SEC Info℠

Home

Search

My Interests

Help

Sign In

Please Sign In

Cypress Bioscience Inc – ‘10-K’ for 12/31/03

On:  Monday, 3/29/04, at 6:01am ET   ·   For:  12/31/03   ·   Accession #:  1047469-4-9648   ·   File #:  0-12943

Previous ‘10-K’:  ‘10-K/A’ on 7/17/03 for 12/31/02   ·   Next:  ‘10-K’ on 3/16/05 for 12/31/04   ·   Latest:  ‘10-K’ on 3/31/10 for 12/31/09

in

this entire Filing. an “Entity” Search.

Show

Documents searched

and

each “hit”. the 1st “hit”.

↓↑Hints

 Text Wildcards:  ? (any letter/digit),  * (many).  Search Logic:  for Documents:  & (and),  | (or);  for Text:  | (anywhere),  "(&)" (near).  Details... 

  As Of                Filer                Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size              Issuer               Agent

 3/29/04  Cypress Bioscience Inc            10-K       12/31/03   16:1.4M                                   Merrill Corp/New/FA

Document/Exhibit                   Description                      Pages   Size 

 1: 10-K        Annual Report                                       HTML    594K 
 2: EX-10.22    Material Contract                                   HTML     52K 
 3: EX-10.23    Material Contract                                   HTML    212K 
 4: EX-10.24    Material Contract                                   HTML     50K 
 5: EX-10.25    Material Contract                                   HTML    150K 
 6: EX-10.26    Material Contract                                   HTML    212K 
 7: EX-10.27    Material Contract                                   HTML     18K 
 8: EX-10.28    Material Contract                                   HTML     76K 
 9: EX-10.29    Material Contract                                   HTML     37K 
10: EX-10.30    Material Contract                                   HTML     37K 
11: EX-10.31    Material Contract                                   HTML     38K 
12: EX-21.1     Subsidiaries of the Registrant                      HTML      8K 
13: EX-23.1     Consent of Experts or Counsel                       HTML     11K 
14: EX-31.1     Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 302)  HTML     14K 
15: EX-31.2     Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 302)  HTML     14K 
16: EX-32.1     Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)  HTML     11K 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission File No. 0-12943

CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (858) 452-2323

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT: NONE
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:
Common Stock $.001 Par Value
(Title of Class)

        Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 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 ý    No o

        Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o    No ý

        The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by nonaffiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2003 was approximately $44,000,000*

        The number of shares outstanding of the Registrant's common stock as of March 1, 2004 was 22,411,974.

*

Calculated based on 10,130,810 shares of common stock held as of June 30, 2003 by non-affiliates and a per share market price of $4.33. Excludes 8,344,157 shares of common stock held by directors and executive officers and stockholders whose ownership exceeds five percent of the common stock, who are deemed to be affiliates only for purposes of this calculation. Exclusion of such shares should not be construed to indicate that any such person possesses the power, direct or indirect, to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the Registrant or that such person is controlled by or under common control with the Registrant.

CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE, INC.
FORM 10-K
INDEX

1

PART I

        Except for the historical information contained herein, the information contained herein contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, in particular, statements about our plans, strategies and prospects. These statements, which may include words such as "may," "will," "expect," "believe," "intend," "plan," "anticipate," "estimate," or similar words, are based on our current beliefs, expectations and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Although we believe that our beliefs, expectations and assumptions reflected in these statements are reasonable, our actual results and financial performance may prove to be very different from what we might have predicted on the date of this Form 10-K. Factors that could cause or contribute to differences include, but are not specifically limited to, our ability to develop milnacipran for Fibromyalgia Syndrome, our ability to develop or acquire any compounds or products to treat any other indications we may pursue in a timely manner, or at all, as well as the other risks detailed in this Form 10-K and in our other SEC filings.

ITEM 1.    Business

Company Overview

        We are committed to being the innovator and leader in providing products for the treatment of patients with Functional Somatic Syndromes and other related chronic pain and central nervous system disorders. Functional Somatic Syndromes refer to several related syndromes characterized more by symptoms, suffering and disability than by disease-specific abnormalities that are found upon physical examination and include many overlapping pain and psychiatric conditions such as Fibromyalgia Syndrome, or FMS, irritable bowel syndrome, non-cardiac chest pain and interstitial cystitis, or chronic pelvic pain. Our goal is to be the first to commercialize a product approved in the United States for the treatment of FMS, the focus of our initial efforts in the area of Functional Somatic Syndromes. We recently commenced a Phase III trial for milnacipran in the treatment of FMS. In January 2004, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories, Inc., a leading marketer of central nervous system drugs with a strong franchise in the primary care and psychiatric markets, for the development and marketing of milnacipran. We are conducting our initial Phase III trial and will conduct our second Phase III trial in collaboration with Forest Laboratories. These two Phase III trials and any additional studies needed for regulatory approval could possibly be completed in 2006 and, if successful, a New Drug Application, or NDA, for FMS could possibly be submitted later in that year.

        We completed a Phase II trial evaluating milnacipran for the treatment of FMS in the Fall of 2002. The Phase II trial was a three-month, randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 14 sites and 125 FMS patients who were randomized to either milnacipran treatment or placebo. In this clinical trial, milnacipran was shown to provide statistically significant improvement in pain, the primary symptom of FMS. No unexpected safety concerns arose from this trial and there were no serious adverse events.

        We obtained an exclusive license for milnacipran from Pierre Fabre Medicament in 2001. Milnacipran has been marketed outside of the United States since 1997 as an antidepressant and has been used by over 2,000,000 patients worldwide. We have paid Pierre Fabre a total of $2.5 million, including upfront payments of $1.5 million in connection with the execution of the original license agreement in 2001 and a $1.0 million milestone payment in September 2003. Additional payments to Pierre Fabre of up to a total of $4.5 million will be due to Pierre Fabre based on meeting certain clinical and regulatory milestones. Under our agreement with Forest Laboratories, we sublicensed our rights to milnacipran to Forest Laboratories for the United States, with an option to extend the territory to include Canada. Additionally, Forest Laboratories assumed responsibility for funding all continuing development of milnacipran, including the funding of clinical trials and regulatory approval, as well as a specified number of our employees. Forest Laboratories will also be responsible for sales

2

and marketing activities related to any product developed under the agreement, while we have the option to co-promote up to 25% of the total physician details.

        We are continuing to evaluate various potential strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of products, technologies and companies and other alternatives that we believe may enhance stockholder value.

Fibromyalgia Syndrome Background

        FMS is a chronic and debilitating condition characterized by widespread pain and stiffness throughout the body, accompanied by severe fatigue, insomnia and mood symptoms. Unlike arthritis and other debilitating rheumatological disorders, FMS produces serious and chronic pain that is not the result of inflammation. Pain associated with FMS is of a "head-to-toe" nature, and is described as a diffuse aching or burning. Pain can vary in severity and location from day to day and, in some people, it can be so intense that it interferes with the performance of even simple tasks, while in others it may cause only moderate, ongoing discomfort. By some measures, patients with FMS have at least comparable disability, more pain and lower quality of life than patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Although FMS has been medically recognized for many years, it was only in 1990 that medical specialists agreed on the signs and symptoms that must be present to make the diagnosis. The American College of Rheumatology, or ACR, diagnosis criteria for FMS include a history of widespread and longstanding pain, as measured by pain upon application of pressure in 11 of 18 designated tender points. Specialists in the field of FMS have concluded that FMS is a result of a generalized and heightened perception of sensory stimuli resulting from abnormal pain processing within the central nervous system, and in most instances, is triggered by physical trauma, emotional stress or infection.

        As reported by the ACR, FMS affects an estimated 2-4% of the population worldwide, including an estimated 6-12 million patients in the United States. A recent scientific article suggests that because the ACR criteria were designed for clinical research purposes and therefore limit the FMS diagnosis, the 2-4% prevalence may under-represent the actual prevalence of chronic widespread pain in the population. Most FMS patients are middle-aged women, although the ailment can strike children, the elderly and men. According to the ACR, FMS is diagnosed four times more frequently in women than in men and once symptoms appear, most patients can expect to suffer the condition throughout their entire life. As a result of the diversity of symptoms, there are numerous physician specialties involved in the treatment and management of FMS. FMS is most often treated in the primary care setting. The leading specialty group treating FMS patients is rheumatologists, for whom FMS is the second most common diagnosis made after osteoarthritis.

        Despite the high prevalence and severity of this syndrome, there are no treatments specifically approved for FMS in the United States or elsewhere. Current treatments consist of a regimen that includes medication to diminish pain and improve sleep, exercise programs that stretch muscles and improve cardiovascular fitness and physical therapy and relaxation techniques to ease muscle tension. Antidepressants are often prescribed for FMS patients, as low doses of these medications appear to relieve pain associated with FMS. Tricyclic antidepressants, or TCAs, a class of compounds that are known to be effective analgesics, or pain-reducing drugs, in multiple chronic pain conditions, including FMS, are currently viewed as the drugs of choice in treating FMS. TCAs act by increasing serotonin and norepinephrine. Serotonin and norepinephrine are chemicals in the brain that are thought to be involved in controlling "centrally mediated pain"—that is, pain that originates at the central nervous system level, as opposed to pain that is caused by an injury, such as a cut or an arthritic swollen joint. TCAs are distinguished from most other antidepressants, specifically from the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, and the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or SNRIs, because TCAs preferentially block the reuptake of norepinephrine as compared to serotonin, which means that TCAs increase the level of norepinephrine more than they do the serotonin levels. We believe that

3

these characteristics of TCAs make them more suited to the treatment of the pain associated with FMS than SSRIs and SNRIs. TCAs, however, are severely limited in their use for the treatment of FMS because they have been linked with side effects such as arrhythmias, the risk of fatal overdose, as well as contributing to weight gain and drowsiness, which is particularly problematic because individuals with FMS are already suffering from fatigue.

Milnacipran for the Treatment of FMS

Milnacipran

        We are developing milnacipran for the treatment of FMS. Milnacipran is the first of a new class of agents known as norepinephrine serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or NSRIs, which increase the level of norepinephrine more than they do serotonin. While milnacipran is similar to TCAs with regard to the relative ratio of norepinephrine and serotonin activity, milnacipran appears to lack the side effects associated with TCAs, as it does not interact with several classes of receptors that are responsible for many of the adverse effects of TCAs. Therefore, we believe that milnacipran may have efficacy similar to TCAs in treating FMS and related chronic pain conditions, without causing the side effects that limit the prescribing of TCAs by physicians, and compliance by patients. Milnacipran is approved for the treatment of depression in 32 countries and is currently a leading antidepressant in Japan. Since its commercial launch in 1997, milnacipran has been used by over 2,000,000 patients worldwide, with side effects typically limited to transient and mild nausea and a slight increase in heart rate, as well as the potential for urinary retention in older men with an enlarged prostate. Milnacipran has not been approved in the United States for any indication, and we are the first company conducting clinical trials of milnacipran in the United States for FMS. As a result of the favorable side effect profile of milnacipran and its ability to increase the level of norepinephrine more than serotonin in the brain, we believe that milnacipran may play a significant role in the treatment of FMS.

Milnacipran Development Status

Phase II Results

        We completed a Phase II trial evaluating milnacipran for the treatment of FMS in the Fall of 2002. The Phase II trial was a three-month, randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 14 sites and 125 FMS patients who were randomized to either milnacipran treatment or placebo. The study evaluated the overall analgesic efficacy and safety of milnacipran in this population of FMS patients, with a primary endpoint based on improvement in patient-reported pain. Electronic diaries were provided to all patients for the purpose of recording daily pain assessments in real time. We believe that performing daily pain assessments using electronic diaries reduces bias involved with asking individuals to recall symptoms over time and improves compliance by prompting and time-date stamping each patient response. The pain measures obtained from the electronic diaries were chosen to be the primary variable for the measurement of pain improvement. Secondary objectives included assessment of the impact of dosing strategy (twice daily dosing versus once daily) and the impact of milnacipran on other symptoms of FMS including fatigue, mood, physical function and sleep disturbances. Based on tolerability, patients were allowed to double their dose every week, up to a maximum of 200 mg of milnacipran daily. In our Phase II trial, milnacipran was shown to provide statistically significant improvement in pain, the primary symptom of FMS. Thirty-seven percent of milnacipran-treated patients randomized to the twice a day dosing group reported at least a 50% reduction in pain intensity, which means that their reported pain was half as intense as it was at the beginning of the study, compared to 14% of patients in the placebo group. In this analysis, 51 patients received milnacipran and 28 patients received a placebo. The reduction in pain intensity was statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.0395. A p-value is a statistical measure of probability of drawing an erroneous conclusion from an experimental result. A p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 is generally considered to signify a statistically significant result, which means a result is unlikely to occur by

4

chance. Further, 75% of all milnacipran-treated patients reported an impression of overall improvement compared to 38% in the placebo group. In this analysis, 68 patients received milnacipran and 21 patients received a placebo. This reported impression of overall improvement was also statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.003. Twice daily milnacipran had significantly better analgesic properties than once daily milnacipran, although other outcomes (e.g. fatigue, mood, patient's global impression) were equally impacted by the two dosing regimens. No unexpected safety concerns arose from this clinical trial and there were no serious adverse events. Milnacipran was generally well-tolerated, especially with twice daily dosing. The most common dose-related side effect reported by patients was nausea, particularly early in the study, as well as a slight increase in heart rate. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and only lasted for a short time.

Phase III Trials

        We commenced the first of our planned Phase III trials in October 2003. To prepare for our Phase III clinical program, and before commencing the first pivotal clinical trial, we completed a special protocol assessment with the FDA. In the special protocol assessment process, the FDA reviews the design and size of a proposed Phase III program and provides comments regarding the adequacy of the clinical trial design to support a claim of effectiveness in an approvable NDA. The FDA's comments are binding on its review decision, except in limited circumstances, such as when a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of a drug is identified after the Phase III program commences. In response to our Phase II results, and based on modeling of the outcome measures used in our Phase II trial, we have mutually agreed with the FDA on a Phase III program. As generally is required by the FDA, two positive pivotal trials are required for an NDA approval of milnacipran for the treatment of FMS. Both of the required trials are similar in design to the Phase II trial—they require that participants in the trial cease taking any drugs they are taking for FMS, have virtually identical inclusion and exclusion criteria, will rely on the use of the electronic diary to assess pain and are utilizing qualitative assessment methodologies. We plan on enrolling over 1,000 patients in total in our first two Phase III trials. Per the stipulations in the special protocol assessment, the first pivotal trial will include a six-month evaluation phase once a patient has reached his or her stable treatment dose. The second trial will require a shorter three-month evaluation phase once a patient has reached his or her stable dose. In these clinical trials, two milnacipran doses will be evaluated (200 mg, as well as a lower dose, both administered twice daily), and the endpoint will be a composite responder analysis. This new endpoint is a composite incorporating pain, the patient's global impression of change and physical function, which means the patient's ability to perform functions of daily living. As part of the Phase III program we also need to evaluate patients for a time period consistent with the minimum safety guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH. Specifically, these ICH guidelines require that we evaluate 300 patients on the 200 mg dose of milnacipran for six months and 100 patients on the 200 mg dose of milnacipran for one year. The entire Phase III program could possibly be completed in 2006 and, if successful, an NDA for FMS could possibly be submitted later in that year. We do not believe that patient enrollment will be a time-limiting factor due to the current lack of approved treatments for FMS, and our historical FMS enrollment rates have met our expectations.

Licenses and Collaborations

Pierre Fabre Agreements

        In January 2004 we amended and restated our existing license agreement with Pierre Fabre. Our license agreement with Pierre Fabre provides us with an exclusive license to develop and sell any products with the compound milnacipran as an active ingredient for any indication in the United States and Canada. We are obligated to pay Pierre Fabre 5% of any upfront and milestone payments received from Forest Laboratories as a sublicense fee. After a total of $7.5 million has been paid, any additional

5

sublicense fees are credited against any subsequent milestone and royalty payments owed by us to Pierre Fabre. If not used, these credits are carried forward to subsequent years. We also are obligated to pay Pierre Fabre up to $4.5 million in the aggregate upon achievement of defined clinical and regulatory objectives. Forest Laboratories assumed our obligation to pay royalties to Pierre Fabre and the transfer price for the active ingredient supplied by Pierre Fabre. Pierre Fabre retains the right to sell products in indications developed by us outside the United States and Canada, and will pay us a royalty based on net sales for such products. The license agreement also provides Pierre Fabre with certain rights to obtain a license outside the United States and Canada for new formulations and new salts developed by us.

