Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses are charged to the condensed consolidated statement of operations as incurred. Research and development expenses are comprised of costs incurred in performing research and development activities, including salaries and benefits, facilities costs, pre-clinical and clinical costs, contract services, consulting, depreciation and amortization expense, and other related costs. Costs associated with acquired technology, in the form of upfront fees or milestone payments, are charged to research and development expense as incurred.

Multiple-Element Arrangements

When evaluating multiple-element arrangements, Pieris identifies the deliverables included within the agreement and evaluates which deliverables represent separate units of accounting based on whether the delivered element has stand-alone value to the customer or if the arrangement includes a general right of return for delivered items.

The consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting using the relative selling price method, and the applicable revenue recognition criteria are applied to each of the separate units of accounting. Pieris has used best estimate of selling price (“BESP”) methodology to estimate the selling price for licenses and options to acquire additional licenses to its proprietary technology because Pieris does not have vendor specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) or third party evidence (“TPE”) of selling price for these deliverables. To determine the estimated selling price of a license to its proprietary technology, Pieris considers market conditions as well as entity-specific factors, including those factors contemplated in negotiating the agreements, terms of previous collaborative agreements, similar agreements entered into by third parties, market opportunity, estimated development costs, probability of success, and the time needed to commercialize a product candidate pursuant to the license. In validating Pieris’ best estimate of selling price, Pieris evaluates whether changes in the key assumptions used to determine the BESP will have a significant effect on the allocation of arrangement consideration among multiple deliverables.

Multiple element arrangements, such as license and development arrangements, are analyzed to determine whether the deliverables, which often include licenses and performance obligations such as research and development services and steering committee services, can be separated or whether they must be accounted for as a combined unit of accounting in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The Company recognizes the arrangement consideration allocated to licenses as revenue upon delivery of the license only if the license has stand-alone value. If the license is considered not to have stand-alone value, the license would then be combined with other undelivered elements into a combined unit of accounting and the license payments and payments for performance obligations would be recognized as revenue when the revenue recognition criteria have been satisfied for the last deliverable within the unit of accounting. In the case of combined units of accounting that include delivered licenses and undelivered services to be provided over time, revenue would be recognized over the estimated period during which services will be provided.

If the Company is involved in a steering committee as part of a multiple element arrangement, the Company assesses whether its involvement constitutes a performance obligation or a right to participate. Steering committee services that are determined to be performance obligations, are combined with other research services or performance obligations required under an arrangement, if any, in determining the level of effort required in an arrangement and the period over which the Company expects to complete its aggregate performance obligations.

The Company recognizes arrangement consideration allocated to each unit of accounting when all of the revenue recognition criteria in ASC 605-25 are satisfied for that particular unit of accounting. For each unit of accounting, the Company must determine the period over which the performance obligations will be performed and revenue will be recognized. Revenue will be recognized using either a proportional performance or straight-line method. The Company recognizes revenue using the proportional performance method provided the Company can reasonably estimate the level of effort required to complete its performance obligations under an arrangement and such performance obligations are provided on a best-effort basis. Full-time equivalents are typically used as the measure of performance.

If the Company cannot reasonably estimate when its performance obligation either ceases or becomes inconsequential and perfunctory, then revenue is deferred until the Company can reasonably estimate when the performance obligation ceases or becomes inconsequential.

Significant management judgment is required in determining the level of effort required under an arrangement and the period over which the Company is expected to complete its performance obligations under an arrangement.

The accounting treatment for options granted to collaborators is dependent upon the nature of the option granted to the collaborative partner. Options are considered substantive if, at the inception of an agreement, Pieris is at risk as to whether the collaborative partner will choose to exercise the options to secure additional goods or services. Factors that are considered in evaluating whether options are substantive include the overall objective of the arrangement, the benefit the collaborator might obtain from the agreement without exercising the options, the cost to exercise the options relative to the total upfront consideration, and the additional financial commitments or economic penalties imposed on the collaborator as a result of exercising the options.

In arrangements where options to obtain additional deliverables are considered substantive, Pieris determines whether the optional licenses are priced at a significant and incremental discount. If the prices include a significant and incremental discount, the option is considered a deliverable in the arrangement. However, if not priced at a discount, the option is not considered a deliverable in the arrangement. When a collaborator exercises an option to acquire an additional license, the exercise fee that is attributed to the additional license and any incremental discount allocated at inception are recognized in a manner consistent with the treatment of up-front payments for licenses (i.e., license and research services). In the event an option expires un-exercised, any incremental discounts deferred at the inception of the arrangement are recognized into revenue upon expiration. For options that are non-substantive, the additional licenses to which the options pertain are considered deliverables upon inception of the arrangement, and Pieris applies the multiple-element revenue recognition criteria to determine accounting treatment.

Payments or reimbursements resulting from Pieris’ research and development efforts in multi-element arrangements, in which Pieris’ research and development efforts are considered to be a deliverable, are included in allocable consideration and allocated to the units of accounting. These reimbursements are recognized as the services are performed and are presented on a gross basis so long as there

is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the fee is fixed or determinable, and collection of the related receivable is reasonably assured. Revenue recognized cannot exceed the amount that has been earned and has been billed or is currently billable. Amounts received prior to satisfying the above revenue recognition criteria are recorded as deferred revenue in the accompanying balance sheets.

Standards not yet adopted

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”). Subsequently, the FASB also issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) , which adjusted the effective date of ASU 2014-09; ASU No. 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net), which amends the principal-versus-agent implementation guidance and illustrations in ASU 2014-09; ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing, which clarifies identifying performance obligation and licensing implementation guidance and illustrations in ASU 2014-09; and ASU No. 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients, which addresses implementation issues and is intended to reduce the cost and complexity of applying the new revenue standard in ASU 2014-09 (collectively, the “Revenue ASUs”).

The Revenue ASUs provide an accounting standard for a single comprehensive model for use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance. The accounting standard is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with an option to early adopt for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The guidance permits two methods of adoption: retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented (the full retrospective method), or retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the guidance recognized at the date of initial application (the modified retrospective method). We currently anticipate adoption of the new standard effective January 1, 2018 under the modified retrospective method. The Company is in the process of determining the impact of the Revenue Recognition ASUs on its financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, ASU 2016-02 Leases (Topic 842)(“ASU 2016-02”). Under the amendments in ASU 2016-02 lessees will be required to recognize (i) a lease liability, which is a lessee’s obligation to make lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a discounted basis; and (ii) a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases) at the commencement date. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019 including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact the adoption of this standard will have on its financial statements and related disclosures. The Company is in the process of determining the impact of the lease ASU with respect to its financial statements.

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-09, Compensation – Stock compensation (Topic 718)(“ASU 2017-09”). The amendments in this update provide guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting. The amendments in this ASU 2017-09 are effective for all entities for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact the adoption of this standard will have on its financial statements and related disclosures.

Pieris has considered other recent accounting pronouncements and concluded that they are either not applicable to the business, or that the effect is not expected to be material to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as a result of future adoption.