Inhibikase Therapeutics, Inc.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Other than the risks included below that have been amended and restated, there have been no material changes from the risk factors previously disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K as filed with the SEC on March 27, 2025.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

Currently, federal agencies in the U.S. are operating under a federal government shutdown due to expiration of the continuing resolution on September 30, 2025. The duration of the current government shutdown is unknown. Without appropriation of additional funding to federal agencies, our business operations related to our product development activities for the U.S. market could be impacted. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, the ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions and personnel turnover, as a result of leadership changes, staff reductions or otherwise, at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing have been reported by some within the pharmaceutical industry as creating instances of delays in the FDAs responsiveness or in its ability to review IND submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all. There is also substantial uncertainty as to how regulatory reform measures being implemented by the current U.S. administration, and other political developments, such as government shutdowns or work stoppages, would impact other U.S. regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, SEC and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), on which our operations rely. For example, in March 2025, the Department of Healthcare legislative measure and Human Services announced a broad-scale restructuring effort designed to significantly reduce FDA headcount. In April 2025, FDA employees began to receive reduction in force notices. In addition, over the last several years, including beginning on October 1, 2025, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, furloughed critical employees aimed at rend ceased critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs or a widespread freeze on federal funding occurs in the future, or if staffing changes prevent the FDA, USPTO or other regulatory authorities from conducting healthcare costs may hatheir regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, including formal and informal interactions with product developers, it could significantly impact the ability of such regulatory agencies to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns or substantial leadership, personnel, and policy changes could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Healthcare legislative a matermeasures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that may affect our ability to profitably sell our product and product candidates, if approved. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments also have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs.

32

The Affordable Care Act was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

There have been significant ongoing judicial, administrative, executive and legislative efforts to modify or eliminate the Affordable Care Act since its enactment. For example, the Tax Act enacted on December 22, 2017, repealed the shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, commonly referred to as the individual mandate.

The Affordable Care Act has also been subject to challenges in the courts. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the individual mandate was repealed by Congress. On December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and remanded the case to the Texas District Court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the entire Affordable Care Act. An appeal was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld the Affordable Care Act in June of 2021. There have been no significant judicial challenges since then.

Other legislative changes have been adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, including aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the CAA delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, or PAYGO sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The CAAs health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, Congress authorized Medicare beginning in 2026 to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars. This provision is limited in terms of the number of pharmaceuticals whose prices can be negotiated in any given year and it only applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years. Drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition are categorically excluded from price negotiation. In addition, the new legislation provides that if pharmaceutical companies raise prices in Medicare faster than the rate of inflation, they must pay rebates back to the government for the difference. The IRA also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. The IRA permits the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as

32

these programs are implemented. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon prices of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, which take effect in January 2026. HHS will select up to fifteen additional products covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is currently subject to legal challenges. The outcome of this litigation as well as the effects of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined but is likely to be significant.

On April 15, 2025, the Trump Administration published Executive Order 14273, Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First, which generally directs the federal government to take measures to reduce drug prices, including eliminating the so-called pill penalty under the Inflation Reduction Act that creates a distinction between small molecule and large molecule products for purposes of determining when a drug may be eligible for drug price negotiation. On May 12, 2025, the Trump Administration published Executive Order 14297, Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients which generally, among other things, directs the federal government to establish and communicate most-favored-nation price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations. Further, the Executive Order directs the federal government to support regulatory paths to allow direct-to-patient sales for companies that meet these targets. It also states that the Administration will take additional aggressive action (for example, examining whether marketing approvals should be modified or rescinded or opening the door for individual drug importation waivers) should manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favored-nation lowest price. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy, or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory or that may impair United States national security . . . including by suppressing the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value in foreign countries. Notably, a similar Most Favored Nation pricing rule enacted under the first Trump Administration was subject to an injunction resulting from judicial challenges to the rule, which was formally rescinded by the former Biden Administration in August 2021.

33

In addition, at the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations similar to those under consideration at the federal level, as well as laws designed to control pharmaceutical and biotherapeutic product pricing, including restrictions on pricing or reimbursement at the state government level, limitations on discounts to patients, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, restrictions or other limitations on patient assistance, and, in some cases, policies to encourage importation from other countries (subject to federal approval) and bulk purchasing. Certain states are also pursuing cost containment efforts through Prescription Drug Affordability Boards and similar entities.

We expect that healthcare reform measures that have and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for our product and product candidates, if approved, and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain and maintain profitability of our product and product candidates, if approved.

We are dependent on third-party manufacturers which are located in China, and any inability to obtain products from any such manufacturers could harm our business.

Our current and future product candidates are expected to be manufactured in whole or in part by companies that are located in China. This concentration exposes us to risks associated with doing business globally. The political, legal and cultural environment in China is rapidly evolving, and any change that impairs our ability to obtain products from manufacturers in that region could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