        The agreement is effective until the later of the expiration of the last-to-expire of certain patents held by Pierre Fabre relating to the development of milnacipran, or ten years after the first commercial sale of a licensed product, unless terminated earlier. Each party has the right to terminate the agreement upon 90 days' prior written notice of the bankruptcy or dissolution of the other party or a breach of any material provision of the agreement if such breach is not cured within 90 days following such written notice. Additionally, Pierre Fabre has the right to terminate the agreement upon 90 days' written notice if (i) we terminate all development activities, unless the termination of activities is subject to cure within 12 months and we are using commercially reasonable efforts to cure the termination of activities, (ii) we challenge the Pierre Fabre patents and (iii) we effect a change in control in which a third party acquiror controls an SNRI product and certain provisions of the agreement would be breached as a result of such SNRI product, and the breach is not cured within a specified time period.

        In addition, in January 2004 we entered into a supply agreement with Pierre Fabre. If any product is commercialized under the license agreement, Pierre Fabre will have the exclusive right to manufacture the active ingredients used in the commercial product, and we will pay Pierre Fabre a transfer price and royalties based on net sales. Forest Laboratories has assumed both of these financial obligations. Our supply agreement with Pierre Fabre may be terminated for cause either by us or by Pierre Fabre upon 90 days' prior written notice to the other party upon a material breach of the agreement if the breach is not cured within 90 days following the written notice. In addition, Pierre Fabre may elect to terminate the agreement if we effect a change in control under specified circumstances.

Forest Laboratories Agreement

        In January 2004, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories for the development and marketing of milnacipran. We selected Forest Laboratories as our development and marketing collaborator based in part on its strong franchise in central nervous system drugs and in the primary care and psychiatric markets. Under our agreement with Forest Laboratories, we sublicensed our exclusive rights to develop and commercialize milnacipran to Forest Laboratories for the United States, with an option to extend the territory to include Canada. In addition, Forest Laboratories has an option for a specified time period to acquire an exclusive license from us in the United States, and potentially Canada, to any compounds developed under our agreement with Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. Forest Laboratories assumed responsibility for funding all continuing development of milnacipran, including the funding of clinical trials and regulatory approvals, as well as a certain number of our employees. Forest Laboratories will also be responsible for sales and marketing activities related to any product developed under the agreement, and we will have the option to co-promote up to 25% of the total physician details. We share decision making authority with Forest Laboratories, through the joint development committee, with respect to the research, development and marketing of milnacipran. In the event that the joint development committee is unable to resolve any dispute, other than any marketing related issue, Forest Laboratories and we must jointly resolve such issue. With respect to any marketing related issue, Forest Laboratories has the final decision making authority.

6

Under our agreement with Forest Laboratories and our agreement with Pierre Fabre, each party agreed to certain limitations on the development of products for FMS and on the development of SNRI products.

        Under our agreement with Forest Laboratories, we received an upfront payment of $25.0 million, of which $1.25 million will be payable to Pierre Fabre as a sublicense fee. The total upfront and milestone payments to us under the agreement could be approximately $205.0 million related to the development of milnacipran for the treatment of FMS, a large portion of which will depend upon achieving certain sales of milnacipran and an additional $45.0 million in the event that we and Forest Laboratories develop other indications for milnacipran, as well as potential royalty payments based on sales of licensed product under this agreement. In addition, Forest Laboratories assumed the royalty payments due to Pierre Fabre and the transfer price for the active ingredient used in milnacipran. The agreement with Forest Laboratories extends until the later of (i) the expiration of the last to expire of the applicable patents, (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of a product under the agreement or (iii) the last commercial sale of a generic product, unless terminated earlier. Each party has the right to terminate the agreement upon prior written notice of the bankruptcy or dissolution of the other party, or a breach of any material provision of the agreement if the breach has not been cured within the required time period following the written notice. Forest Laboratories may also terminate our agreement upon an agreed notice period in the event Forest Laboratories reasonably determines that the development program indicates issues of safety or efficacy that are likely to prevent or significantly delay the filing or approval of an NDA or to result in labeling or indications that would have a significant adverse affect on the marketing of any product developed under the agreement.

Collegium Agreement

        In August 2002, we entered into a reformulation and new product agreement with Collegium pursuant to which Collegium is attempting to develop new formulations of milnacipran and new products that are analogs of milnacipran. Collegium is led by a management team with significant expertise in developing novel formulations of currently marketed or soon-to-be marketed products for both the brand and generic industries. In January 2004, we exercised our option to acquire an exclusive license to technology developed under this agreement. In the event we commercialize any of the reformulations or new products developed under our agreement with Collegium, we will be obligated to pay Collegium milestone payments and royalty payments. The agreement with Collegium is effective until the expiration of the last-to-expire of the issued patents, if any, unless terminated earlier. Each party has the right to terminate the agreement upon 60 days' prior written notice of the bankruptcy or dissolution of the other party or a breach of any material provision of the agreement if the breach has not been cured within the 60-day period following the written notice.

Other Potential Uses of Milnacipran

        We also believe that milnacipran may be effective in the treatment of other Functional Somatic Syndromes, such as irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS. With our development and marketing partner Forest Laboratories, we may in the future investigate the use of milnacipran in the treatment of IBS or other disorders. Should we and Forest Laboratories choose to pursue additional indications beyond FMS and obtain FDA approval for such indications, we could receive up to an additional $45 million in milestone payments. Since we are entitled to royalty payments based on sales of any licensed product under the agreement with Forest Laboratories, we would receive royalty payments for any additional indications. The decision regarding which, if any, additional indications are pursued, is one that we make together with Forest Laboratories, through the joint development committee. Such decisions relate to the research and development of milnacipran, so in the event the joint development committee is unable to resolve any dispute regarding potential indications, Forest Laboratories and we must jointly resolve such issue.

7

Patents, Trademarks and Proprietary Technology

        We believe that patents, trademarks, copyrights and other proprietary rights are important to our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our intellectual property rights by a variety of means, including patents, maintaining trade secrets and proprietary know-how, and technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We actively seek patent protection both in the United States and internationally and have filed 16 patent applications related to FMS and milnacipran. It is possible that a patent application will not issue from any of our patent applications and the breadth or scope of protection allowed under any issued patents may not provide adequate protection to protect any of our future products. We intend to enforce our patents, trademarks and brand names. We have also obtained a license from Pierre Fabre to certain patents and patent applications related to milnacipran, our only product candidate. Under the license, which we have sublicensed to Forest Laboratories, we have rights to a method of synthesis patent for milnacipran in the United States and Canada. Both the United States patent (U.S. Patent 5,034,541) and the Canadian patent (No. 2,006,464) terminate in December 2009. The composition of matter patent for milnacipran expired in June 2002. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, Pierre Fabre is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of the patents and patent applications licensed thereunder at its sole expense. In addition, Pierre Fabre has the first right to take actions with respect to the infringement or potential infringement of such patents and patent applications, except for any action in connection with an abbreviated NDA filed by a third party, and provided that we may take appropriate actions with respect to the infringement of such patents and patent applications in the United States and Canada if Pierre Fabre fails to do so within a specified period of time. We or Forest Laboratories has the first right to take any action with respect to any proceeding in connection with an abbreviated NDA filed by a third party. Although we have filed use patents on milnacipran, two of which have issued (U.S. Patent 6,602,911 and U.S. Patent 6,635,675, both expiring in 2021), we may not be able to secure any additional patent protection and the existing patents may not ensure exclusivity through the patent term. As a new chemical entity in the United States, milnacipran also qualifies under the terms of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or Hatch-Waxman Amendments, under which it would receive five years of marketing exclusivity upon marketing approval, during which time a generic milnacipran may not be approved. Even so, recent amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Amendments have been proposed and it, therefore, may not apply to us in the future.

        Although patents are enforceable from the date of issuance and presumed to be valid, future litigation or reexamination proceedings regarding the enforcement or validity of our existing patents or future patents, if issued, could result in a ruling adverse to us that could invalidate such patents or substantially reduce the scope of protection afforded by such patents. Our patents may not afford commercially significant protection of our proprietary technology or have commercial application. There has been no judicial determination of the validity or scope of our proprietary rights. Moreover, the patent laws in foreign countries may differ from those of the United States, and the degree of protection afforded by foreign patents may be different.

        Others have filed applications for, or have been issued, patents and may obtain additional patents and other proprietary rights relating to products or processes competitive with us. The scope and validity of such patents is presently unknown. If existing or future patents are upheld as valid by courts, we may be required to obtain licenses to use technology covered by such patents.

Government Regulation

        Our research, preclinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing activities are subject to extensive regulation by numerous governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. In the United States, pharmaceutical drugs are subject to rigorous FDA regulation under the Federal

8

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, the preclinical and clinical testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, marketing, advertising and promotion of our drug products and drug product candidates. The product development and regulatory approval process requires the commitment of substantial time, effort and financial resources.

        The steps required before a pharmaceutical agent may be marketed in the United States generally include:

•

completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal pharmacology and toxicology studies and formulation studies performed in compliance with the FDA's good laboratory practice, or GLP regulations;



•

the submission of an investigational new drug application, or IND, to the FDA for human clinical testing that must be accepted by the FDA before human clinical trials may commence;



•

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the proposed indication of use;



•

the submission of an NDA to the FDA; and



•

FDA approval of the NDA prior to any commercial sale or shipment of the drug.

        Preclinical studies include the laboratory evaluation of in vitro pharmacology, product chemistry and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of a product. Compounds must be formulated according to the FDA's current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and preclinical safety tests must be conducted by laboratories that comply with GLP requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application and are reviewed by the FDA before human clinical trials may begin. The IND must also contain protocols for any clinical trials that will be carried out. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the conduct of the proposed clinical trial during the 30-day waiting period. If the FDA objects to an IND application during this 30-day waiting period or at any time thereafter, the FDA may halt proposed or ongoing clinical trials or may authorize trials only under specified terms. Such a halt, called a clinical hold, continues in effect until and unless the FDA's concerns are adequately addressed. In some cases, clinical holds are never lifted. Imposition by the FDA of a clinical hold can delay or preclude further product development. The IND process may be extremely costly and may substantially delay product development.

        Clinical trials must be sponsored and conducted in accordance with good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements and under protocols and methodologies that, among other things:

•

ensure receipt from participants of signed consents that inform them of risks;



•

detail the protocol and objectives of the study;



•

detail the parameters to be used to monitor safety; and



•

detail the efficacy criteria to be evaluated.

        Furthermore, each clinical study must be conducted under the supervision of a principal investigator operating under the auspices of an institutional review board, or IRB, at the institution where the study is conducted. The IRB must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution and it must monitor the study until it is completed. The IRB will consider, among other things, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects and the possible liability of the institution. Sponsors, investigators and IRB members are obligated to avoid conflicts of interests and ensure compliance with all legal requirements. The FDA, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend or

9

discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including potential health risks to study subjects.

        Clinical trials are conducted in accordance with protocols that detail the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used to monitor safety and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol is submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and the FDA must grant permission before each clinical trial may begin. Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap. In Phase I, the initial introduction of the drug into a small number of healthy volunteers, the drug is evaluated for safety by assessing the adverse effects, dosage tolerance, metabolism, distribution, excretion and clinical pharmacology. The Phase I trial must provide pharmacological data that is sufficient to devise the Phase II trials.

        Phase II trials involve a limited patient population in order to:

•

obtain initial indications of the efficacy of the drug for specific, targeted indications;



•

determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage; and



•

identify possible adverse affects and safety risks.

        When a compound is determined preliminarily to be effective and to have an acceptable safety profile in Phase II evaluation, Phase III trials—commonly referred to as pivotal studies—can be undertaken to evaluate safety and efficacy endpoints further in expanded and diverse patient populations at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. Positive results in Phase I or II are not necessarily predictive of positive results in Phase III. In our case, our positive results from the Phase II clinical trial of milnacipran are no guarantee of positive results in our current or future Phase III trials. To prepare for our Phase III clinical program and before commencing the first pivotal clinical trial, we completed a special protocol assessment, or SPA, with the FDA. During the SPA process, the FDA requested that we provide additional information, including information regarding our statistical analysis plan. We are in the process of responding to the FDA's request. In the SPA process, the FDA reviews the proposed Phase III program and provides comments regarding the adequacy of the design and size of a proposed clinical trial to support claims of effectiveness in an approvable NDA. These FDA comments are binding on the review decision of the FDA, except in limited circumstances, such as when a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of a drug is identified after the Phase III program subject to the SPA commences.

        The results of the pharmaceutical development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA, which must be complete, accurate and in compliance with FDA regulations. Once the submission has been accepted for filing by the FDA, a process that may take up to 60 days after submission, by law the FDA has 180 days to review the application and respond to the applicant. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may deny an NDA filed by us or our collaborators if the applicable scientific and regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or it may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal trial. Moreover, data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The approval of an NDA permits commercial-scale manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of the drug in the United States and, with some limitations, export from the United States. Upon approval, a drug may only be marketed in those dosage forms, for those indications and subject to those limitations approved in the NDA. Moreover, after approval, the FDA may require additional post-approval testing, surveillance and reporting to monitor the products. Thus, even if approval for a drug is granted, it can be limited or revoked if evidence subsequently emerges casting doubt on the safety or efficacy of a product or if the manufacturing facility, processes or controls do not comply with regulatory

10

requirements. Finally, an approval may entail limitations on the uses, labeling, dosage forms, distribution and packaging of the product.

        Among the conditions for new drug approval is the requirement that the prospective manufacturer's quality control, record keeping, notifications and reporting and manufacturing systems conform to the FDA's cGMP regulations. To obtain approval, the drug manufacturing facility must be registered with the FDA and must pass a pre-approval inspection demonstrating compliance with cGMP requirements. If milnacipran is commercialized in the United States, Pierre Fabre's facility will need to be inspected by the FDA for compliance with cGMP requirements. Manufacturing establishments also are subject to periodic, ongoing compliance inspections. In complying with the standards contained in these regulations, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, resources and effort in order to ensure compliance. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in legal or regulatory action, including warning letters, suspension of manufacture, product seizure or recalls, injunctive action or civil or criminal penalties.

        The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

        Outside the United States, our ability to market a product is contingent upon receiving a marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory authority. This foreign regulatory approval process includes many of the same steps associated with FDA approval described above.

        In addition to regulations enforced by the FDA, we are and will be subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and future federal, state or local regulations. Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals and various radioactive compounds. Although we believe that the safety procedures used by third parties for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of an accident, we could be liable for any damages that result.

        The approval process for milnacipran or any of our future products is expensive, time consuming and uncertain, and any applicable regulatory agency may not grant marketing approval. We may not have sufficient resources to complete the required testing and regulatory review processes. Furthermore, we are unable to predict the extent of adverse governmental regulation, which might arise from future United States or foreign legislative or administrative action.

Competition

        We are currently focusing on developing milnacipran to treat patients with FMS. Currently, there are no approved treatments specifically for FMS in the United States or elsewhere. As a result, the first option for treatment of FMS is physical therapy, followed by analgesics to attempt to alleviate the pain. If the analgesics do not alleviate the pain, then muscle relaxants and antidepressants are often prescribed. TCAs, which are available in inexpensive generic formulations, are currently viewed as the drugs of choice in treating FMS. We are also focusing on the development of products for the treatment of patients with Functional Somatic Syndromes.

