred Co-development services are expected to continue over the development period which is estimated to continue through the end of 2020.

(3)	Manufacturing of clinical supplies of products. This promise is satisfied as supplies for clinical product are delivered for use in the Company’s clinical trial programs during the development period, or pre-commercialization period.

(4)	Information sharing and committee service. These promises are satisfied throughout the course of the agreement as services are provided.

Items (3)-(4) are bundled into a single performance obligation which is distinct given the fact that all are highly interrelated during the development period (pre-commercial phase of development) such that delivering them independently is not practicable. Revenue is recognized over time based on progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. The Company uses an input method to measure progress toward the satisfaction of the performance obligation, which is based on costs of labor hours or full time equivalents and out-of-pocket expenses incurred relative to total expected costs to be incurred. The measure of progress is updated each reporting period.

(5)

Manufacturing commercial supplies of products. This promise is distinct as services are not interrelated with any of the other performance obligations. Payments received for commercial supplies of products represent sales-based royalties related predominately to the license of intellectual property under the agreement. Revenue is recognized as supplies are shipped for commercial use during the commercialization period. To date, no such revenue has been recognized.

China Agreement:

The performance obligation that were analyzed, along with their general timing of satisfaction and recognition as revenue, are as follows:

•

License to the Company’s technology existing at the effective date of the agreement. The license was delivered at the beginning of the agreement term. However, the China Agreement with AstraZeneca has contractual limitations that might affect AstraZeneca’s ability to fully exploit the license and therefore, potentially, the conclusion as to whether the license is distinct in the context of the agreement. In the China Agreement, AstraZeneca does not have the right to manufacture commercial supplies of the drug. In order to determine whether this characteristic of the arrangement should lead to a conclusion that the license was not distinct in the context of the agreement, the Company considered the ability of AstraZeneca to benefit from the license on its own or together with other resources readily available to AstraZeneca.

For the China Agreement, the Company retained manufacturing rights as an essential part of a strategy to pursue domestic regulatory pathway for product approval which requires the regulatory licensure of the manufacturing facility in order to commence commercial shipment. The prospects for the collaboration as a whole would have been substantially different had manufacturing rights been provided to AstraZeneca. Due to certain regulatory restrictions in China, manufacturing services of commercial drug product in China are not readily available to AstraZeneca or any other parties. Therefore, AstraZeneca cannot benefit from the license on its own or together with other readily available resources. Accordingly, all the promises identified, including co-development services, under the China Agreement have been bundled into a single performance obligation and amounts of the transaction price allocable to this performance obligation is deferred until control of the manufactured commercial drug product has begun to transfer to AstraZeneca. Upon commencement of the transfer of control to commercial drug product, revenue would be recognized in a pattern consistent with estimated deliveries of the commercial drug product.

Other Revenues

Other revenues consist primarily of collagen material sold for research purposes. Other revenues were immaterial for all periods presented.

Deferred Revenue

Deferred revenue represents amounts billed to the Company’s collaboration partners for which the related revenues have not been recognized because one or more of the revenue recognition criteria have not been met. The current portion of deferred revenue represents the amount to be recognized within one year from the balance sheet date based on the estimated performance period of the underlying performance obligations. The long term portion of deferred revenue represents amounts to be recognized after one year through the end of the non-contingent performance period of the underlying performance obligations. The long term portion of deferred revenue also includes amounts allocated to the China unit of accounting under the AstraZeneca arrangement as revenue recognition associated with this unit of accounting is tied to the commercial launch of the products within China, which is not expected to occur within the next year.