Kura Oncology, Inc.

We have incurred operating losses since inception and negative cash flows from operating activities. As of June 30, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $178.6 million. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, continue and initiate clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing and distribution are not the responsibility of potential collaborators. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

As we do not have in-house diagnostic testing capabilities, we rely extensively on third-party collaborators for the development and commercialization of these diagnostic tests. Our goal is to provide a sensitive, accurate and cost-effective diagnostic testing solution for oncologists, whereby they can obtain molecular testing data that will help them to identify whether their patients are eligible as candidates for enrollment in our clinical trials. Moreover, we anticipate that, if and when tipifarnib receives marketing approval, a significant percentage of patients will be identified using diagnostic testing platforms such as NGS testing rather than the qPCR-based companion diagnostic assay we and our third-party collaborators are currently developing.

We and our third-party collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for these diagnostic tests. We may also experience difficulties in having these diagnostic tests adopted and used at clinical sites, both during the clinical development phase and if and when approved for commercial sale. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a these diagnostic tests or any failure in having a sufficient number of clinical sites adopt and use these diagnostic tests could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Further, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. As a result, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has started soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, has immediately implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. Although a number of these measures, and other potential proposals may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have

each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Future legislation could potentially change drug pricing dynamics. We cannot predict all of the ways in which future healthcare reform legislation or regulation could affect our business.

Our patent rights may not protect our patent protected products and product candidates if competitors devise ways of making products that compete with us without legally infringing our patent rights. For example, our patent rights in tipifarnib are limited in ways that affect our ability to exclude third parties from competing against us. In particular, the patent term for the composition of matter patents covering the API of tipifarnib expired in the United States and countries in Europe in 2016. Composition of matter patents on APIs are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection because such patents provide protection without regard to any particular method of use or manufacture or formulation of the API used. In 2017 and 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or U.S. PTO, issued us patents directed to the method of treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC with tipifarnib and corresponding patents have been issued in a number of foreign jurisdictions. In 2018, the U.S. PTO issued us patents directed to the method of treatment of AITL with tipifarnib and the method of treatment of CXCL12-expressing PTCL or AML with tipifarnib. In July 2019, the U.S. PTO issued us a patent directed to the treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC with any farnesyl transferase inhibitor. In addition, the European Patent Office granted us a patent directed to the method of treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC patients with tipifarnib.

Although these patents are currently in force, there is no guarantee that a court would agree that any of the patents are valid or enforceable. Further, if a competitor were to develop tipifarnib for use in an indication other than that claimed by the patents, we would not be able to prevent them from marketing tipifarnib in the United States or other jurisdictions based on our currently issued patents. A limited number of patents directed to the use of tipifarnib in certain patients with HRAS mutant HNSCC have been granted in foreign jurisdictions. We are pursuing additional United States and foreign method of treatment patents for tipifarnib and farnesyl transferase inhibitors, however there is no guarantee that any such patents will be granted. We have issued patents in the United States and Europe covering the composition of matter of KO-947 and certain structurally related compounds, and methods of using the compounds for the treatment of cancers. We also have issued patents in the United States covering the composition of matter of KO-539 and certain structurally related compounds and methods of using the compounds for treating cancers. Although these patents are currently in force, there is no guarantee that a court would agree that any of the patents are valid or enforceable.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We seek to protect our confidential proprietary information, in part, by entering into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, however, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties. Moreover, to the extent we enter into such agreements, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.