        Preliminary clinical trials have been conducted by other pharmaceutical companies for the treatment of FMS. In particular, Pfizer Inc. has publicly disclosed that it has conducted a Phase II clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of its compound, pregabalin, as a treatment for FMS. In addition, Eli Lilly and Company has publicly disclosed that it has conducted a Phase II clinical trial

11

evaluating the efficacy and safety of its compound, duloxetine, as a treatment for FMS. The market potential for Functional Somatic Syndromes, including FMS, is considerable and a number of pharmaceutical companies focused on therapies for alleviating pain or antidepressant therapies could decide to evaluate their current product candidates for the treatment of Functional Somatic Syndromes, including FMS, at any time. Due to the high incidence of Functional Somatic Syndromes, including FMS, we anticipate that most, if not all, of the major pharmaceutical companies will have significant research and product development programs in these areas. We expect to encounter significant competition both in the United States and in foreign markets for each of the drugs we seek to develop.

        Our competitors include fully-integrated pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies both in the United States and in foreign markets which have expertise in research and development, manufacturing processes, testing, obtaining regulatory clearances and marketing, and may have financial and other resources significantly greater than we do. Smaller companies may also prove to be significant competitors. Academic institutions, United States and foreign government agencies and other public and private research organizations conduct research relating to Functional Somatic Syndromes, including FMS, and may develop products for the treatment of these diseases that compete directly with any products we develop. Our competitors may compete with us for collaborations. These companies and institutions also compete with us in recruiting and retaining highly qualified scientific personnel.

        Our competition will be partially determined by the potential indications that are ultimately cleared for marketing by regulatory authorities, the timing of any clearances and market introductions and whether any currently available drugs, or drugs under development by others, are effective in the same indications. Accordingly, the relative speed with which we can develop milnacipran or any of our future product candidates, complete the clinical trials, receive regulatory clearance and supply commercial quantities of the products to the market is expected to be an important competitive factor. We expect that competition among products approved for sale will be based, among other things, on product efficacy, safety, reliability, availability and patent protection.

Manufacturing and Supply

        Pursuant to the terms of our purchase and supply agreement with Pierre Fabre, Pierre Fabre is the exclusive supplier to us and Forest Laboratories of the active pharmaceutical ingredient for milnacipran in exchange for a transfer price. Forest Laboratories has assumed the obligation to pay the transfer price to Pierre Fabre. Currently, Pierre Fabre manufactures the active pharmaceutical ingredient for milnacipran in its facility located in Gaillac, France. This facility will need to be inspected by the FDA. Due to the projected commercial quantities of milnacipran that we may require and to provide a second manufacturing site, Pierre Fabre has agreed that within a certain time period after commercial launch of milnacipran, it will qualify an additional manufacturing facility. In addition, because Pierre Fabre is our sole supplier of the active pharmaceutical ingredient for milnacipran and is currently the only supplier of the active pharmaceutical ingredient for milnacipran in the world, we have the right, but not the obligation, to qualify us or Forest Laboratories as an additional manufacturing facility to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient for milnacipran. We do not currently have this capability. In addition, we have the right to manufacture milnacipran if Pierre Fabre does not have the required buffer stock or in the event that we terminate our license agreement with Pierre Fabre under certain circumstances. Currently, we have contracted with Patheon Inc. to complete the manufacture process by encapsulating and packaging milnacipran for our clinical trials.

Employees

        As of February 29, 2004, we employed 15 full-time employees. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our relationship with our employees is good.

12

The PROSORBA Column

        Prior to December 31, 2000, we were engaged in the product development and marketing of the PROSORBA column, a medical device, which was marketed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura. In January 2001, Fresenius HemoCare, or Fresenius, purchased most of our assets related to the PROSORBA column. In February 2002, we amended certain provisions of our license and distribution agreement with Fresenius. Under the terms of the amendment, the initial $8 million payment we received in January 2001 was made non-refundable under any circumstances. The amendment also eliminated the payment from Fresenius to us of royalties on column sales in excess of 10,000 units in any of the first five years of the agreement and eliminated all royalties on sales beyond five years. A contingent payment is due to us on January 30, 2008 in the amount of $1 million if sales during the first seven years exceed 35,000 units, $2 million if they exceed 50,000 units and none if the sales are less than 35,000 units. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the patents and trademarks related to the PROSORBA column. In addition, we agreed to indemnify Fresenius for any losses related to patent or trademark infringement claims.

Available Information

        Our website address is www.cypressbio.com. We make available free of charge through our website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

13

Risk factors

        Except for the historical information contained herein, the information contained herein contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, in particular, statements about our plans, strategies and prospects. These statements, which may include words such as "may," "will," "expect," "believe," "intend," "plan," "anticipate," "estimate," or similar words, are based on our current beliefs, expectations and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Although we believe that our beliefs, expectations and assumptions reflected in these statements are reasonable, our actual results and financial performance may prove to be very different from what we might have predicted on the date of this Form 10-K. Factors that could cause or contribute to differences include, but are not specifically limited to, our ability to develop milnacipran for Fibromyalgia Syndrome, our ability to develop or acquire any compounds or products to treat any other indications we may pursue in a timely manner, or at all, as well as the other risks detailed in this Form 10-K and in our other SEC filings.

Risks Related to Our Business

We are dependent on our collaboration with Forest Laboratories to develop and commercialize milnacipran, our only product candidate, and to obtain regulatory approval. Events or circumstances may occur that delay or prevent the development and commercialization of milnacipran.

        Pursuant to the terms of our collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories, we granted Forest Laboratories an exclusive sublicense for the development and marketing of milnacipran, our only product candidate, for all indications in the United States, with an option to extend the territory to include Canada. In addition, Forest Laboratories has the option to acquire an exclusive license from us in the United States, and potentially Canada, to any compounds developed under our agreement with Collegium Pharmaceutical. Forest Laboratories is responsible for funding the development of milnacipran, including clinical trials and regulatory approval. If the FDA approves this product candidate, Forest Laboratories will also have primary responsibility for the marketing and sale of the approved product and will share responsibility for compliance with regulatory requirements. We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that Forest Laboratories will dedicate to the development, approval and marketing of milnacipran. Our ability to generate milestone and royalty payments from Forest Laboratories depends on Forest Laboratories' ability to establish the safety and efficacy of milnacipran, obtain regulatory approvals and achieve market acceptance of milnacipran for the treatment of FMS.

        We are subject to a number of additional risks associated with our dependence on our collaboration with Forest Laboratories, including:

•

Forest Laboratories could delay the commencement of our second phase III trial for milnacipran for the treatment of FMS or the commencement of any other clinical trials, underfund such clinical trials, stop our current phase III trial or any other clinical trials for milnacipran or abandon development of milnacipran, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of milnacipran for clinical testing;



•

we and Forest Laboratories could disagree as to development plans, including clinical trials or regulatory approval strategy, or as to which additional indications for milnacipran should be pursued;



•

Forest Laboratories could independently develop, develop with third parties or acquire products that could compete with milnacipran, including drugs approved for other indications used by physicians off-label for the treatment of FMS;



•

Forest Laboratories could fail to devote sufficient resources to the development, approval, commercialization, or marketing and distribution of any products developed under our

14

collaboration agreement, including by failing to develop a rheumatology sales force if such a sales force is necessary for the most effective distribution of any approved product; and

•

disputes regarding the collaboration agreement that delay or terminate the development, commercialization or receipt of regulatory approvals of milnacipran, delay or prevent the achievement of clinical or regulatory objectives that would result in the payment of milestone payments or result in significant litigation or arbitration.

        Furthermore, Forest Laboratories may terminate our collaboration agreement upon our material breach or our bankruptcy and may also terminate our agreement upon 120 days' notice in the event Forest Laboratories reasonably determines that the development program indicates issues of safety or efficacy that are likely to prevent or significantly delay the filing or approval of a new drug application or to result in labeling or indications that would significantly adversely affect the marketing of any product developed under the agreement. If any of these events occur, we may not be able to find another collaborator for development or commercialization, and if we elected to pursue further development and commercialization of milnacipran, we would experience substantially increased capital requirements that we might not be able to fund.

We rely upon an exclusive license from Pierre Fabre in order to develop and sell our milnacipran product candidate, and our ability to pursue the development and commercialization of milnacipran for the treatment of FMS depends upon the continuation of our license from Pierre Fabre.

        Our license agreement with Pierre Fabre provides us with an exclusive license to develop and sell any products with the compound milnacipran as an active ingredient for any indication in the United States and Canada, with a right to sublicense certain rights to Forest Laboratories under our collaboration with Forest Laboratories. Either we or Pierre Fabre may terminate the license agreement for cause upon 90 days' prior written notice to the other party upon the bankruptcy or dissolution of the other party, or upon a breach of any material provision of the agreement if the breach is not cured within 90 days following the written notice. Furthermore, Pierre Fabre has the right to terminate the agreement upon 90 days' prior notice to us if we and our sub-licensees terminate our development and marketing activities with respect to milnacipran, if we challenge certain patent rights of Pierre Fabre and under specified other circumstances. If our license agreement with Pierre Fabre were terminated, we would lose our rights to develop and commercialize products using the compound milnacipran as an active ingredient, as the compound is manufactured under Pierre Fabre patents and using Pierre Fabre know-how and trade secrets, and it would be unlikely that we could obtain the active ingredient in milnacipran from any other source.

We rely upon Pierre Fabre as our exclusive supplier of the compound used as the active ingredient in our milnacipran product candidate and if Pierre Fabre fails to supply us sufficient quantities of the active ingredient it may delay or prevent us from developing and commercializing our only product candidate.

        Pursuant to our purchase and supply agreement with Pierre Fabre, Pierre Fabre is the exclusive supplier to us and Forest Laboratories of the compound used as the active pharmaceutical ingredient in our milnacipran product candidate. Neither we nor Forest Laboratories have facilities for the manufacture of the product candidate. Currently, Pierre Fabre manufactures the active ingredient of milnacipran in its facility in Gaillac, France and Pierre Fabre is the only worldwide supplier of the active ingredient of milnacipran that is currently approved for sale as an antidepressant and sold in 32 countries, but is not approved for sale in the United States. If any product is commercialized under the agreement, Pierre Fabre will have the exclusive right to manufacture the active ingredient used in our commercial product. If milnacipran is commercialized in the United States, Pierre Fabre's facility will need to be inspected by the FDA for compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements. Due to the projected commercial quantities of milnacipran that we may require and to provide a second manufacturing site, Pierre Fabre has agreed that within a certain time period after

15

commercial launch of milnacipran, it will qualify an additional manufacturing facility. We do not have control over Pierre Fabre's compliance with cGMP requirements or Pierre Fabre's compliance with its obligation to qualify a second manufacturing facility. If Pierre Fabre fails or is unable to provide, in a timely and economic manner, required quantities of the active ingredient that Forest Laboratories or we request for clinical purposes, our development program could be delayed. In addition, if Pierre Fabre fails to timely and economically supply us sufficient quantities for commercial sale, our product sales and market acceptance of the product could be adversely affected.

        Furthermore, our purchase and supply agreement may be terminated for cause either by us or by Pierre Fabre upon 90 days' prior written notice to the other party upon a material breach of the agreement if the breach is not cured within 90 days following the written notice. We have the right to manufacture milnacipran if Pierre Fabre does not have a required buffer stock or in the event that we terminate our license agreement with Pierre Fabre under certain circumstances. If our purchase and supply agreement with Pierre Fabre is terminated, we are unlikely to be able to qualify another supplier of the active ingredient within a reasonable time period, and our ability to develop and commercialize milnacipran will be significantly impaired.

Our agreements with Pierre Fabre and Forest Laboratories restrict our ability to develop specified compounds, which limits how we can expand our product candidates.

        Under our agreements with Pierre Fabre and Forest Laboratories, Forest Laboratories has agreed to pay Pierre Fabre and us a royalty, in the event that Forest Laboratories sells a product other than milnacipran for FMS for a specified period of time, which shall not be less than three years. We are, in turn, obligated to pay a portion of the royalty we receive from Forest Laboratories to Pierre Fabre. In addition, each of us is subject to limitations related to each party's development of any serotonin norephinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or SNRI, products other than milnacipran. These limitations include: (i) a prohibition on developing an SNRI product for specified indications for which milnacipran is being developed; and (ii) a prohibition on developing an SNRI product for any indication for a specified time period, and after such specified time period, a requirement that if one of the parties launches and sells an SNRI product that is prescribed off-label for any indication for which milnacipran is being developed, the selling party must reimburse the other parties for losses due to the off-label use.

Provisions in our collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories and our license agreement with Pierre Fabre may prevent or delay a change in control.

        Our collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories provides that Forest Laboratories may elect to terminate our co-promotion rights for milnacipran or any other product developed under the collaboration agreement and we may lose our decision making authority with respect to the development and marketing of milnacipran if we engage in a merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, or if another person or entity acquires at least 50% of our voting capital stock. Our license agreement with Pierre Fabre provides that Pierre Fabre may elect to terminate the agreement upon a change in control transaction in which a third party acquiror of us controls an SNRI product, and the acquiror does not take certain actions (e.g., divestiture of such SNRI product) within a specified time period to cure the breach of certain restrictions in the agreement that results from such SNRI product.

        If Forest Laboratories and/or Pierre Fabre elected to exercise these termination rights, we or our successor could lose the ability to develop, commercialize and market milnacipran. These provisions may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control or a sale of all or substantially all of our assets, or may reduce the number of companies interested in acquiring us.

16

We are at an early stage of development and we do not have and may never develop any commercial drugs or other products that generate revenues.

        We are at an early stage of development as a biotechnology company and do not have any commercial products. We have only one product candidate, milnacipran, which we recently sublicensed to Forest Laboratories. Milnacipran, or any future product candidates we may acquire or develop, will require significant additional development, clinical trials, regulatory approvals and additional investment before they can be commercialized. Our product development and product acquisition efforts may not lead to commercial drugs, either because the product candidates are not shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials, because we have inadequate financial or other resources to pursue clinical development of the product candidate, or because the FDA does not grant regulatory approval. We do not expect milnacipran to be marketed for a number of years, if at all. If we and Forest Laboratories are unable to develop milnacipran as a commercial drug in the United States and Canada, or if such development is delayed, we will be unable to generate revenues, may be unsuccessful in raising additional capital, and may cease our operations.

There are limited data regarding milnacipran as a treatment of FMS.

        There are limited data supporting the use of milnacipran, our only product candidate, for the treatment of FMS. Although milnacipran is currently being sold by Pierre Fabre outside North America as an antidepressant, it has only been tested as a treatment for FMS in our Phase II trial, during which milnacipran was administered to only 97 individuals with FMS. We must conduct and obtain favorable results in at least two pivotal Phase III trials to support an application for FDA approval of the product candidate. We cannot predict whether the results of our Phase II trial will be repeated in future clinical trials with larger patient populations. The FDA has never approved a drug for the treatment of FMS. In addition, our future clinical trials may reveal that milnacipran is not safe or that it is not effective for the treatment of FMS. If milnacipran is not demonstrated to be a safe and effective treatment for FMS to the satisfaction of the FDA or other regulatory agencies, we will not receive regulatory approval and our business would be materially harmed.

The FDA approval of milnacipran or any future product candidate is uncertain and will involve the commitment of substantial time and resources.

        We only recently commenced the first of two required Phase III trials of milnacipran for the treatment of FMS. Even if our Phase III trials or any future clinical trials are successful, we may not receive required regulatory approval from the FDA or any other regulatory body required for the commercial sale of milnacipran in the United States, or the approval process may take longer than we anticipate. The regulatory approval of a new drug typically takes many years and the outcome is uncertain. Despite the time and resources expended, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. If we fail to obtain regulatory approval for milnacipran or any future product candidates, we will be unable to market and sell any products and therefore may never generate any revenues from product sales or become profitable. In addition, our collaborators, or our third party manufacturers' failure to comply with the FDA and other applicable United States or foreign regulations may subject us to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including warning letters, civil and criminal penalties, injunctions, product seizure or detention, product recalls, total or partial suspension of production and refusal to approve new drug approval applications.