Political uncertainty in the United States may result in significant changes to U.S. trade policies, treaties and tariffs, potentially involving trade policies and tariffs regarding China, including the potential disallowance of tax deductions for imported merchandise or the imposition of unilateral tariffs on imported products. For example, in early 2025, the United States imposed significant tariffs on imports from other countries, including a baseline tariff of 10% on imports into the United States and higher tariffs on multiple designated countries (including the EU Member States, China, Canada, and Mexico), such as reciprocal tariffs at varying rates. Such tariffs have prompted retaliatory measures from several countries, which may further escalate. On April 9, 2025, the United States announced that the imposition of most reciprocal tariffs would be paused for 90 days pending negotiations with the relevant countries. While certain tariffs have been suspended, modified or temporarily reduced, we cannot predict the results of the U.S. government's trade negotiations or the outcome of ongoing legal challenges to specific tariff policies. PharmaOn September 25, 2025, the current U.S. administration announced 100% tariff on brand-name or patented drugs unless pharmaceutical procompanies expand their manufacturing operations in the U.S. While pharmaceutical products are currently excluded from the baseline and reciprocal tariffs imposed by the United States; however, such tariffs still apply to the raw materials and other products necessary for the manufacture and formulation of our marketed products and product candidates. In addition, the current U.S. administration has expressed an intent to impose tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, with the stated policy objective of reshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing to the United States. Among other means, such tariffs may be imposed by the United States under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, pursuant to which the U.S. Department of

33

Commerce recently initiated an investigation to determine the effects of importing pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients on national security. Political tensions as a result of trade policies could reduce trade volume, investment, technological exchange and other economic activities between major international economies, resulting in a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets. Any changes in political, trade, regulatory, and economic conditions, including U.S. trade policies, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Regulators and legislators in the U.S. are increasingly scrutinizing and restricting certain personal data transfers and transactions involving foreign countries. For example, the Biden Administrations executive order Preventing Access to Americans Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern as implemented by Department of Justice regulations issued in December 2024, prohibits data brokerage transactions involving certain sensitive personal data categories, including health data, genetic data, and biospecimens, to countries of concern, including China. The regulations also restrict certain investment agreements, employment agreements and vendor agreements involving such data and countries of concern, absent specified cybersecurity controls. Actual or alleged violations of these regulations may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, and may result in exclusion from participation in federal and state programs.

These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, may have a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and may significantly reduce global trade and, in particular, trade between China and the United States. Any of these factors could depress economic activity, restrict our sourcing from suppliers and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and affect our strategy. We cannot predict whether any of the countries in which our product candidates or raw materials are currently manufactured or may be manufactured in

34

the future will be subject to additional trade restrictions imposed by the United States and foreign governments, nor can we predict the likelihood, type or effect of any such restrictions.

ChangIf the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates would be adversely affected.

The patent position of pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our owned or in-licensed pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our product candidates or other technologies or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license or own currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we own or in-license may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our product candidates or other technologies in U.S. tax law cwill be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner which could materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We or our licensors may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings or other similar proceedings challenging our owned or licensed patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our owned or in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates or other technologies and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our or our licensors priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could adversely affect our blimit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates and other technologies. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Any reduction in our patent rights arising from our co-owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, including our ability to enforce these patents against third parties, business and financial condition.

, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. 

Some of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. For example, we co-own certain patents and patent applications relating to our pro drug technology to be applied to protein kinase inhibitors for oncology and non-oncology indications that was jointly developed with Sphaera Pharma Pte. Ltd. (Sphaera). Our exclusive rights to certain of these patents and patent applications are dependent, in part, on agreements between the joint owners of such patents and patent applications. If our licensors or co-owners fail to sustain the grant of exclusive licenses to us or we are otherwise unable to maintain such exclusive rights, our licensors or co-owners may be able to license these rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of our licensors and co-owners in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. We cannot guarantee that our commercial partners will abide by the terms of their agreements with us, or that ownership rights we share with certain commercial partners have or will be properly transferred to a new owner, subject to the same terms we originally agreed upon with our original partner, if those rights are subject to a bankruptcy or other liquidation proceeding following our commercial partners insolvency. Our licensors, including Sphaera, have in the past and may in the future, enter 

35

liquidation or other bankruptcy proceedings, and transfer assets to new entities. We cannot guarantee that our licensed rights from the new entities are or will be the same as, or similar to, the rights we obtained in the original agreements. 

For example, beginning in 2023, Sphaera voluntarily entered into a process to liquidate and wind up its business under Singapore law under the supervision of an independent liquidator. While the liquidator acknowledged that all of Sphaeras residual assets were being transferred to Pivot, questions could arise regarding the valid transfer of such assets, including the patents we co-owned with Sphaera. Pivot assumed Sphaeras rights and obligations under Sphaeras collaborative research and development agreement with us. On September 30, 2024, we and Pivot entered into a settlement agreement which, among other things, amended certain terms of the collaborative research and development agreement that Pivot assumed. Any reduction in our patent rights arising from our co-owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, including our ability to enforce these patents against third parties, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Changes in U.S. tax law could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The laws, rules and regulations dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. For example, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the OBBBA) was signed into law on July 4, 2025 and made significant changes to U.S. federal tax law. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. For example, under Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the IRC), in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed outside the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. The OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed in the U.S. may, at the taxpayers election, be immediately deducted or capitalized and amortized. In addition, the OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 and before January 1, 2025, certain eligible taxpayers generally may elect to retroactively deduct expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years by filing amended tax returns for such taxable years, and all other taxpayers that are not eligible to make such an election and that amortized expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years generally may elect to accelerate and deduct the remaining unamortized amounts of such research and development expenses (i) in the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024, or (ii) ratably over the two-taxable year period beginning with the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024. In recent years, many changes have been made to applicable tax laws and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future.

It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, new tax laws may be enacted, or regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued under existing or new tax laws, which could result in an increase in our or our shareholders tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law or in the interpretation thereof. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.