        As part of the regulatory approval process, we must conduct, at our own expense, preclinical research and clinical trials for each product candidate sufficient to demonstrate its safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and other countries where the product candidate will be marketed if approved. The number of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required varies depending on the product, the disease or condition that the product is in development for and the regulations applicable to any particular product. The regulatory

17

process typically also includes a review of the manufacturing process to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and standards, including the cGMP requirements. The FDA can delay, limit or decline to grant approval for many reasons, including:

•

a product candidate may not be safe or effective;



•

FDA officials may interpret data from preclinical testing and clinical trials in different ways than we interpret such data;



•

the FDA might not approve our manufacturing processes or facilities, or the processes or facilities of any future collaborators or contract manufacturers, including Pierre Fabre's facility for the manufacture of the active ingredient in milnacipran; and



•

the FDA may change its approval policies or adopt new regulations.

If we receive regulatory approval for milnacipran or any other future product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continuing regulatory review.

        Any regulatory approvals that we or our collaborators receive for milnacipran or any future product candidates will be limited to the indications, dosages and restrictions on the product label. We currently intend to seek approval for milnacipran in the treatment of FMS. The FDA may not approve milnacipran for this indication at all, or may impose additional limitations on the indicated uses or contain requirements for post-marketing surveillance or the performance of potentially costly post-marketing studies. Even if we receive FDA and other regulatory approvals, milnacipran or any of our other future product candidates may later exhibit adverse effects that limit or prevent their widespread use or that force us to withdraw those product candidates from the market. In our Phase II trial evaluating milnacipran for the treatment of FMS, the most common dose-related side effects reported by patients were nausea, particularly early in the study, as well as a slight increase in heart rate. Any marketed product and its manufacturer continue to be subject to strict FDA regulation after approval, including regulation of product labeling and packaging, adverse event reporting, manufacture, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping. Any unforeseen problems with an approved product or any violation of regulations could result in restrictions on the product, including its withdrawal from the market.

We rely on third parties to conduct all of our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize milnacipran or any of our other future product candidates.

        We currently have only 15 full-time employees. We have in the past and expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct all of our clinical trials. We and Forest Laboratories are using the services of Scirex, a contract research organization, to conduct the current Phase III trial with respect to milnacipran. Because we do not conduct our own clinical trials, we must rely on the efforts of others and cannot always control or predict accurately the timing of such trials, the costs associated with such trials or the procedures that are followed for such trials. We do not anticipate significantly increasing our personnel in the foreseeable future and therefore, expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct all of our future clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or for other reasons, or if they fail to maintain compliance with applicable government regulations and standards, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize milnacipran or any of our other future product candidates.

18

Even if our product candidates are approved, the market may not accept these products.

        Even if our product development efforts are successful and even if the requisite regulatory approvals are obtained, milnacipran or any future product candidates that we may develop may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. The FDA has never approved a drug for the treatment of FMS and we cannot predict whether milnacipran, if approved for this indication, will gain market acceptance. A number of additional factors may limit the market acceptance of products including the following:

•

rate of adoption by healthcare practitioners;



•

rate of a product's acceptance by the target community;



•

timing of market entry relative to competitive products;



•

availability of alternative therapies;



•

price of our product relative to alternative therapies;



•

availability of third-party reimbursement;



•

extent of marketing efforts by us and third-party distributors or agents retained by us; and



•

the prevalence or severity of side effects or unfavorable publicity concerning our products or similar products.

        If milnacipran or any future product candidates that we may develop do not achieve market acceptance, we may lose our investment in that product candidate, which may cause our stock price to decline.

Our competitors may develop and market products that are less expensive, more effective or safer, which may diminish or eliminate the commercial success of any products we may commercialize.

        The biotechnology market is highly competitive. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have developed or are attempting to develop products that will compete with any products we may develop to target Functional Somatic Syndromes, such as FMS. In particular, Pfizer Inc. has publicly disclosed that it has conducted a Phase II clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of its compound, pregabalin, as a treatment for FMS. In addition, Eli Lilly and Company has publicly disclosed that it has conducted a Phase II clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of its compound, duloxetine, as a treatment for FMS. Duloxetine is a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, and as a dual reuptake inhibitor is therefore similar in pharmacology to milnacipran, which is a norepinephrine serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Based on the similar pharmacology, it is anticipated that duloxetine, which is currently approved but not yet available for the treatment of depression, will receive some off-label use for the treatment of FMS. TCAs, which are inexpensive generic formulations, are currently viewed as the drugs of choice in treating FMS.

        It is possible that our competitors will develop and market products that are less expensive and more effective than our future products or that will render our products obsolete. We are aware that other companies are attempting to develop products to treat FMS, and one or more of our competitors may commercialize and market a product for the treatment of FMS before we do. We also expect that, in the treatment of Functional Somatic Syndromes, competition from other biopharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical companies, universities and public and private research institutions will increase. Many of these competitors have substantially greater financial resources, technical expertise, research capabilities and other resources than we do. We may not have the financial resources, technical expertise or marketing, distribution or support capabilities to compete successfully.

19

We have the right to co-promote milnacipran, but we do not have the marketing, sales or distribution experience or capabilities.

        Our ability to co-promote any product developed under our agreement with Forest Laboratories is subject to our building our own marketing and sales capabilities, and we currently do not have the ability to directly sell, market or distribute any product. In addition, in the event our agreement with Forest Laboratories is terminated or with respect to any other product we may develop that is not covered by our collaboration with Forest Laboratories, we would have to obtain the assistance of a pharmaceutical company or other entity with a large distribution system and a large direct sales force or build a substantial marketing and sales force with appropriate technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities. We may not be able to enter into such arrangements with third parties in a timely manner or on acceptable terms or establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities of our own. To the extent that we enter into co-promotion or other licensing arrangements, our product revenues are likely to be lower than if we directly marketed and sold our products, and any revenues we receive will depend upon the efforts of third parties, which efforts may not be successful.

We are subject to uncertainty relating to health care reform measures and reimbursement policies which, if not favorable to our product candidates, could hinder or prevent our product candidate's commercialization success.

        The continuing efforts of the government, insurance and management care organizations and other health care payors to contain or reduce prescription drug costs may adversely affect:

•

our ability to set a price we believe is fair for our products;



•

our ability to generate revenues and achieve or maintain profitability;



•

the future revenues and profitability of our potential customers, suppliers and collaborators; and



•

the availability of capital.

        Successful commercialization of milnacipran in the United States will depend in part on the extent to which government, insurance and management care organizations and other health care payors establish appropriate coverage and reimbursement levels for the cost of our products and related treatments. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for prescription drugs. Third-party payors are also encouraging the use of generic drugs. These trends could influence health care purchases, as well as legislative proposals to reform health care or reduce government insurance programs and result in the exclusion of our product candidates from coverage and reimbursement programs or lower the prices of our product candidates. Our revenues from the sale of any approved products could be significantly reduced as a result of these cost containment measures and reforms.

We rely on our employees and consultants for their scientific and technical expertise in connection with our business operations.

        We rely significantly on the scientific and technical expertise of our employees and consultants to conduct our business. If any of our relationships with our employees or consultants are terminated, we may lose access to scientific knowledge and expertise necessary for the research, development and commercialization of milnacipran. We do not anticipate significantly increasing our personnel in the foreseeable future and therefore, we expect to continue to rely on consultants and our current employees for scientific and technical knowledge and expertise essential to our business.

        We have an employment agreement with our chief executive officer and consulting agreements with various of our scientific advisors. Our agreement with our chief executive officer provides for "at will" employment, which means that he may terminate his services to us at any time. In addition, our scientific advisors may terminate their services to us at any time.

20

We have limited experience in identifying, completing and integrating acquisition targets and we may incur unexpected costs and disruptions to our businesses if we make mistakes in our selection of future acquisitions or fail to integrate any future acquisitions.

        As part of our strategy, we are continuing to evaluate potential strategic transactions, including potential acquisitions of products, technologies and companies, in order to expand our product pipeline and enhance stockholder value. As we did with our in-licensing of milnacipran, we may seek to in-license compounds or acquire products or businesses. We have no agreements or understandings with respect to any acquisitions. Future acquisitions, however, may expose us to operational and financial risks, including:

•

exposure to unknown liabilities of acquired companies;



•

disruption of our business and diversion of our management's time and attention to developing acquired compounds or products;



•

incurrence of dilutive issuances of securities or substantial debt to pay for acquisitions;



•

higher than expected acquisition and integration costs;



•

inability to retain key employees of any acquired businesses; and



•

impairment of relationships with key collaborators, suppliers or customers of any acquired businesses due to changes in management or ownership.

        We also may devote resources to potential strategic transactions that we never complete or may fail to realize the anticipated benefit of any strategic transaction we do complete. Finally, we may incur unexpected costs in connection with the disposition of products or businesses, including our disposition of our PROSORBA column for which we indemnified Fresenius HemoCare for any losses related to patent or trademark infringement claims.

We may be subject to product liability claims that could cause us to incur liabilities beyond our insurance coverage.

        We plan to continue conducting clinical trials on humans using milnacipran, and the use of milnacipran may result in adverse effects. We cannot predict all possible harm or side effects that may result from the treatment of patients with milnacipran or any of our future products, and the amount of insurance coverage we currently hold may not be adequate to protect us from any liabilities. We currently maintain $10,000,000 in insurance for product liability claims. We may not have sufficient resources to pay any liability resulting from such a claim beyond our insurance coverage.

We have a history of operating losses and we may never be profitable.

        We have incurred substantial losses during our history. For the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, we incurred net losses of $21.7 million, $1.0 million and $7.2 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2003, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $126.3 million. Our ability to become profitable will depend upon our and Forest Laboratories' ability to develop, market and commercialize milnacipran with sufficient sales volumes, and our ability to develop, market and commercialize any other products. We do not expect to generate revenue from the sale of products for the next several years or become profitable in the foreseeable future and may never achieve profitability.

21

We will need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when needed, which could force us to scale back or discontinue the completion of any proposed acquisitions or adversely affect our ability to realize the expected benefits of any completed acquisitions.

        Although Forest Laboratories has assumed responsibility for the development of milnacipran, we will incur certain non-reimbursable expenses in connection with such development. In addition, we will incur expenses in connection with the evaluation of potential acquisitions or other strategic transactions and additional expenses in the event we close any such transactions. Although we have an effective shelf registration statement for the sale of up to $88 million in our securities, we do not have any committed external sources of funding and we need to raise additional capital through the sale of equity. The amount of capital we will require will depend upon many factors, including but not limited to, the development strategy for milnacipran and the evaluation and potential closing of any strategic transactions. If we are unable to raise capital when we need it, we may have to scale back or discontinue the evaluation or completion of any proposed acquisitions or strategic transaction(s).

Raising additional funds by issuing securities or through collaboration and licensing arrangements may cause dilution to existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish propriety rights.

        We may raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate collaborations and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our existing stockholders' ownership percentage will be diluted. If we become eligible for any debt financing the financing may include covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on additional borrowing, specific restrictions on the use of our assets as well as prohibitions on our ability to create liens, pay dividends, redeem our stock or make investments. In addition, if we raise additional funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potential valuable rights to our potential products on terms that are not favorable to us.

We may lose our net operating loss carryforwards, which could prevent us from offsetting future taxable income.

        Sales of our common stock in September 1991, October 1997, March 2002 and April 2003 may have caused the limitation of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, to be applicable. This limitation will allow us to use only a portion of the net operating loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income, if any, for federal income tax purposes. Based upon the limitations of Section 382, we may be allowed to use no more than a prescribed amount of such losses each year to reduce taxable income, if any. To the extent not used by us, unused losses will carry forward subject to the limitations to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. All unused federal net operating losses will expire 15 or 20 years after any year in which they were generated. The carryforward period is 15 years for losses incurred prior to 1998 and 20 years for losses incurred subsequent to 1997. Approximately $3.9 million in federal net operating losses expired in 2003 and approximately $2.0 million in federal net operating losses will expire in 2004. Our California tax loss carryforwards will begin to expire in 2006. As a result of the sale of common stock, ownership changes occurred in 1991, 1997, 2002 and 2003, which may result in a limitation to the use of our net operating loss carryforwards.

Our stock price will likely be volatile.

        The market prices of the stock of technology companies, particularly biotechnology companies, have been highly volatile. For the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003, the high and low closing sales prices for our common stock ranged from $0.77 to $15.19. For the first quarter of 2004 (through March 26, 2004), our high and low closing sales prices were $15.71 and $10.94. Our stock price has been and may continue to be affected by this type of market volatility, as well as by our

22

own performance. The following factors, among other risk factors, may have a significant effect on the market price of our common stock:

•

the results of clinical trials for milnacipran;



•

developments in our relationship with Forest Laboratories;



•

developments in our relationship with Pierre Fabre;



•

our entering into, or failing to enter into, an agreement for the acquisition of any products, technologies or companies, or an agreement with any corporate collaborator;



•

our available cash;



•

announcements of technological innovations or new products by us or our competitors;



•

developments in patent or other proprietary rights;



•

fluctuations in our operating results;



•

litigation initiated by or against us;



•

developments in domestic and international governmental policy or regulation; and



•

economic and other external factors or other disaster or crisis.

The concentration of ownership among our existing officers, directors and principal stockholders may result in the entrenchment of management, prevent other stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions and depress our stock price.

        As of February 1, 2004, our executive officers, directors and stockholders who hold at least 5% of our stock beneficially owned and controlled approximately 28% of our outstanding common stock. If these officers, directors and principal stockholders act together, they will be able to effect an entrenchment of management and to influence significantly and possibly control matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including a financing in which we sell more than 20% of our voting stock at a discount to the market price, the removal of any directors up for election, the election of the members of our board of directors, mergers, a sale of all or substantially all of our assets, going private transactions and other fundamental transactions. This concentration of ownership could also depress our stock price.

We may incur increased costs as a result of recently enacted and proposed changes in laws and regulations relating to corporate governance matters.

        Recently enacted and proposed changes in the laws and regulations affecting public companies, including the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and rules adopted or proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by the Nasdaq National Market, will result in increased costs to us as we evaluate the implications of these laws and regulations and respond to their requirements. These laws and regulations could make it more difficult or costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. The impact of these events could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers. We are presently evaluating and monitoring developments with respect to these laws and regulations and cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to their requirements.

23

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We rely primarily on a method patent to protect our proprietary technology for the development of milnacipran, and our ability to compete may decrease or be eliminated if we are not able to protect our proprietary technology.

        Our ability to compete may decrease or be eliminated if we are not able to protect our proprietary technology. The composition of matter patent for milnacipran (U.S. Patent 4,478,836) expired in June 2002. Accordingly, we rely on the patent for the method of synthesis of milnacipran (U.S. Patent 5,034,541), which expires on December 27, 2009 and was assigned to Pierre Fabre and licensed to us and on patents on the method of use of milnacipran to treat symptoms of FMS (U.S. Patent 6,602,911) and the method of use of milnacipran to treat symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome (U.S. Patent 6,635,675) issued to us, to protect our proprietary technology with respect to the development of milnacipran. We have also filed additional patent applications related to milnacipran and to the use of milnacipran for FMS (and other related pain syndromes and disorders), although no patents have issued on these patent applications. Because there is limited patent protection for the composition of matter of milnacipran, other companies may be able to sell milnacipran in competition with us and Forest Laboratories unless we and Forest Laboratories are able to obtain additional protection through milnacipran-related patents or additional use patents that may issue from our pending patent applications or other regulatory exclusivity. It may be more difficult to establish infringement of methods of synthesis, formulation or use patents as compared to a patent on a compound. If we or Forest Laboratories are not able to obtain and enforce these patents, a competitor could use milnacipran for a treatment or use not covered by any of our patents.

        We also expect to rely on the United States Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, for protection of milnacipran or our other future products. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide data exclusivity for new molecular entities, such as that in milnacipran. Once a drug containing a new molecule is approved by the FDA, the FDA cannot accept an abbreviated NDA for a generic drug containing that molecule for five years, although the FDA may accept and approve a drug containing the molecule pursuant to an NDA supported by independent clinical data. Recent amendments have been proposed that would narrow the scope of Hatch-Waxman exclusivity and permit generic drugs to compete with our drug. After the Hatch-Waxman exclusivity period expires, assuming our patents are valid, we still expect to rely on our method of use patents to protect our proprietary technology with respect to the development of milnacipran. The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies are uncertain and may involve complex legal and factual questions. We may incur significant expense in protecting our intellectual property and defending or assessing claims with respect to intellectual property owned by others. Any patent or other infringement litigation by or against us could result in significant expense to us, including diversion of the resources of management.

        Others may file patent applications or obtain patents on similar technology or compounds that compete with milnacipran for the treatment of FMS. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that will be allowed and issued in patent applications. Once patents have issued, we cannot predict how the claims will be construed or enforced. We may infringe on intellectual property rights of others without being aware of the infringement. If another party claims we are infringing their technology, we could have to defend an expensive and time consuming lawsuit, pay a large sum if we are found to be infringing, or be prohibited from selling or licensing our products unless we obtain a license or redesign our product, which may not be possible.

        We also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. Some of our current or former employees, consultants or scientific advisors, or current or prospective corporate collaborators, may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors or use our proprietary technology for their own benefit. Furthermore,

24

enforcing a claim alleging the infringement of our trade secrets would be expensive and difficult to prove, making the outcome uncertain. Our competitors may also independently develop similar knowledge, methods and know-how or gain access to our proprietary information through some other means.

Our ability to compete may decline if we do not adequately protect our proprietary rights.

        Our commercial success depends on obtaining and maintaining proprietary rights to our product candidates and technologies and their uses as well as successfully defending these rights against third party challenges. We will only be able to protect our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or effectively-protected trade secrets cover them.

        Our ability to obtain patent protection for our products and technologies is uncertain due to a number of factors, including:

•

we may not have been the first to make the inventions covered by our pending patent applications or issued patents;



•

we may not have been the first to file patent applications for our product candidates or the technologies we rely upon;



•

others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies;



•

our disclosures in patent applications may not be sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for patentability;



•

any or all of our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents;



•

we may not seek or obtain patent protection in all countries that will eventually provide a significant business opportunity;



•

any patents issued to us or our collaborators may not provide a basis for commercially viable products, may not provide us with any competitive advantages or may be challenged by third parties;



•

some of our proprietary technologies may not be patentable;



•

others may design around our patent claims to produce competitive products which fall outside of the scope of our patents; or



•

others may identify prior art which could invalidate our patents.

        Even if we obtain patents covering our product candidates or technologies, we may still be barred from making, using and selling our product candidates or technologies because of the patent rights of others. Others may have filed and in the future are likely to file patent applications covering compounds, assays, genes, gene products or therapeutic products that are similar or identical to ours. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by others exist in the area of central nervous system disorders and the other fields in which we are developing products. These could materially affect our ability to develop our product candidates or sell our products. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or technologies may infringe. These patent applications may have priority over patent applications filed by us. Disputes may arise regarding the ownership or inventorship of our inventions. It is difficult to determine how such disputes will be resolved. Others may challenge the validity of our patents. If our patents are

25

found to be invalid we will lose the ability to exclude others from making, using or selling the inventions claimed therein.

        Some of our research collaborators and scientific advisors have rights to publish data and information to which we have rights. If we cannot maintain the confidentiality of our technology and other confidential information in connection with our collaborations, then our ability to receive patent protection or protect our proprietary information will be impaired. In addition, in-licensed technology is important to our business. We generally will not control the patent prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of in-licensed technology.

A dispute concerning the infringement or misappropriation of our proprietary rights or the proprietary rights of others could be time consuming and costly and an unfavorable outcome could harm our business.

        There is significant litigation in the industry regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. We may be exposed to future litigation by third parties based on claims that our product candidates, technologies or activities infringe the intellectual property rights of others. If our drug development activities are found to infringe any such patents, we may have to pay significant damages. There are many patents relating to chemical compounds and the uses thereof. If our compounds are found to infringe any such patents, we may have to pay significant damages. A patentee could prevent us from making, using or selling the patented compounds. We may need to resort to litigation to enforce a patent issued to us, protect our trade secrets or determine the scope and validity of third party proprietary rights. From time to time, we may hire scientific personnel formerly employed by other companies involved in one or more areas similar to the activities conducted by us. Either we or these individuals may be subject to allegations of trade secret misappropriation or other similar claims as a result of their prior affiliations. If we become involved in litigation, it could consume a substantial portion of our managerial and financial resources, whether we win or lose. We may not be able to afford the costs of litigation. Any legal action against our company or our collaborators could lead to:

•

payment of damages, potentially treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed such parties' patent rights;



•

injunctive or other equitable relief that may effectively block our ability to further develop, commercialize and sell products; or



•

we or our collaborators having to enter into license arrangements that may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.

As a result, we could be prevented from commercializing current or future products.

The patent applications of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies involve highly complex legal and factual questions, which could negatively impact our patent position.

        The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. The United States Patent and Trademark Office's standards are uncertain and could change in the future. Consequently, the issuance and scope of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. United States patents and patent applications may also be subject to interference proceedings and United States patents may be subject to reexamination proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (and foreign patents may be subject to opposition or comparable proceedings in the corresponding foreign patent office), which proceedings could result in either loss of the patent or denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of the patent or patent application. In addition, such interference, reexamination and opposition proceedings may be costly. Accordingly, rights under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection against competitive products or processes.

26

        In addition, changes in or different interpretations of patent laws in the United States and foreign countries may permit others to use our discoveries or to develop and commercialize our technology and products without providing any compensation to us. The laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as United States laws and those countries may lack adequate rules and procedures for defending our intellectual property rights. For example, some countries, including many in Europe, do not grant patent claims directed to methods of treating humans, and in these countries patent protection may not be available at all to protect our product candidates.

        If we fail to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection of our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses, we could lose our competitive advantage and competition we face would increase, reducing our potential revenues and adversely affecting our ability to attain or maintain profitability.

27

ITEM 2.    Properties

        We currently occupy approximately 5,200 square feet of leased office space in San Diego, California. The San Diego facility houses our executive and administrative offices. The lease for this facility expires in July 2007 and contains monthly rental payments ranging from $13,465 to $15,753 over the lease term.

ITEM 3.    Legal Proceedings

        From time to time, in the normal course of business, we are involved in litigation arising out of our operations. We are not currently engaged in any legal proceedings that we expect would materially harm our business or financial condition.

ITEM 4.    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

        No matter was submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.

28

PART II

ITEM 5.    Market for our Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

        Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "CYPB." Prior to March 1, 2004, our stock was traded on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. Set forth below are the high and low closing sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated as reported on the Nasdaq National Market and the Nasdaq SmallCap Market, as applicable.

        As of March 1, 2004, there were approximately 800 holders of record of our common stock. On March 26, 2004, the last reported sale price of our common stock on the Nasdaq National Market was $11.71 per share. We have never paid any cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future as we intend to retain any earnings for use in our business.

29

ITEM 6.    Selected Financial Data

        The following table presents our selected financial data. The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 and the balance sheet data at December 31, 2003 and 2002 are derived from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the balance sheet data at December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 are derived from our audited financial statements not included in this Form 10-K. The information set forth below is not indicative of the results of future operations, particularly because we changed our business focus in 2001, and should be read in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in Item 7 of this report and the financial statements and the related notes thereto included in this Form 10-K.

30

ITEM 7.    Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Overview

        We are committed to being the innovator and leader in providing products for the treatment of patients with Functional Somatic Syndromes and other related chronic pain and central nervous system disorders. Functional Somatic Syndromes refer to several related syndromes characterized more by symptoms, suffering and disability than by disease-specific abnormalities that are found upon physical examination and include many overlapping pain and psychiatric conditions such as Fibromyalgia Syndrome, or FMS, irritable bowel syndrome, non-cardiac chest pain and interstitial cystitis, or chronic pelvic pain. Our goal is to be the first to commercialize a product approved in the United States for the treatment of FMS, the focus of our initial efforts in the area of Functional Somatic Syndromes. We recently commenced a Phase III trial for milnacipran in the treatment of FMS. In January 2004, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories, Inc., a leading marketer of central nervous system drugs with a strong franchise in the primary care and psychiatric markets, for the development and marketing of milnacipran. We are conducting our inital Phase III trial and will conduct our second Phase III trial in collaboration with Forest Laboratories. These two Phase III trials and any additional studies needed for regulatory approval could possibly be completed in 2006 and, if successful, a New Drug Application, or NDA, for FMS could possibly be submitted later in that year.

        We completed a Phase II trial evaluating milnacipran for the treatment of FMS in the Fall of 2002. The Phase II trial was a three-month, randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 14 sites and 125 FMS patients who were randomized to either milnacipran treatment or placebo. In this clinical trial, milnacipran was shown to provide statistically significant improvement in pain, the primary symptom of FMS. No unexpected safety concerns arose from this trial and there were no serious adverse events.

        We obtained an exclusive license for milnacipran from Pierre Fabre Medicament in 2001. Milnacipran has been marketed outside of the United States since 1997 as an antidepressant and has been used by over 2,000,000 patients worldwide. We have paid Pierre Fabre a total of $2.5 million, including upfront payments of $1.5 million in connection with the execution of the original license agreement in 2001 and a $1.0 million milestone payment in September 2003. Additional payments to Pierre Fabre of up to a total of $4.5 million will be due to Pierre Fabre based on meeting certain clinical and regulatory milestones. Under our agreement with Forest Laboratories, we sublicensed our rights to milnacipran to Forest Laboratories for the United States, with an option to extend the territory to include Canada. Additionally, Forest Laboratories assumed responsibility for funding all continuing development of milnacipran, including the funding of clinical trials and regulatory approval, as well as a specified number of our employees. Forest Laboratories will also be responsible for sales and marketing activities related to any product developed under the agreement, while we have the option to co-promote up to 25% of the total physician details.

        We are continuing to evaluate various potential strategic transactions, including the potential acquisitions of products, technologies and companies, and other alternatives that we believe may enhance stockholder value.

        In August 2002, we entered into a reformulation and new product agreement with Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. pursuant to which Collegium is attempting to develop reformulations of milnacipran and new products that are analogs of milnacipran. We estimate that we currently have additional obligations to Collegium under this agreement of approximately $0.1 million exclusive of milestone and royalty obligations and out-of-pocket expenses. If we pursue clinical development of a product candidate developed under this agreement, we would be obligated to pay Collegium milestone payments of up to $5.4 million in the aggregate upon achievement of defined clinical and regulatory objectives, as well as potential royalty payments based on the net sales of reformulated or new products. In October 2002, we also entered into a common stock issuance agreement with Collegium, pursuant to which Collegium may elect to be issued shares of our common stock, subject to certain conditions, in lieu of cash, for milestone payments.

31

        We are continuing to evaluate other various potential strategic transactions, including the potential acquisitions of products, technologies and companies, and other alternatives that we believe may enhance stockholder value.

        We changed our business focus in 2001 based on our analysis of the economics related to the PROSORBA column and the potential market opportunities in the field of FMS, our initial focus in the area of Functional Somatic Syndromes. Prior to December 31, 2000, we were engaged in the product development and marketing of the PROSORBA column, a medical device, which was marketed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura. On January 19, 2001, we sold to Fresenius HemoCare most of our assets related to the PROSORBA column, including the United States Food and Drug Administration Pre-Market Approval and applications for the PROSORBA column. Fresenius is now solely responsible for all ongoing clinical trials, regulatory support, and the marketing and distribution of the PROSORBA column as discussed below. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the patents and trademarks related to the PROSORBA column. In addition, we agreed to indemnify Fresenius for any losses related to patent or trademark infringement claims.

        On January 19, 2001, we restructured our agreement with Fresenius to grant Fresenius an exclusive license to distribute the PROSORBA column in the United States, Europe and Latin America and, subject to certain conditions, Japan and select Asian countries. Fresenius assumed all of the sales, marketing and clinical efforts associated with the PROSORBA column worldwide. We also transferred to Fresenius most of our assets associated with the PROSORBA column. We received an upfront payment of $8.0 million, a portion of which reflected prepaid royalties on the sales of 10,000 PROSORBA columns in any year during the initial five years of the agreement.

        In light of lower sales than we and Fresenius anticipated when we restructured the agreement, in February 1, 2002, we and Fresenius further restructured the economic terms of the agreement pursuant to a Second Restructured Agreement dated February 1, 2002. Under the Second Restructured Agreement, we agreed that the $8.0 million upfront fee paid in January 2001 would cover the royalties on all sales of the PROSORBA column in the initial seven-year period commencing January 2001 and that this payment was non-refundable under any circumstances. We are not entitled to any additional royalty payments during the initial seven-year period of the agreement. In addition, whereas under the First Restructured Agreement, we were entitled to certain royalty payments on sales of the PROSORBA column after January 2006, pursuant to the terms of the Second Restructured Agreement, a contingent payment is due to us in the amount of $1.0 million if sales during the first seven years exceed 35,000 units, $2.0 million if they exceed 50,000 units and none if the sales are less than 35,000 units. Such payment, if any, will be due on January 30, 2008 and is non-refundable.

        As of December 31, 2003, we had working capital of approximately $22.0 million and an accumulated deficit of approximately $126.3 million. We received an upfront payment of $25.0 million from Forest Laboratories on January 9, 2004 (of which we owe $1.25 million to Pierre Fabre), which is not included in our working capital. Our future success depends on our ability to develop and market new products for the treatment of Functional Somatic Syndromes, such as FMS, and other related chronic pain and central nervous system disorders.

Revenue

        We currently are not generating any revenues from product sales and we do not expect to generate revenues from products sales for at least the next several years, if at all. We expect our revenues for the next several years to consist of payments under our current collaboration agreement and any additional collaborations, including the $25.0 million upfront payment received upon execution of the collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories and any upfront payments under new agreements, research and related fees payable during the development term of the agreements and milestone payments contingent upon the achievement of agreed upon objectives. The amount of funding for development of milnacipran may change periodically as we jointly agree upon the number of our

32

personnel assigned to the development efforts. Our collaboration agreement is subject to early termination by Forest Laboratories upon specified events, including breach of the agreement.

Research and Development Expenses

        Our research and development expenses consist primarily of salaries and related personnel expenses for our research and development personnel, fees paid to external service providers, patient enrollment costs, fees and milestone payments under license and development agreements, and costs for facilities, supplies, materials and equipment. In 2003, fees paid to external service providers consisted primarily of costs associated with the clinical development of milnacipran, including clinical supply costs and clinical research organization costs. We charge all research and development expenses to operations as incurred.

        Beginning in January 2004, Forest Laboratories will pay the costs of the ongoing Phase III clinical trial of milnacipran. During 2004, we will continue to fund research and development for new product development, including payments under our reformulation and new product agreement with Collegium. Forest Laboratories has the option to acquire the rights to any new product developed under the Collegium agreement and would assume payment of expenses under this agreement if it exercises its option. We also will incur research and development expense for sublicense payments made to Pierre Fabre as well as any milestone payments if any become payable during the year. As a result of our agreement with Forest Laboratories, we expect our research and development expenses in 2004 to decline from 2003 levels. Because of the risks and uncertainties that are discussed in the "Risk Factors" section of this report, we are unable to estimate the specific timing and future costs of our research and development programs.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

Revenues

        We had no revenue for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to revenue of $6.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2002 and revenue of $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2001. In the first quarter of 2002, we recognized revenue of $6.4 million under the Second Restructured Agreement with Fresenius after the agreement was restructured and the upfront payment of $8.0 million made in 2001 became non-refundable. Prior to these modifications, we had accounted for the $8.0 million payment as deferred revenue, and had amortized this amount on a straight-line basis over five years, at the rate of $400,000 per quarter. Revenues for 2001 consisted of the first year of amortization of the upfront payment from Fresenius.

Research and Development

        Research and development expenses were $11.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to $5.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2002 and $3.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2001. The increase in research and development expenses in 2003 compared to 2002 is primarily attributable to the non-cash charge in the amount of $5.0 million recognized during the second quarter of 2003 in connection with the issuance of 1,000,000 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 300,000 shares of our common stock to Pierre Fabre as a license fee, a $1.0 million milestone payment paid to Pierre Fabre in September 2003 upon initiation of our Phase III clinical trial of milnacipran, costs incurred during 2003 of approximately $2.3 million in connection with our Phase III clinical trials for milnacipran, including expenses for clinical research organization and trial consultants, and higher bonuses for research and development executives accrued in the fourth quarter of 2003 following commencement of the Phase III clinical trial of milnacipran. During the year ended December 31, 2002, we incurred costs of approximately $2.9 million related to the Phase II clinical trial for milnacipran compared to corresponding costs of $0.4 million during 2003, as all costs associated with the Phase II trial were substantially completed by the first quarter of 2003. During

33

2002, we also incurred costs of approximately $412,000 in connection with a reformulation and new product agreement entered into with Collegium, which included an upfront payment in the amount of $150,000 as well as a project management fee of $250,000 and reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses. During 2001, we incurred $1.5 million in licensing fees to Pierre Fabre for the licensing of milnacipran and costs of approximately $400,000 in connection with the filing of an investigational new drug, or IND, application for milnacipran with the FDA.

        In addition, as discussed below in "Compensation Expense—Variable Stock Options," we recorded $0.6 million of total compensation expense for variable stock options for 2003 related to research and development expenses. For 2002, we recorded $0.1 million of the compensation benefit for variable stock options related to research and development expenses and for 2001, we recorded $0.1 million of the compensation expense for variable stock options related to research and development expenses.

General and Administrative

        General and administrative expenses were $4.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to $3.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2002 and $4.4 million for the year ended December 31 2001. The increase in general and administrative expenses from 2002 to 2003 was primarily due to increased executive bonuses accrued in the fourth quarter of 2003 and increased legal, consulting and travel costs related to business development activities in 2003, including costs incurred in connection with our collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories. During 2002, we incurred initial set-up costs related to the implementation of a database for our physician and patient registries focused on patients with FMS and physicians that treat patients with FMS that were not incurred during 2003. The decrease in general and administrative expenses from 2001 to 2002 was primarily due to lower business development costs in 2002. In 2001, we experienced significant business development activity related to the execution of our license agreement with Pierre Fabre and our efforts to license other potential drug candidates for FMS. In 2002, our efforts were primarily focused on our Phase II clinical trial for our licensed compound, milnacipran.

        In addition, as discussed below in "Compensation Expense—Variable Stock Options," we recognized $5.2 million of total compensation expense for variable stock options for 2003 related to general and administrative expenses. For 2002, we recognized $0.6 million of the compensation benefit for variable stock options related to general and administrative expenses and for 2002, we recognized $0.7 million of the compensation expense for variable stock options related to general and administrative expenses.

Compensation Expense—Variable Stock Options

        In June 2001, we implemented an option cancel and re-grant program, which resulted in variable accounting for the newly issued options under Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 44 ("FIN 44"), Accounting for Certain Transaction Involving Stock Compensation—An Interpretation of APB 25. As a result, we recorded stock compensation expense totaling approximately $785,000, consisting of approximately $85,000 related to research and development expenses and approximately $700,000 related to general and administrative expenses, for the year ended December 31, 2001. During 2002, the intrinsic value of the common stock underlying the options declined, which means that our stock price declined. In accordance with FIN 44, we reversed approximately $688,000, consisting approximately of $74,000 related to research and development expenses and approximately $614,000 related to general and administrative expenses, of the cumulative $785,000 charge. During 2003, the intrinsic value of the common stock underlying the options increased due to an increase in our stock price during the period (the closing price on December 31, 2003 was $15.03), so we recognized compensation expense of $5.9 million, consisting of approximately $0.6 million related to research and development expenses and approximately $5.2 million related to general and administrative expenses. In the event our stock price is above $15.03 on March 31, 2004, we will record additional compensation

34

charges (however, we cannot predict what our stock price will be in the future and it may be substantially lower than $15.03).

Interest income

        Interest and other income, net, for the year ended December 31, 2003 was $122,000 compared to $200,000 for the year ended December 31, 2002 and $434,000 for the year ended December 31, 2001. The decrease in interest and other income during 2003 in comparison to 2002 is primarily due to a change in the composition of our cash and cash equivalents balance and lower market rates for our cash investments. During 2003, a majority of our cash balance was invested in short-term investments classified as "available-for-sale," whereby unrealized gains or losses are recorded as a component of stockholders' equity, compared to the corresponding period in 2002, during which our cash balance was primarily invested in money market accounts. The decrease in interest income in 2002 from 2001 was primarily due to lower market rates for our cash investments.

Interest expense

        Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2003 was $9,000 compared to $34,000 for the year ended December 31, 2002 and $273,000 for the year ended December 31, 2001. The decreases in interest expense during 2003 compared to 2002 and during 2002 compared to 2001 were primarily due to lower outstanding debt. The remaining balance of our prior outstanding term loan was paid in full in July 2002.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

        At December 31, 2003, we had cash and cash equivalents of $0.9 million and short-term investments of $22.7 million for a total of $23.5 million compared to cash and cash equivalents of $7.2 million and short-term investments of $5.0 million for a total of $12.2 million at December 31, 2002. Working capital at December 31, 2003 totaled $22.0 million compared to $11.7 million at December 31, 2002. In January 2004, we received an upfront license payment of $25 million (of which we will pay $1.25 million to Pierre Fabre as a sublicense fee) from Forest Laboratories that is not reflected in our working capital at December 31, 2003. We have invested a substantial portion of our available cash in high quality marketable debt instruments of governmental agencies. We have established guidelines relating to our investments to preserve principal and maintain liquidity.

        Net cash used in operating activities totaled $9.4 million for the year ended December 31 2003, compared to $9.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2002. The primary use of cash in both periods was to fund our net loss in the period.

        Net cash used in investing activities was $17.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to $4.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2002. The increase in net cash used in investing activities from 2002 to 2003 was primarily a result of the purchase of short-term securities, net of the proceeds of the sale of short-term securities.

        Net cash provided by financing activities was $20.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to $14.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2002. The increase in net cash provided by financing activities from 2002 to 2003 was primarily the result of the net proceeds of approximately $9.5 million from the private placement of our common stock and warrants to purchase our common stock completed in April 2003 and proceeds of approximately $11.2 million from the exercise of stock options and warrants during 2003, offset by net proceeds of approximately $15.3 million from the private placement of our common stock and warrants to purchase our common stock completed in March 2002.

35

        The following table summaries our long-term contractual obligations December 31, 2003 ($ in thousands):

(1)

Purchase obligations include agreements to purchase goods or services, including consulting services, that are enforceable and legally binding on us and that specify all significant terms. This includes contracts that are cancelable with notice and the payment of an early termination penalty. Purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancelable without penalty and also exclude liabilities to the extent presented on the balance sheet as of December 31, 2003.

        Other commercial commitments include certain potential milestone, sublicense and royalty payments to Pierre Fabre and Collegium discussed in the "Overview" section. Contractual obligations for which we will be reimbursed by Forest Laboratories are not included in the table above.

        Until we can generate significant cash from our operations, we expect to continue to fund our operations with existing cash resources that were primarily generated from the proceeds of offerings of our equity securities and from revenue from our collaboration agreement. Our current expected primary cash needs on both a short term and long-term basis are for the identification, acquisition or license, and development of potential future products, working capital and other general corporate purposes. In addition to the amounts required to pay any amounts payable under our agreements with Pierre Fabre and Collegium, and costs of in-licensing or acquiring additional compounds, we estimate that based on our current business plan, we will require approximately $6.0 million to fund our operations for the year 2004. In the event we acquire, license or develop any new products, the amount to fund our operations for 2004 would increase. We expect the current trend of net losses to continue for at least the next several years as we seek to acquire, license or develop additional products for the treatment of Functional Somatic Syndromes. Such losses may fluctuate, and the fluctuations may be substantial.

        Based on our current business plan, we believe our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments balances at December 31, 2003, as well as the $25.0 million upfront payment received from Forest Laboratories in January 2004, net of our payment to Pierre Fabre, are sufficient to fund operations for the next several years. Our expected primary cash needs on both a short term and long-term basis are for the identification, acquisition or license, and development of potential future products, working capital and other general corporate purposes. In order to acquire or develop additional products for the treatment of Functional Somatic Syndromes, we will require additional capital. The amount of capital we require is dependent upon many forward-looking factors that could significantly increase our capital requirements, including the following:

•

the costs of in-licensing drug candidates for the treatment of Functional Somatic Syndromes;



•

the costs and progress of our clinical trials;



•

the ability of our collaborators and us to reach milestones, and other events or developments under our collaboration agreements;



•

results of our research and development efforts;



•

the costs and timing of regulatory approvals;



•

the costs of commercialization of any future products; and

36

•

the extent to which we acquire or invest in other products, technologies and businesses, although we currently have no commitments or agreements relating to any of these types of transactions.

Because we are unable to predict the outcome of the foregoing factors, some of which are beyond our control, we are unable to estimate with certainty our mid to long-term capital needs. Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue, if ever, we expect to finance future capital needs through public or private equity offerings, including under our shelf registration statement that was declared effective by the SEC on January 16, 2004, registering a total dollar amount of $88 million of our common stock, debt financings or collaboration and licensing arrangements, as well as interest income earned on cash balances. We do not currently have any commitments for future external funding. We may not be able to raise additional capital through such sources and the funds we raise, if any, may not allow us to maintain our current and planned operations. If we are unable to obtain additional capital, we may be required to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of our planned research and development activities related to the development of milnacipran and any future additional product candidates.

        To date, we have not had any relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, which are established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

        Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, licenses for research and development, stock-based compensation and income taxes. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We believe the following are some of the more critical accounting policies that affect the significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our financial statements (see also the notes to our financial statements).

Revenue Recognition

        In accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin ("SAB") No. 101, Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements, revenues are recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the price is fixed and determinable and collectibility is reasonably assured. Revenue is deferred for fees received before earned.

Licenses for Research and Development

        We expense research and development costs as they are incurred pursuant to SFAS No. 2, Accounting for Research and Development Costs, as the ultimate commercialization of the related products is uncertain and the technology has no alternative uses. In connection with our agreement with Pierre Fabre, we paid upfront fees of $1.5 million and a $1.0 million milestone payment in September 2003 and are also obligated to make additional payments based on meeting certain clinical and regulatory milestones. The total payments to date of $2.5 million have been expensed pursuant to SFAS No. 2. We also issued Pierre Fabre 1,000,000 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 300,000 shares of our common stock in the second quarter of 2003 in connection with the second restated license agreement. Pursuant to SFAS No. 2, the additional license consideration in the

37

form of these equity instruments has been expensed as the ultimate commercialization of the related product is uncertain and the technology has no alternative uses. Additionally, in connection with our agreement with Collegium, the upfront and project management fees paid to Collegium have been expensed pursuant to SFAS No. 2, as well as the other direct costs incurred in connection with the agreement.

Stock Based Compensation

        We grant stock options for a fixed number of shares to employees in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25 ("APB 25"), Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, as amended by SFAS No. 123 ("FAS 123"), Accounting for Stock Based Compensation. Accordingly, we ordinarily recognize no compensation expense for stock option grants to employees provided that the option exercise price is not less than the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. The value of options or stock awards issued to non-employees has been determined in accordance with FAS 123 and Emerging Issues Task Force No. 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments that are Issued to Other than Employees for Acquiring or in Conjunction with selling Goods and Services, and is periodically re-measured as the options vest. For the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, we recorded compensation expense of $351,159 and $143,363, respectively, related to options issued to consultants.

        In June 2001, we entered into an option cancel and re-grant program, which resulted in variable accounting for the newly issued options under Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 44 ("FIN 44"), Accounting for Certain Transaction Involving Stock Compensation—An Interpretation of APB 25. Pursuant to FIN 44, the intrinsic value of the options to purchase common stock will be re-measured at the end of each period for the term of the option and amortized over the vesting period. During the year ended December 31, 2003, as the intrinsic value of the common stock underlying the options increased due to an increase in our stock price, we recognized compensation expense of $5,879,277. However, due to a decline in our stock price during the year ended December 31, 2002, we reversed $688,376 of the cumulative compensation charge. In the event our stock price is above $15.03 (closing price on December 31, 2003) on March 31, 2004, we will record additional compensation charges (however, we cannot predict what our stock price will be in the future and it may be substantially lower than $15.03). Pursuant to the option cancel and re-grant program, options with certain exercise prices held by certain of our employees, including executive officers, and directors were exchanged for options with an exercise price of $2.50, the fair market value of our common stock on June 27, 2001, the date the program was effected.

Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax Assets

        A valuation allowance is provided for deferred tax assets if it is more likely than not these items will either expire before we are able to realize their benefit, or that future deductibility is uncertain. In general, companies that have a history of operating losses are faced with a difficult burden of proof on their ability to generate sufficient future taxable income in the near future in order to realize the benefit of the deferred tax assets. We have recorded a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets in the amount of $38.6 million as of December 31, 2003 based on our history of losses. The deferred tax assets are still available for us to use in the future to offset taxable income, which would result in the recognition of a tax benefit and a reduction to our effective tax rate.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

        In November 2002, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 45, Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others ("FIN No. 45"). FIN No. 45 requires that upon issuance of a guarantee, the guarantor must disclose and recognize a liability for the fair value of the obligation it assumes under that guarantee. The initial recognition and measurement requirements of FIN No. 45 are effective for guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002. The disclosure requirements of FIN No. 45 are effective for interim and annual periods ending after December 15, 2002, and are applicable to certain guarantees issued

38

before December 31, 2002. The Company adopted FIN No. 45 disclosure requirements as of December 31, 2002. The adoption of the provisions for recognition and initial measurement did not have a material impact on the Company's financial statements.

        In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity. SFAS No. 150 requires that certain financial instruments, which under previous guidance were accounted for as equity, must now be accounted for as liabilities. The financial instruments affected include mandatorily redeemable stock, certain financial instruments that require or may require the issuer to buy back some of its shares in exchange for cash or other assets and certain obligations that can be settled with shares of stock. SFAS No. 150 is effective for all financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003 and otherwise is effective the beginning of the first interim period after June 15, 2003. The adoption of SFAS No. 150 did not have a material impact on the Company's financial statements.

        In December 2003, the FASB issued a revision to FASB Interpretation No. 46 ("FIN 46R"), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. FIN 46R replaces FASB Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, which was issued in January 2003. FIN 46R requires a variable interest entity to be consolidated by a company if that company is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from the variable interest entity's activities or entitled to receive a majority of the entity's residual returns or both. A variable interest entity either (a) does not have equity investors with voting rights or (b) has equity investors that do not provide sufficient financial resources to the entity to support its activities. FIN 46R is effective immediately for all new variable interest entities created or acquired after December 31, 2003. The adoption of FIN 46 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's financial statements.

ITEM 7A.    Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk

        We invest our excess cash in United States government securities, certificates of deposit and money market funds with strong credit ratings. As a result, our interest income is most sensitive to changes in the general level of United States interest rates. We do not use derivative financial instruments, derivative commodity instruments or other market risk sensitive instruments, positions or transactions in any material fashion. Accordingly, we believe that, while the investment-grade securities we hold are subject to changes in the financial standing of the issuer of such securities, we are not subject to any material risks arising from changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, equity prices or other market changes that affect market risk sensitive instruments. A hypothetical 1% adverse move in interest rates along the entire interest rate yield curve would not materially affect the fair value of our financial instruments that are exposed to changes in interest rates.

ITEM 8.    Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

        Refer to the Index on Page F-1 of the Financial Report included herein.

ITEM 9.    Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

        None.

ITEM 9A.    Controls and Procedures

        The Company's management, with the participation of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2003. Based on that evaluation, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2003. There were no material changes in the Company's internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2003.

39

PART III

ITEM 10.    Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant

        Our directors and executive officers, the positions held by them and their ages as of March 26, 2004 are as follows:

(1)

Member of the Non-Executive Officer Stock Option Committee

(2)

Member of Audit Committee

(3)

Member of Compensation Committee

(4)

Member of Nominating Committee

(5)

Member of the New Product Committee

        JAY D. KRANZLER, M.D., Ph.D., was appointed as our Chief Executive Officer and Vice-Chairman in December 1995. In April 1998, Dr. Kranzler was appointed as Chairman of the Board. From January 1989 until August 1995, Dr. Kranzler served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Cytel Corporation, a publicly held biotechnology company. Dr. Kranzler has been an adjunct member of the Research Institute of Scripps Clinic since January 1989. Before joining Cytel, from 1985 to January 1989, Dr. Kranzler was employed by McKinsey & Company, a management-consulting firm, as a consultant specializing in the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Kranzler has an M.D. with a concentration in psychiatry and a Ph.D. in pharmacology from Yale University. He graduated summa cum laude from Yeshiva University.

        R. MICHAEL GENDREAU, M.D., Ph.D., was appointed as our Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer in December 1996 and is currently serving as the Vice President of Development and Chief Medical Officer. Dr. Gendreau joined us in 1994 and held various positions from 1994 through 1996, including Executive Director of Scientific Affairs. From 1991 to 1994, Dr. Gendreau was Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer for MicroProbe Corporation, a developer and manufacturer of DNA probe-based diagnostic equipment. Dr. Gendreau has a B.S. in chemistry from Ohio University and an M.D./Ph.D. in medicine and pharmacology from the Ohio State University.

        SABRINA MARTUCCI JOHNSON was appointed as our interim Chief Financial Officer in February 2002 and in April 2002, she was appointed as our Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Johnson served as our Vice President of Marketing from March 2001 to April 2002. Ms. Johnson joined us in August of 1998 and held various positions from 1998 through 2000, including Product Director, Executive Director of Marketing and Sales, and Vice President of Marketing and Sales. From 1993 to 1998, Ms. Johnson held marketing and sales positions with Advanced Tissue Sciences and Clonetics. Ms. Johnson began her career in the biotechnology industry in 1990 as a research scientist with Baxter Healthcare, Hyland Division. Ms. Johnson has an MBA from the American Graduate School of International Management (Thunderbird), a MSc. in Biochemical Engineering from the University of London and a BSc. in biomedical engineering from Tulane University.

40

        DENISE L. WOOLARD was appointed as our Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary in February 2004. Prior to joining us, from September 1997 until January 2004, Ms. Woolard worked as a corporate attorney at the law firm of Cooley Godward LLP. Ms. Woolard has a B.A. from Old Dominion University and a J.D. from the University of San Diego, School of Law.

        JACK H. VAUGHN has served as a director since 1991. Mr. Vaughn is a retired foreign service officer, his last post having been ambassador to Colombia from 1969 to 1970. Prior to that assignment, Mr. Vaughn served as director of the Peace Corps. In 1986, he became the founding chairman of Conservation International. He was a director of Columbia Pictures from 1978 to 1981 and of Allegheny Western Energy Corporation from 1980 to 1987.

        SAMUEL D. ANDERSON has served as a director since April 1998. Currently, Mr. Anderson is an independent consultant. From 1990 to 1991, he was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Trancel Corporation, a biotechnology company. From 1984 to 1989, Mr. Anderson was the Chief Executive Officer of Alpha Therapeutics Corporation, a blood plasma fractionator, and between 1989 and 1990 served as its Chairman of the Board. Mr. Anderson has been Chairman of the Board of Hycor, a publicly traded company, since 1998 and has also been a Board member of publicly traded SeraCare Life Sciences since 2001.

        JOHN W. MCGARITY has served as a director since March 2004. Mr. McGarity is the President and Chief Executive Officer of EthiX Associates, which he founded in 1996 and which is a company that provides executive consulting services in pharmaceutical/biotech/healthcare business planning, strategy and development. Prior to establishing EthiX Associates, Mr. McGarity was the Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer of Pharmaceutical Marketing Services, Inc., which provided marketing and information services to the global pharmaceutical/healthcare industry. Mr. McGarity is a member of the board of the Global Advisory Council, American Graduate School of International Management, Thunderbird and is the Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Arizona BioIndustry Association.

        JEAN-PIERRE MILLON has served as a director since March 2004. Mr. Millon currently is Chairman of the Board of Prometheus Laboratories, a specialty pharmaceutical company, and Medical Present Value, Inc., a medical services company. He joined the Caremark Rx board in March 2004 as a result of the acquisition of Advance PCS by Caremark Rx. Mr. Millon had served on the board of Advance PCS for three years. Mr. Millon joined PCS Health Systems, Inc. in 1995, where he served as its President and Chief Executive Officer from June 1996 to September 2000. Prior to joining PCS Health Systems, Mr. Millon served as an executive and held several leadership positions with Eli Lilly and Company, the former parent company of PCS Health Systems, Inc.

Audit Committee and Related Matters

        Our board of directors has a standing audit committee composed of two directors: Mr. Vaughn (Chairman) and Mr. Anderson. We currently do not have an audit committee member who meets the qualifications of an "audit committee financial expert," as defined in applicable SEC rules, and are currently in the process of searching for a new board member who will meet the qualifications of an audit committee financial expert. An "audit committee financial expert" is a person who has (i) an understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and financial statements, (ii) the ability to assess the general application of said principles in connection with the accounting for estimates, accruals and reserves, (iii) experience preparing, auditing, analyzing or evaluating financial statements of comparable breadth and complexity to the Company's or experience supervising others who do, and (iv) an understanding of internal controls and procedures.

41

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

        Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than ten percent of a registered class of our equity securities, to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of common stock and other of our equity securities. Officers, directors and greater than ten percent stockholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

        To our knowledge, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to us and written representations that no other reports were required, during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners were complied with.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

        We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which covers all employees, including our principal executive, financial and accounting officers. A copy of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is posted on our website, www.cypressbio.com. We also will post on our website any waiver or amendment (other than technical, administrative and other non-substantive amendments) to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that is granted to or affects the duties of any of our directors or our principal executive, financial and accounting officers. Such posting will be made within five business days after the date of the waiver or amendment and will remain on the website for at least twelve months.

ITEM 11.    Executive Compensation

Compensation of Directors

        In March 2003, our board of directors adopted resolutions providing for quarterly payments of $4,000 to each of our non-employee directors for such person's service as a director. Our board of directors also approved: (1) the payment of an annual retainer of $3,000 to each of our non-employee directors for such person's service on a committee of the board, provided that such committee member must attend at least 75% of the applicable committee meetings in any calendar year in order to receive such compensation and (2) the payment of an additional $5,000 to any non-employee director who serves as chair of a committee of the board, provided that such person must attend at least 75% of the applicable committee meetings in any calendar year in order to receive such compensation.

        In the fiscal year 2003, our non-employee directors received the following compensation for such person's service as a director and/or member of a committee of the board: Mr. Anderson—$30,500; Dr. Keller—$22,000; Dr. Kessel—$23,000; Dr. Nemeroff—$22,000; and Mr. Vaughn—$26,500. Directors who are also our employees do not receive any fee for their service as directors. None of our directors previously received any fees for their service on any committee of our board of directors. All of our directors are reimbursed for their out-of-pocket travel and accommodation expenses incurred in connection with their service as our directors.

        Each of our directors may receive stock option grants under the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan (the "1996 Plan") and the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the "2000 Plan"). In April 2001, our board of directors approved automatic yearly option grants for each of its non-employee directors. Accordingly, on January 1, 2003, each non-employee director was automatically granted under the 2000 Plan, without further action, an option to purchase 5,000 shares of our common stock (the "2003 Automatic Grants"). The exercise price of the 2003 Automatic Grants was $2.70, which was the fair market value of our common stock on the date the 2003 Automatic Grants were made. The 2003 Automatic Grants vest on a daily basis over a period of one year. The term of the 2003 Automatic

42

Grants is ten years. In addition, on March 27, 2003, we made the following discretionary option grants to our directors under the 2000 Plan:

(1)

Drs. Nemeroff, Keller and Kessel resigned from our board of directors effective March 25, 2004 to assume active roles as our consultants. Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Keller will continue to serve as members of our scientific advisory boards.

        In March 2003, our board of directors adopted resolutions providing for an increase to the automatic yearly option grants for each non-employee director from 5,000 to 13,000 shares of our common stock and an initial grant of an option to purchase 32,000 shares of our common stock to be made to each non-employee director upon initial election or appointment to the board. In March 2004, upon appointment to our board, Mr. Millon and Mr. McGarity each received an option to purchase 32,000 shares of our common stock.

        In April 2001, our board of directors adopted a resolution providing that the vesting of all existing and future automatic yearly stock options held or acquired by non-employee directors will be accelerated upon a change of control in the Company which includes the sale of substantially all of our assets, specified types of merger, or other corporate reorganization. In addition, in March 2003, our directors approved the vesting of all future stock options granted to directors (in addition to any automatic annual grants) upon a change in control of the Company.

        In the fiscal year 2003, we also had consulting arrangements with certain of our non-employee directors as described under the caption "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions."

Compensation of Executive Officers

        The following table shows for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, compensation awarded or paid to, or earned by, our Chief Executive Officer and our two other most

43

highly compensated executive officers, for whom salary and bonus for services rendered to us was in excess of $100,000 (collectively, the "Named Executive Officers"):

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

(1)

Includes $18,096 paid by us on behalf of Dr. Kranzler for life insurance and disability insurance premiums during 2003, and $12,000 in contributions made by us on behalf on Dr. Kranzler under our 401(k) plan during 2003.

(2)

Includes $1,674 paid by us on behalf of Dr. Kranzler for life insurance premiums during 2002, and $11,000 in contributions made by us on behalf on Dr. Kranzler under our 401(k) plan during 2002.

(3)

Includes $11,000 of salary payments for 2000 pursuant to the January 2001 third amendment to the employment agreement for Dr. Kranzler.

(4)

Includes $1,560 paid by us on behalf of Dr. Kranzler for life insurance premiums during 2001, and $10,500 in contributions made by us on behalf on Dr. Kranzler under our 401(k) plan during 2001.

(5)

Represents $12,000 in contributions made by us on behalf of Dr. Gendreau under our 401(k) plan during 2003.

(6)

Represents $11,000 in contributions made by us on behalf of Dr. Gendreau under our 401(k) plan during 2002.

(7)

Represents $10,500 in contributions made by us on behalf of Dr. Gendreau under our 401(k) plan during 2001.

(8)

As a result of her employment with Fresenius, in connection with our restructuring of our agreement with Fresenius, Ms. Johnson's employment as our Vice President Marketing and Sales terminated in January 2001. Ms. Johnson was employed as a consultant by us prior to March 20, 2001, when she was rehired by us as our Vice President Marketing.

(9)

Represents $12,000 in contributions made by us on behalf of Ms. Johnson under our 401(k) plan during 2003.

(10)

Represents $11,000 in contributions made by us on behalf of Ms. Johnson under our 401(k) plan during 2002.

(11)

Represents $9,442 in contributions made by us on behalf of Ms. Johnson under our 401(k) plan during 2001.

        On January 15, 2004, Dr. Kranzler, Dr. Gendreau and Ms. Johnson were issued bonuses of $500,000, $100,000 and $104,000, respectively, all of which became payable upon the execution of our collaboration agreement with Forest Laboratories.

STOCK OPTION GRANTS AND EXERCISES IN LAST FISCAL YEAR

        We grant options to our executive officers under our 1996 Plan and our 2000 Plan. As of December 31, 2003, options to purchase a total of 745,879 shares were outstanding under the 1996 Plan

44

and options to purchase 16,873 shares remained available for grant under the 1996 Plan. As of December 31, 2003, options to purchase a total of 2,556,506 shares were outstanding under the 2000 Plan and options to purchase 1,361,767 shares remained available for grant under the 2000 Plan. The number of shares available for issuance under the 2000 Plan is calculated such that the total number of shares reserved for issuance under both the 1996 Plan and the 2000 Plan, in the aggregate, is increased quarterly such that the number equals 21.1% of the number of shares of our common stock issued and outstanding.

Option Grants in Last Fiscal Year

        The following table sets forth certain information regarding options granted to the Named Executive Officers during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003:

(1)

Based upon options to purchase a total of 1,120,468 shares of our common stock granted to employees in 2003.

(2)

The potential realizable value is based upon the assumption that the fair market value of the common stock appreciates at the annual rate shown (compounded annually) from the date of the grant until the end of the option term. Actual realizable value, if any, on stock option exercises is dependent on the future performance of the common stock and overall market conditions, as well as the option holder's continued employment through the vesting period.

(3)

25% of such options vested immediately, with the remainder vesting ratably and daily over a four-year period beginning on the date of grant.

(4)

Such options vest ratably and daily over a four-year period beginning on the date of grant; provided, however, that the vesting of 25% of any unvested shares will be accelerated in the event that the Company in-licenses a compound in a transaction approved by the Board.

Aggregated Option Exercises In Last Fiscal Year
And Fiscal Year End Option Values

        During the year ended December 31, 2003, no options were exercised by any of the Named Executive Officers. The following table sets forth certain information, as to each of the Named Executive Officers, concerning the number of shares subject to both exercisable and unexercisable stock options held as of December 31, 2003. Also reported are values for "in-the-money" options that represent the positive spread between the respective exercise prices of outstanding stock options and

45

the fair market value of the Company's common stock as of December 31, 2003. There were no stock appreciation rights outstanding at December 31, 2003.

(1)

Calculation based upon $15.03 per share, the closing sales price of the underlying shares of common stock as reported on The Nasdaq SmallCap Market on December 31, 2003, less exercise price.

Employment, Severance and Change of Control Agreements

        In August 2003, we entered into an amended and restated employment agreement with Jay D. Kranzler, M.D., Ph.D., our Chairman of the board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, which superseded the employment agreement entered into with him in December 1995. The initial term of the amended and restated agreement expires in August 2006, subject to automatic renewal for two one year periods following August 2006. The amended and restated agreement provides for an annual base salary, which may be adjusted periodically in the sole discretion of the board of directors. Dr. Kranzler's current salary is set at $495,185. In addition to his base salary, Dr. Kranzler is eligible for (i) a special cash bonus of $500,000, payable in a lump sum, upon the announcement of a strategic transaction for the development and commercialization of milnacipran approved by the board of directors (such bonus was paid on January 15, 2004), and (ii) an annual bonus equal to an amount up to 66²/3% of his base salary within ninety days after the end of each fiscal year. The annual bonus amount, if any, shall be based on Dr. Kranzler's performance as evaluated by the board of directors in its sole discretion. Pursuant to the amended and restated agreement, Dr. Kranzler was also granted an option to purchase 500,000 shares of common stock under the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan. In addition, we are required to provide Dr. Kranzler with $2 million of life insurance coverage. The amended and restated agreement is terminable by Dr. Kranzler at any time upon 30 days' prior written notice. In the event that Dr. Kranzler is terminated without cause, Dr. Kranzler terminates his employment for good reason (as set forth in the agreement), or his agreement expires and he is not rehired, Dr. Kranzler is entitled to severance payments equal to eighteen months of his base salary, with twelve months of the base salary payable in a lump sum within ten days following the termination date, and the remaining six months of base salary payable ratably over the six months following the termination date; provided that the entire eighteen months of base salary is payable in a lump sum if the termination occurs following a change in control. In addition, in the event that Dr. Kranzler is terminated without cause or terminates his employment for good reason, Dr. Kranzler will also be entitled to (i) accelerated vesting of all of his outstanding stock options, and (ii) continued coverage under group life, health, accident, disability and hospitalization insurance at the levels in effect for Dr. Kranzler at the termination date for a period of two years. In the event that Dr. Kranzler dies, we are required to pay Dr. Kranzler's legal representatives payments equal to twelve months of his base salary reduced by any amounts paid or to be paid by the insurance coverage that we provide for the benefit of Dr. Kranzler, including life insurance. In the event that Dr. Kranzler becomes disabled (as set forth in the agreement) and we elect to terminate his employment, Dr. Kranzler is entitled to receive his base salary until disability insurance payments commence, subject to maximum payments by us equal to twelve months of his base salary. In addition, all of Dr. Kranzler's outstanding options will immediately vest upon his death or disability. In the event that any amounts paid to Dr. Kranzler constitute excess parachute payments under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, we will pay to Dr. Kranzler an amount equal to any excise taxes payable by him with respect to such payments, up to a total of $250,000.

46

        In February 2004, we entered into an employment agreement with Denise Woolard, our Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs and Secretary. The initial term of the agreement expires in February 2006, subject to automatic renewal for one year periods following February 2006. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms. Woolard's base salary is currently set at $225,000 per year. For 2004, Ms. Woolard is entitled to receive a minimum cash bonus equal to 25% of her then-effective base salary, payable in a lump sum on a date within 45 days of December 31, 2004. For future years, in addition to her base salary, Ms. Woolard is eligible to receive a cash bonus based on her performance during each fiscal year, as evaluated by our Chief Executive Officer and the board in their discretion. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms. Woolard was also granted an option to purchase 100,000 shares of common stock under our 2000 Equity Incentive Plan. The agreement is terminable by Ms. Woolard at any time upon 30 days' prior written notice. In addition, in the event that Ms. Woolard is terminated without cause, Ms. Woolard terminates her employment for good reason (as set forth in the agreement), or her agreement expires and is not renewed after February 2006, Ms. Woolard is entitled to a severance payment equal to an amount that may range from six months of her base salary to twelve months of her base salary depending on her date of termination, payable in a lump sum. In addition, if Ms. Woolard is terminated without cause or terminates her employment for good reason, Ms. Woolard will also be entitled to (i) up to 12 months' accelerated vesting of her outstanding stock options, in each case depending on her date of termination, and (ii) continued coverage under group health insurance at the levels in effect for Ms. Woolard at the termination date for a period of 12 months. If Ms. Woolard is terminated without cause within one month before or within 13 months after a change in control, she is entitled to (i) severance payments equal to twelve months of her base salary, payable in a lump sum, (ii) accelerated vesting of all of her outstanding stock options, and (iii) continued coverage under group health insurance at the levels in effect for Ms. Woolard at the termination date for a period of 12 months.

        Pursuant to resolutions approved by our board of directors in April 2001 and March 2003, upon a change in control of the Company, which includes the sale of all or substantially all of our assets, specified types of merger, or other corporate reorganization, all options to purchase our common stock held by our directors and officers will immediately vest.

ITEM 12.    Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Equity Compensation Plan Information

        The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2003 regarding our equity compensation plans that were approved by our stockholders. As of December 31, 2003, we did not have any equity compensation plans that were not approved by our stockholders.

(1)

The number of shares available for issuance under the 2000 Plan is calculated such that the total number of shares reserved for issuance under both the 1996 Plan and the 2000 Plan, in the aggregate, is increased quarterly such that the number equals 21.1% of the number of shares of our common stock issued and outstanding.

47

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

        The following table sets forth certain information regarding the ownership of our common stock as of February 1, 2004 by: (i) all those known by us to be beneficial owners of more than 5% of our common stock; (ii) each of our Named Executive Officers; (iii) each of our directors; and (iv) all of our Named Executive Officers and directors as a group.

*

Less than 1%

(1)

This table is based upon information supplied by officers, directors and principal stockholders and Schedules 13D and Schedule 13G filed with the SEC. Unless otherwise indicated in the footnotes to this table and subject to community property laws where applicable, we believe that each of the stockholders named in this table has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares indicated as beneficially owned. Except as shown otherwise in the table, the address of each stockholder listed is in care of Cypress Bioscience, Inc. at 4350 Executive Drive, Suite 325, San Diego, California, 92121.

(2)

Percentage of beneficial ownership is based upon 22,267,280 shares of our common stock outstanding as of February 1, 2004, adjusted as required by rules promulgated by the SEC.

(3)

Lindsay A. Rosenwald, MD is the managing member of Orion Biomedical GP, L.L.C. ("Orion GP"). Orion GP is the general partner to Orion Biomedical Fund, L.P. and Orion Biomedical Offshore Fund, L.P. (collectively, the "Orion Funds"). Dr. Rosenwald is also chairman and sole stockholder of Paramount BioCapital Asset Management, Inc. ("PBAM"), which is the managing member of each of Aries Select I L.L.C. ("Aries I") and Aries Select II L.L.C. ("Aries II"), each a Delaware limited liability company, and is investment manager of Aries Select Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company ("Aries Ltd.", and collectively with Aries I and Aries II, the "Aries Funds"). As a result, Dr. Rosenwald and PPAM may be deemed to have voting and investment control over the securities of the issuer owned by the Aries Funds under Rule 16-a(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. Additionally, Dr. Rosenwald and Orion GP may be deemed to have voting and investment control over the securities of the issuer owned by the Orion Funds under Rule 16-a(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. The Aries Funds collectively beneficially own 1,784,523 shares of our common stock. The Orion Funds collectively beneficially own 192,286 shares of our common stock. Dr. Rosenwald currently owns warrants to purchase 234,039 shares of our common stock. Dr. Rosenwald and PBAM disclaim beneficial ownership of the securities held by the Aries Funds, and Dr. Rosenwald and Orion GP disclaim beneficial ownership of the securities held by the Orion Funds, except to the extent of their pecuniary interest therein, if any.

(4)

Includes warrants to purchase 300,000 shares of our common stock.

48

(5)

Includes (i) 375,070 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 192,718 shares of our common stock held by ProQuest Investments L.P., (ii) 4,813 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 2,498 shares of our common stock held by ProQuest Companion Fund, L.P., (iii) 918,276 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 476,574 shares of our common stock held by ProQuest Investments II, L.P., and (iv) 22,096 shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase 11,469 shares of our common stock held by ProQuest Investments II Advisors Fund, L.P. ProQuest Associates LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is General Partner of ProQuest Investments, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership and ProQuest Companion Fund L.P., a Delaware limited partnership. ProQuest Associates II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is General Partner of ProQuest Investments II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership and ProQuest Investments II Advisors Fund, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership.

(6)

Includes 139,751 shares of our common stock issuable pursuant to options exercisable within 60 days of February 1, 2004 by Dr. Gendreau.

(7)

Represents 66,994 shares of our common stock issuable pursuant to options exercisable within 60 days of February 1, 2004 by Ms. Johnson.

(8)

Includes 101,319 shares or our common stock held by Dr. Kranzler and 734,403 shares of our common stock issuable pursuant to options exercisable within 60 days of February 1, 2004. Also includes 79,180 shares of our common stock held by our 401(k) plan for which Dr. Kranzler, as trustee of the 401(k) plan, has voting rights to such shares and 124,792 shares of our common stock held by the Kranzler Living Trust, for which Dr. Kranzler is a trustee.

(9)

Includes 66,038 shares of our common stock issuable pursuant to options exercisable within 60 days of February 1, 2004. Such shares are held by the Samuel D. Anderson Trust, for which Mr. Anderson is the sole trustee.

(10)

Includes 41,391 shares of our common stock issuable pursuant to options exercisable within 60 days of February 1, 2004 by Mr. Vaughn.

(11)

Includes 1,048,577 shares of our common stock issuable pursuant to options exercisable within 60 days of February 1, 2004.

ITEM 13.    Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

        We have employment agreements with our Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs, as described under the caption "Employment, Severance and Change of Control Agreements." We have also granted stock options to certain of our directors and executive officers. See "Executive Compensation." In January 2003, each of our non-employee directors received options to purchase 5,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to an automatic grant under our 2000 Plan. In March 2003, we also made the following grants of options to purchase our common stock to our directors and executive officers:

(1)

Drs. Keller, Kessel and Nemeroff resigned from our board of directors effective March 25, 2004, to assume active roles as our consultants. Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Keller will continue to serve as members of our scientific advisory boards.

49

        On June 27, 2001, we implemented an option cancel and re-grant program. As a condition to participating in the option cancel and re-grant program, optionees who elected to surrender their old options for replacement options had to exercise at least 20% of the replacement options on June 27, 2001. Dr. Kranzler exercised his option to purchase 101,319 shares pursuant to a promissory note that was issued by us and was secured by his stock. The outstanding principal amount of the promissory note was due on June 27, 2006, and the interest was payable annually. The principal amount of the loan was $189,973 and the interest rate was variable, adjusted monthly and was two points above the federal funds rate. In January 2004, the principal amount of the loan and related interest was paid in full.

        On March 25, 2004, we entered into consulting agreements (the "2004 Consulting Agreements") with Drs. Martin B. Keller, Lawrence J. Kessel and Charles B. Nemeroff (the "Consultants") in connection with their resignations from our board of directors to roles as our Consultants. The 2004 Consulting Agreements superseded the consulting agreements previously entered into with these individuals in 2003, which are described in more detail below. Under the terms of the 2004 Consulting Agreements, each of the Consultants agreed to provide us with consulting services for a period of two years, with Drs. Keller and Nemeroff continuing on our Scientific and Advisory Board and Dr. Kessel being an independent consultant. We are committed to pay each Consultant a fee of $50,000 per year for services rendered up to and including two days per fiscal quarter. In addition, we may request each Consultant to perform additional services at the rate of $5,000 per day. Payment of the consulting fees are made on a quarterly basis, provided that each Consultant has the right, by providing notice to us at any time during the last two weeks of any fiscal quarter, to receive payment of his consulting fees in the form of fully vested stock options. If a Consultant elects to receive payment in stock options, the quarterly grant will cover the number of shares that results from dividing the then accrued but unpaid fees earned by such Consultant in the applicable fiscal quarter by the closing share price of our common stock as reported on the Nasdaq National Market for the last trading day of such fiscal quarter. Such option grants will be made pursuant to the terms of our 2000 Plan. The exercise price of such option grants will be equal to the closing sales price of our common stock on the Nasdaq National Market for the last trading day of such fiscal quarter. In addition, pursuant to the 2004 Consulting Agreements, each Consultant will vest in all unvested shares under his outstanding option grants in equal monthly installments over a period of two years from the effective date of the agreements. If we terminate a 2004 Consulting Agreement without cause, or there is a corporate transaction (as defined in our 2000 Plan), then (i) we are required to pay the affected Consultant, within 30 days of such event, all remaining consideration such Consultant would have received during the remainder of the term of the agreement, (ii) all of the Consultant's remaining unvested option shares will immediately vest in full, and (iii) the Consultant will be allowed to exercise such option grants through the second anniversary of the effective date of such Consultant's agreement.

        Pursuant to our prior consulting agreements with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Vaughn, these members of our board of directors agreed to serve as consultants to us to assist on an as needed basis at the rate of $2,000 per day for any days that exceed their commitment as members of our board of directors. During 2003, we paid Mr. Anderson $14,000 for additional services provided to us under his consulting agreement, and we did not make any payments to Mr. Vaughn under his consulting agreement. These agreements were terminated in March 2003.

        Pursuant to our prior consulting agreement with Dr. Kessel dated October 28, 1999, Dr. Kessel agreed to spend on average three days per month working on our behalf on clinical, sales and marketing issues at $4,000 per month. Dr. Kessel's consulting agreement with us was amended on March 27, 2003. Pursuant to the terms of the amended agreement, we agreed to pay Dr. Kessel $2,000 per day for any days exceeding his board commitment of one day of service on our board of directors per quarter. During 2003, we paid Dr. Kessel $36,000 for additional services provided to us under his

50

consulting agreement. This agreement was superseded by Dr. Kessel's 2004 Consulting Agreement described above.

        Pursuant to our prior consulting agreement with Dr. Nemeroff dated March 1, 2001, as amended on December 21, 2001 and on March 27, 2003, Dr. Nemeroff agreed to provide services to us in addition to his membership on the board. Under the March 27, 2003 amended agreement, we agreed to pay Dr. Nemeroff a fee of $2,000 per day for any days exceeding his board commitment of one day per quarter and eliminated his yearly fee of $24,000. On March 27, 2003, Dr. Nemeroff also received an option to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock (included in the table above) that becomes fully vested upon the achievement of a certain milestone with respect to the compound milnacipran within 2 years of the date of the option grant. During 2003, Dr. Nemeroff was paid $19,000 for additional services provided to us under his consulting agreement. This agreement was superseded by Dr. Nemeroff's 2004 Consulting Agreement described above.

        Pursuant to our prior consulting agreement with Dr. Keller dated April 17, 2003, Dr. Keller agreed to provide services to us in addition to his membership on the board, and we agreed to pay Dr. Keller a fee of $2,000 per day for any days exceeding his board commitment. Under the agreement, we also granted Dr. Keller an option to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock (included in the table above) that becomes fully vested upon the same terms and conditions as the option to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock that we granted to Dr. Nemeroff, as described above. During 2003, Dr. Keller was paid $18,000 for additional services provided to us under his consulting agreement. This agreement was superseded by Dr. Keller's 2004 Consulting Agreement described above.

        On April 3, 2003, we issued and sold shares of our common stock and warrants to purchase shares of our common stock for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $10.3 million in a private financing. Paramount Capital, Inc. served as a placement agent in the financing and received a cash commission of $508,000 and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 283,301 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.82 per share in consideration for its services as a placement agent in the financing. These warrants were assigned by Paramount to Tim McInerney, Lindsay Rosenwald, Steve Rocamboli, David Tanen, Michael Weiser, Bill Corcoran, John Knox and Basil Christakos, all employees of Paramount. In addition, Dr. Lawrence Kessel, a member of our board of directors, and his wife, Shirley Kessel, also participated in the financing.

        Our bylaws provide that we will indemnify our directors and executive officers and may indemnify our other officers, employees and other agents to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. We are also empowered under our bylaws to enter into indemnification contracts with our directors and officers and to purchase insurance on behalf of any person who we are required or permitted to indemnify. Pursuant to this provision, we have entered into indemnity agreements with each of our directors and officers and currently maintain directors and officers insurance coverage.

ITEM 14.    Principal Accounting Fees and Services

Independent Auditors' Fees

        The following table represents aggregate fees billed to the Company for fiscal years ended December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2003, by Ernst & Young LLP, the Company's independent

51

auditor. Certain amounts from fiscal 2002 have been reclassified to conform to new presentation requirements.

        Fees for audit services include fees associated with the annual audit, including a review of our Form 10-K and reviews of our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Audit-related fees include reviews of registration statements on Form S-3, issuance of consents that are filed with certain of our reports with the SEC, assistance with responding to comment letters from the SEC and accounting consultations with respect to revenue recognition and correspondence with Nasdaq regarding the listing of our common stock. Tax fees include tax compliance services and tax consultations.

        All fees described above were approved by the Audit Committee, except for fees of $40,000 during 2002 for accounting consultations with respect to revenue recognition and correspondence with Nasdaq regarding the listing of our common stock.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

        The Audit Committee currently has no formal policy for the pre-approval of audit and non-audit services rendered by our independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP. Generally, pre-approval may be given as part of the Audit Committee's approval of the scope of the engagement of the independent auditor or on an individual explicit case-by-case basis before the independent auditor is engaged to provide each service.

52

PART IV

ITEM 15.    Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K

(a)

Financial Statements

        Our financial statements are included herein as required under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. See Index on page F-1.

        Financial statement schedules have been omitted since they are either not required, not applicable or the information is otherwise included.

(b)

Reports on Form 8-K

        Form 8-K filed on October 2, 2003 announcing the call for redemption of outstanding warrants from the private placement in March 2002.

(c)

Exhibits

53

54

*

Confidential Treatment has been granted to certain portions of this agreement.

**

Confidential Treatment has been requested for certain portions of this agreement.

†

Indicates management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.

55

SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

POWER OF ATTORNEY

        KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Jay D. Kranzler, M.D., Ph.D. and Sabrina Martucci Johnson, and each of them, as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this Form 10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and full power and authority to do and performance each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming that all said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them or their substitute or resubstitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this report has been signed below by the following person on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

56

CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE, INC.

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

F-1

REPORT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Cypress Bioscience, Inc.

        We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Cypress Bioscience, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based upon our audits.

        We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

        In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Cypress Bioscience, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2003, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Diego, California
February 13, 2004

F-2

CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE, INC.

BALANCE SHEETS

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.

F-3

CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE, INC.

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS