Form 10-Q

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 x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period than the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ¨ No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No x

As of October 30, 2009, there were 46,669,035 outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of InterMune, Inc.

InterMune, Inc. (“InterMune,” “the Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us”) is an independent biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies in pulmonology and hepatology. Our revenue is provided from sales of Actimmune® and our collaboration agreement with Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. and F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (collectively, “Roche”). The pulmonology portfolio includes the Phase III program, CAPACITY, which is evaluating pirfenidone for the treatment of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”) and a research program focused on small molecules for pulmonary disease. We announced results for the CAPACITY trials in February 2009 and submitted our New Drug Application (“NDA”) for pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF in the U.S. in November 2009. The hepatology portfolio includes the chronic hepatitis C virus (“HCV”) protease inhibitor compound ITMN-191 (referred to as R7227 at Roche) in Phase 2b, a second-generation HCV protease inhibitor research program and a research program evaluating a new target in hepatology.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information. The financial statements include all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) that we believe are necessary for a fair presentation of the periods presented. These interim financial results are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the full fiscal year or any other future period and should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2008, included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as updated in the 8-K we filed with the SEC on September 1, 2009. Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year expenses to conform to current year presentation. Approximately $0.1 million and $0.3 million of product support costs have been reclassified from research and development to general and administrative for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2008, respectively. For the nine-months ended September 30, 2009, approximately $0.3 million of product support costs have been reclassified from cost of goods sold to general and administrative. Approximately $1.1 million related to the writeoff of unamortized debt issuance costs expensed during the nine-months ended September 30, 2008 to interest expense has been reclassified to loss on extinguishment of debt in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

On January 1, 2009, we adopted guidance in the Debt Topic of the FASB ASC, formerly FASB Staff Position No. APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments that May be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement) (FSP APB 14-1). This guidance requires the issuer of convertible debt that may be settled in shares or cash upon conversion at their option, such as our $49.0 million 0.25% convertible senior notes due March 2011 that are outstanding as of September 30, 2009, to account for their liability and equity components separately by bifurcating the conversion option from the debt instrument, classifying the conversion option in equity and then accreting the resulting discount on the debt as additional interest expense over the expected life of the debt. The value assigned to the debt component is the estimated fair value, as of the issuance date, of a similar bond without the conversion feature. Although this guidance has no impact on our actual past or future cash flows, it requires us to record non-cash interest expense as the debt discount is amortized.

As a result, we have recorded additional interest expense of $1.0 million, or $0.02 per share, and $3.7 million, or $0.08 per share, in the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009. The adoption requires retrospective application, therefore, our previously reported net loss for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2008 has been restated to reflect additional interest expense of $1.5 million, or $0.04 per share and $7.1 million, or $0.18 per share, respectively. The retrospective adoption of this guidance decreased the debt issuance costs included in other assets by an aggregate of $0.4 million, decreased convertible senior notes included in long-term liabilities by $14.9 million, and decreased total stockholders’ deficit by $14.5 million after a charge of $44.0 million to accumulated deficit on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2008.

In addition, if our convertible debt is redeemed or converted prior to maturity, any unamortized debt discount would result in a loss on extinguishment. The remaining balance of the unamortized debt discount at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 was $5.8 million and $14.9 million, respectively.

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of InterMune and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, InterMune Canada Inc. and InterMune Ltd. (U.K.). All inter-company balances and transactions have been eliminated. To date, InterMune Canada Inc. and InterMune Ltd. (U.K.) have been dormant with no assets, liabilities or operations.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates and assumptions.

We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis, including those related to our auction rate securities, reserves for doubtful accounts, returns, chargebacks, cash discounts and rebates; excess/obsolete inventories; the effects of inventory purchase commitments on inventory, certain accrued clinical and preclinical expenses and contingent liabilities; and interest rates with respect to new accounting guidance for our convertible debt. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other specific assumptions that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined by the specific identification method. Inventories were $2.8 million and $1.2 million at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively, and consisted solely of Actimmune finished goods.

Because of the long lead times required to manufacture Actimmune, we enter into purchase obligations to satisfy our estimated inventory requirements. We evaluate the need to provide reserves for contractually committed future purchases of inventory that may be in excess of forecasted future demand. In making these assessments, we are required to make judgments as to the future demand for current as well as committed purchases. We are also required to make judgments as to the expiration dates of Actimmune, since Actimmune can no longer be used after its expiration date. As part of our excess inventory assessment for Actimmune, we also consider the expiration dates of Actimmune to be manufactured in the future under these purchase obligations.

We recognize revenue generally upon delivery when title passes to a credit-worthy customer and record provisions for estimated returns, rebates, chargebacks and cash discounts against revenue. We are obligated to accept from customers the return of pharmaceuticals that have reached their expiration date. We believe that we are able to make reasonable and reliable estimates of product returns, rebates, chargebacks and cash discounts based on historical experience and other known or anticipated trends and factors. We review all sales transactions for potential rebates, chargebacks and discounts each month and believe that our reserves are adequate. We include shipping and handling costs in cost of goods sold.

Our revenue arrangements with multiple elements are divided into separate units of accounting if certain criteria are met, including whether the delivered element has stand-alone value to the customer and whether there is objective and reliable evidence of the fair value of the undelivered items. The consideration we receive is allocated among the separate units based on their respective fair values, and the applicable revenue recognition criteria are applied to each of the separate units. Advance payments received in excess of amounts earned are classified as deferred revenue until earned.

Collaboration revenue derived from our agreement with Roche generally includes upfront license fees and milestone payments. Nonrefundable upfront license fees that require our continuing involvement in the form of research, development, or other commercialization efforts by us are recognized as revenue ratably over the estimated term of our continuing involvement. Milestone payments received under our Roche collaboration agreement related to events that are substantively at risk at the initiation of the agreement are recognized as revenue when the milestones, as defined in the contract, are achieved and collectibility of the milestone is assured.

Research and development (“R&D”) expenses include salaries, contractor and consultant fees, external clinical trial expenses performed by contract research organizations (“CRO”), licensing fees, acquired intellectual property with no alternative future use and facility and administrative expense allocations. In addition, we fund R&D at research institutions under agreements that are generally cancelable at our option. Research costs typically consist of applied research and preclinical and toxicology work. Pharmaceutical manufacturing development costs consist of product formulation, chemical analysis and the transfer and scale-up of manufacturing at our contract manufacturers. Clinical development costs include the costs of Phase I, II and III clinical trials. These costs are a significant component of research and development expenses.

We accrue costs for clinical trial activities performed by contract research organizations and other third parties based upon the estimated amount of work completed on each study as provided by the CRO. These estimates may or may not match the actual services performed by the organizations as determined by patient enrollment levels and related activities. We monitor patient enrollment levels and related activities using available information; however, if we underestimate activity levels associated with various studies at a given point in time, we could be required to record significant additional R&D expenses in future periods when the actual activity level becomes known. We charge all such costs to R&D expenses.

Collaboration agreements with co-funding arrangements resulting in a net receivable or payable of R&D expenses are recognized as the related R&D expenses by both parties are incurred. The agreement with Roche resulted in a net payable of approximately $14.0 million at September 30, 2009 and a net payable of $11.4 million at December 31, 2008. Reimbursements from Roche are credited directly to R&D expense and amounted to $1.1 million and $4.5 million for the three and nine-months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. There were no reimbursements for the comparable periods in 2008.

We compute basic net loss per share by dividing the net loss for the period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. We deduct shares subject to repurchase by us from the outstanding shares to arrive at the weighted average shares outstanding. We compute diluted net loss per share by dividing the net loss for the period by the weighted average number of common and potential common shares outstanding during the period. We exclude dilutive securities, composed of potential common shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and common shares issuable on conversion of our convertible notes, from diluted net loss per share because of their anti-dilutive effect.

The calculation of basic and diluted net loss per share is as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

The following table reflects stock-based compensation expense recognized for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands):

Under the fair value recognition provisions, stock-based compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized as expense over the vesting period for that portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest. In order to estimate the value of share-based awards, we use the Black-Scholes model, which requires the use of certain subjective assumptions. The most significant assumptions are our estimates of the expected volatility, the expected term of the award and the estimated forfeiture rate.

In September 2009, the FASB issued Update No. 2009-13, “Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements—a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force” (ASU 2009-13). It updates the existing multiple-element revenue arrangements guidance currently included under ASC 605-25, which originated primarily from the guidance in EITF Issue No. 00-21, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables” (EITF 00-21). The revised guidance primarily provides two significant changes: 1) eliminates the need for objective and reliable evidence of the fair value for the undelivered element in order for a delivered item to be treated as a separate unit of accounting, and 2) eliminates the residual method to allocate the arrangement consideration. In addition, the guidance also expands the disclosure requirements for revenue recognition. ASU 2009-13 will be effective for the first annual reporting period beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted provided that the revised guidance is retroactively applied to the beginning of the year of adoption. We are currently assessing the impact of this new accounting update to our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2009, the FASB issued Update No. 2009-05, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820)—Measuring Liabilities at Fair Value” (ASU 2009-05). ASU 2009-05 amends ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, of the FASB ASC to provide further guidance on how to measure the fair value of a liability, an area where practitioners have been seeking further guidance. It primarily does three things: 1) sets forth the types of valuation techniques to be used to value a liability when a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability is not available, 2) clarifies that when estimating the fair value of a liability, a reporting entity is not required to include a separate input or adjustment to other inputs relating to the existence of a restriction that prevents the transfer of the liability and 3) clarifies that both a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability at the measurement date and the quoted price for the identical liability when traded as an asset in an active market when no adjustments to the quoted price of the asset are required are Level 1 fair value measurements. This standard is effective beginning fourth quarter of 2009. The adoption of this standard is not expected to impact our consolidated financial statements.

Effective July 1, 2009, we adopted The “FASB Accounting Standards Codification” and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Accounting Standards Codification 105). This standard establishes only two levels of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), authoritative and nonauthoritative. The FASB Accounting Standards Codification (the “Codification” or “ASC”) became the source of authoritative, nongovernmental GAAP, except for rules and interpretive releases of the SEC, which are sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. All other non-grandfathered, non-SEC accounting literature not included in the Codification became nonauthoritative. We began using the new guidelines and numbering system prescribed by the Codification when referring to GAAP in the third quarter of fiscal 2009. As the Codification was not intended to change or alter existing GAAP, it did not have any impact on our consolidated financial statements.

date, but before the financial statements are issued (for public entities) or available to be issued (for nonpublic entities). It also requires the disclosure of the date through which subsequent events have been evaluated. The update did not result in significant changes in the practice of subsequent event disclosures, and therefore the adoption did not have any impact on our consolidated financial statements. We have evaluated certain events and transactions occurring on or after October 1, 2009 and through November 6, 2009, the date of our Form 10-Q filing, and determined that none met the definition of a subsequent event for purposes of recognition or disclosure in our condensed consolidated financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2009, except as described in Note 13.

Effective April 1, 2009, we adopted three accounting standard updates which were intended to provide additional application guidance and enhanced disclosures regarding fair value measurements and impairments of securities. They also provide additional guidelines for estimating fair value in accordance with fair value accounting. The first update, as codified in ASC 820-10-65, provides additional guidelines for estimating fair value in accordance with fair value accounting. The second accounting update, as codified in ASC 320-10-65, changes accounting requirements for other-than-temporary-impairment (OTTI) for debt securities by replacing the current requirement that a holder have the positive intent and ability to hold an impaired security to recovery in order to conclude an impairment was temporary with a requirement that an entity conclude it does not intend to sell an impaired security and it will not be required to sell the security before the recovery of its amortized cost basis. The third accounting update, as codified in ASC 825-10-65, increases the frequency of fair value disclosures. These updates were effective for fiscal years and interim periods ending after June 15, 2009. The adoption of these accounting updates did not have any impact on our consolidated financial statements (see Note 3 for additional disclosures).

In June 2008, the FASB ratified Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 07-5, Determining Whether an Instrument (or Embedded Feature) is Indexed to an Entity’s Own Stock (“EITF 07-5”), now codified under ASC Topic No. 815. This literature provides guidance on how to determine if certain instruments (or embedded features) are considered indexed to our own stock, including instruments similar to our convertible senior notes. This new guidance requires companies to use a two-step approach to evaluate an instrument’s contingent exercise provisions and settlement provisions in determining whether the instrument is considered to be indexed to its own stock and exempt from previous accounting literature for derivative instruments and hedging activities as codified primarily under ASC Topic No. 815. Although this new guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, any outstanding instrument at the date of adoption will require a retrospective application of the accounting through a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings upon adoption. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On January 1, 2009, we adopted a new accounting standard for collaborative arrangements included primarily under ASC 808-10, previously referred to as EITF Issue No. 07-1, Accounting for Collaborative Arrangements Related to the Development and Commercialization of Intellectual Property. This guidance concluded that a collaborative arrangement is one in which the participants are actively involved and are exposed to significant risks and rewards that depend on the ultimate commercial success of the endeavor. Revenues and costs incurred with third parties in connection with collaborative arrangements would be presented gross or net based on the criteria in previous accounting literature. Payments to or from collaborators would be evaluated and presented based on the nature of the arrangement and its terms, the nature of the entity’s business and whether those payments are within the scope of other accounting literature. The nature and purpose of collaborative arrangements are to be disclosed along with the accounting policies and the classification and amounts of significant financial statement amounts related to the arrangements. Activities in the arrangement conducted in a separate legal entity should be accounted for under other accounting literature; however, required disclosure under this guidance applies to the entire collaborative agreement. This guidance is to be applied retrospectively to all periods presented for all collaborative arrangements existing as of the effective date. The adoption of this guidance on January 1, 2009 did not have an impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In accordance with portions of ASC Topic No. 820, formerly SFAS 157 Fair Value Measurements, the following tables represent the Company’s fair value hierarchy for its financial assets (cash equivalents and investments, including accrued interest of approximately $0.5 million and $0.8 million, respectively) measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 (in thousands):

Level 1 assets have been determined using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 assets have been obtained from inputs other than level 1 that are observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 assets consist of municipal notes investments, classified primarily as noncurrent assets, with an auction reset feature (“auction rate securities”) whose underlying assets are generally student loans which are substantially backed by the federal government. In February 2008, auctions began to fail for these securities and each auction since then has failed. Based on the overall failure rate of these auctions, the frequency of the failures, and the underlying maturities of the securities, a portion of which are greater than 30 years, and due to the uncertainty of when we will be able to dispose of these securities, we have classified auction rate securities as long-term assets on our balance sheet. During the fourth quarter of 2008, we recorded an impairment charge of approximately $3.5 million on these securities as we believed the losses were other-than-temporary in nature given the deterioration in the credit and financial markets and specifically the auction rate securities market, and our inability to hold such securities to their maturity or estimated recovery. Based on our expected operating cash flows, and our other sources of cash, including proceeds from our February 2009 public offering, and the results from our CAPACITY trials, we currently anticipate the need to liquidate these investments prior to maturity or estimated time to recovery in order to execute our current business plans. These investments were recorded at fair value as of September 30, 2009 based on a discounted cash flow analysis. The assumptions used in preparing the discounted cash flow model include estimates of, based on data available as of September 30, 2009, interest rates, timing and amount of cash flows, credit and liquidity premiums, and expected holding periods of these securities. Given the current market environment, these assumptions are volatile and subject to change, which could result in significant changes to the fair value of these securities in future periods. During 2009, several of our auction rate securities with an aggregate fair value of $3.5 million have been redeemed at par value and we realized gains of approximately $0.6 million which have been included in other income in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the nine-months ended September 30, 2009.

The following table provides a summary of changes in fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial assets for the three- and nine- months ended September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008 (in thousands):

The fair value of our long-term convertible debt is estimated based on quoted prices for those or similar instruments. As of September 30, 2009, the fair value of our remaining $49.0 million of 0.25% convertible senior notes due 2011 (“2011 Notes”) was approximately $49.9 million and the fair value of our $85.0 million 5% convertible senior notes due 2015 (“2015 Notes”) was approximately $93.9 million. As of December 31, 2008, the fair value of our 2011 Notes and 2015 Notes were approximately $71.9 million and $86.3 million, respectively. See also note 8.

The following is a summary of our available-for-sale investments as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 (in thousands):

Realized gains and losses and declines in value, judged to be other than temporary, on available-for-sale securities are included in other income (expense) for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. Realized gains were calculated based on the specific identification method and were approximately $0.4 million and $6.4 million, respectively, for the three- and nine months ended September 30, 2009. Realized gains for the three- and nine months ended September 30, 2008 were $0 and $0.3 million, respectively. Unrealized holding gains and losses on securities classified as available-for-sale are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax. Our investment in Targanta common stock at December 31, 2008 consisted of approximately 3.0 million shares of which we recorded a realized gain of approximately $6.0 million during the first quarter of 2009 upon the sale of such shares. See Note 5 below.

The following is a summary of the amortized cost and estimated fair value of available-for-sale securities at September 30, 2009 by contractual maturity (in thousands):

In 2001, we entered into an asset purchase and license agreement with Eli Lilly pursuant to which we acquired worldwide rights to oritavancin. The agreement provided us with exclusive worldwide rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize oritavancin.

In December 2005, we sold the oritavancin compound to Targanta Therapeutics (“Targanta”). The terms of the agreement included upfront and clinical related contingent milestone payments of up to $9.0 million, of which $4.0 million had been received through March 31, 2009. We also received a convertible promissory note that, assuming certain clinical milestones were achieved, could have been valued at up to $25.0 million in principal amount from Targanta, which note was initially secured by the oritavancin assets. Upon the achievement by Targanta of certain corporate objectives, the notes were designed to convert into capital stock of Targanta, subject to certain limitations in the amount of voting stock that we could hold. Effective February 2007, these objectives were met by Targanta and, upon conversion of the promissory note, we received approximately 1.7 million shares of Targanta Series C preferred stock in exchange for the convertible promissory note. In October 2007, Targanta completed an initial public offering of its common stock at a price of $10.00 per share. Upon completion of the offering, our investment in Targanta was automatically converted into approximately 3.0 million shares of Targanta common stock and warrants to purchase approximately 0.1 million additional shares of Targanta common stock. These shares had been restricted for resale and were subject to a lock-up agreement that expired in April 2009.

In January 2009, The Medicines Company announced its intent to acquire Targanta for $2.00 per share, or approximately $42.0 million and on January 27, 2009 commenced a tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares of Targanta. We have tendered our shares and received approximately $6.0 million in March 2009 upon closing of the transaction, which has been included in other income in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the nine-months ended September 30, 2009. We may also receive up to an additional $4.55 per share in contingent cash payments upon the achievement of specified regulatory and commercial milestones within certain time periods.

Comprehensive loss is comprised of net loss and other comprehensive income (loss). We include in other comprehensive income (loss) changes in unrealized gains and losses on our available-for-sale securities. The activity in other comprehensive loss is as follows (in thousands):

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) consists of the following at (in thousands):

In April 2009, we entered into exchange agreements with certain holders of our convertible notes to issue, in the aggregate, approximately 2.1 million shares of common stock, valued at approximately $36.1 million, in exchange for, in the aggregate, $32.3 million principal amount of the convertible notes, representing approximately 38% of the aggregate principal outstanding of our 2011 Notes at the date of the exchanges.

In September 2009, we entered into an exchange agreement with certain holders of our convertible notes to issue approximately 0.2 million shares of common stock, valued at approximately $4.0 million, in exchange for approximately $3.8 million principal amount of the convertible notes, representing approximately 7% of the aggregate principal outstanding of our 2011 Notes at the date of the exchange. All of the convertible notes we acquired pursuant to the exchange agreements in April and September 2009 were retired upon the closing of the exchanges. See also note 13 for a description of exchange agreements entered into in September 2009 that did not close until October 2009.

The exchange agreements were treated as induced conversions as the holders received a greater number of shares of common stock than would have been issued under the original conversion terms of the convertible notes. At the time of the exchange agreements, none of the conversion contingencies were met. Under the original terms of the convertible notes, the amount payable on conversion was to be paid in cash, and the remaining conversion obligation (stock price in excess of conversion price) was payable in cash or shares, at our option. Under the terms of the exchange agreements, all of the settlement was paid in shares. The difference in the value of the shares of common stock sold under the exchange agreements and the value of the shares used to derive the amount payable under the original conversion agreement resulted in a loss on extinguishment of debt of approximately $11.9 million (the inducement loss). As required by guidance in the Debt Topic of FASB ASC, formerly FSP APB 14-1, upon derecognition of the 2011 Notes, we remeasured the fair value of the liability and equity components using a borrowing rate for similar non-convertible debt that would be applicable to us at the date of the exchange agreements. Because borrowing rates increased, the remeasurement of the components of the convertible notes resulted in a gain on extinguishment of approximately $2.2 million (the revaluation gain). As a result, we recognized a net loss on extinguishment of debt of approximately $0.7 million and $10.3 million during the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009, calculated as the inducement loss, plus an allocation of advisory fees of approximately $0.6 million; less the revaluation gain.

On February 19, 2009, we completed a public offering of approximately 4.0 million shares of registered common stock, at a price of $16.35 per share. We received net proceeds of approximately $63.4 million after deducting underwriting fees and other related expenses of $2.4 million.

We may be required to make contingent milestone payments to the owners of our licensed products or the suppliers of our drug compounds in accordance with our license, commercialization and collaboration agreements in the aggregate amount of $55.6 million if all of the milestones per the agreements are achieved. These milestones include development, regulatory approval, commercialization and sales milestones. Of the $55.6 million in aggregate milestone payments, $40.0 million in remaining contingent payments would be made by us only if positive Phase III data and registration in the United States and European Union are achieved for pirfenidone. We paid $13.5 million in March 2009 in connection with our decision to proceed with regulatory approval for pirfenidone. Potential milestone payments of $3.2 million are related to the further development of Actimmune, which we have no current plan to do, and therefore we do not expect to pay these amounts.

On May 8, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. C-08-02376 (the “Jarrett Action”). Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The complaint asserted various claims against the Company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs. The complaint also sought equitable relief.

On June 11, 2008, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Linda K. Rybkoski v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. CV-08-2916 (the “Rybkoski Action”). Plaintiff in this action alleged that she was administered Actimmune and purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged virtually identical facts to those alleged in the Jarrett Action; it also asserted the same claims against the Company and sought the same relief. On July 23, 2008, the Rybkoski Action was ordered related to the Jarrett Action and is now pending before the same judge and is proceeding on the same schedule.

On August 8, 2008, a similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Zurich American Insurance Company v. Genentech, Inc., InterMune, Inc., and W. Scott Harkonen, Case No. CV-08-3797 (the “Zurich Action”). Plaintiff in the Zurich Action, which allegedly provides health and pharmacy benefits to its insureds in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories, alleged that it paid for prescriptions of Actimmune and purported to sue on behalf of a class of third-party payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged similar facts to those alleged in the Jarrett and Rybkoski Actions, and it also asserted civil RICO, unfair competition, various state consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims against the Company. The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all damages, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs. The complaint also sought a declaration that the conduct alleged was unlawful, as well as injunctive relief. On September 5, 2008, the Zurich Action was ordered related to the Jarrett Action and assigned to the same judge.

On September 26, 2008, Plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions filed an identical First Amended Class Action Complaint in all three actions. The First Amended Complaint, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune, was very similar to the first complaint that was filed in the Jarrett Action. It alleged the same basic facts, namely, that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The First Amended Complaint asserted various claims against the Company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The First Amended Complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including the same categories of damages and other relief that were originally sought in the Jarrett Action.

On October 20, 2008, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions. On September 29, 2008, a similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Government Employees Health Association, Inc. v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen and Genentech, Inc., Case No. CV-08-4531 (the “GEHA Action”). Plaintiff in the GEHA Action is allegedly a national health insurance plan serving federal employees and retirees, as well as their families. Plaintiff alleges that it paid for more than $4 million of Actimmune prescriptions during the class period, and it purports to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The complaint asserted the same causes of action against the Company as the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs. The complaint also sought appropriate equitable relief. The GEHA action was subsequently related to the other actions, so that all four are pending before the same judge. By stipulation, the parties to the GEHA Action agreed that the briefing already submitted on the motions to dismiss in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions would constitute the briefing on a motion to dismiss in the GEHA Action. On February 26, 2009, the Court consolidated the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, and GEHA Actions for pretrial purposes.

The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard on February 2, 2009. On April 28, 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the complaints in all four cases in their entirety. The Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints and ordered any such amended complaints to be filed within 30 days. On May 28, 2009, plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions filed a single Second Amended Complaint, which added Joan Stevens as a named plaintiff in the Zurich Action, and which alleges that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune to treat IPF. The Second Amended Complaint eliminated the civil RICO claim and asserts other claims against the Company, including unfair competition, false advertising, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs. The complaint also seeks equitable relief. Also on May 28, 2009, plaintiff in the GEHA Action filed a First Amended Complaint, which makes substantially similar allegations, brings the same claims, and seeks the same relief against the Company as the Second Amended Complaint in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions.

On June 29, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions and the First Amended Complaint in the GEHA Action. On July 27, 2009, Zurich American Insurance Company dismissed its claims against the Company. Also on July 27, the remaining plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss. Defendants’ reply briefs were filed on August 10, 2009. The Court heard oral argument on September 11, 2009 and took the motions under submission, indicating it would issue a written order; as of this date, no decision has been issued. The Court had stayed discovery until at least the time of the hearing on the first motions to dismiss, and no party has sought to conduct discovery following that February 2, 2009 hearing.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue and intends to defend the actions vigorously. We may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if we believe settlement is in the best interests of our shareholders. We cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits and have, therefore, not recorded any accrued liabilities associated with these claims.

On or about March 22, 2000, the Company entered into an Indemnity Agreement with W. Scott Harkonen M.D., who served as the Company’s chief executive officer until June 30, 2003. The Indemnity Agreement obligates the Company to hold harmless and indemnify Dr. Harkonen against expenses (including attorneys’ fees), witness fees, damages, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement and any other amounts Dr. Harkonen becomes legally obligated to pay because of any claim or claims made against him in connection with any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, arbitrational, administrative or investigative, to which Dr. Harkonen is a party by reason of the fact that he was a director, officer, employee or other agent of the Company. The Indemnity Agreement establishes exceptions to the Company’s indemnification obligation, including but not limited to claims “on account of [Dr. Harkonen’s] conduct that is established by a final judgment as knowingly fraudulent or deliberately dishonest or that constituted willful misconduct,” claims “on account of [Dr. Harkonen’s] conduct that is established by a final judgment as constituting a breach of [Dr. Harkonen’s] duty of loyalty to the Corporation or resulting in any personal profit or advantage to which [Dr. Harkonen] was not legally entitled,” and claims “for which payment is actually made to [Dr. Harkonen] under a valid and collectible insurance policy.” The Indemnity Agreement, however, obligates the Company to advance all expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by Dr. Harkonen in connection with such proceedings, subject to an undertaking by Dr. Harkonen to repay said amounts if it shall be determined ultimately that he is not entitled to be indemnified by the Company.

Dr. Harkonen has been named as a defendant in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich and GEHA Actions described above. Dr. Harkonen also was a target of the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the promotion and marketing of Actimmune. On March 18, 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Dr. Harkonen on two felony counts related to alleged improper promotion and marketing of Actimmune during the time Dr. Harkonen was employed by the Company. Trial in the criminal case (the “Criminal Action”) resulted in a jury verdict on September 29, 2009, finding Dr. Harkonen guilty of one count of wire fraud related to a press release issued on August 28, 2002, and acquitting him of a second count of a misbranding charge brought under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Company understands that Dr. Harkonen intends to seek a new trial and/or to appeal the jury’s guilty verdict.

and Continental Casualty Company (“CNA”). On November 19, 2008, however, the insurer that issued a $5 million D&O insurance policy providing coverage excess of the monetary limits of coverage provided by AIG, Lloyd’s and CNA, Arch Specialty Insurance Company (“Arch”), advised the Company that the limits of the underlying coverage were expected to be depleted by approximately December 15, 2008; that Arch “disclaims coverage” based on misstatements and misrepresentations allegedly made by Dr. Harkonen in documents provided in the application for the Arch policy and the underlying Lloyd’s policy; and, based on that disclaimer, Arch would not be advancing any of Dr. Harkonen’s expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, GEHA and Criminal Actions.

As a result of Arch’s disclaimer of coverage and refusal to advance expenses, including attorneys’ fees, the Company had, as of approximately December 15, 2008, become obligated to advance such expenses incurred by Dr. Harkonen in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, GEHA and Criminal Actions.

On January 13, 2009, the Company submitted to the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) a Demand for Arbitration, InterMune, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 74 194 01128 08 JEMO. Dr. Harkonen also is a party to the Arbitration. The Demand for Arbitration seeks an award compelling Arch to advance Dr. Harkonen’s legal fees and costs incurred in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, GEHA and Criminal Actions, and to advance other former officers’ legal fees and costs incurred in relation to the Department of Justice investigation. The AAA appointed a panel of three arbitrators on February 26, 2009. On March 27, 2009, the Company and Dr. Harkonen together made a formal request to the arbitrator panel for a partial award providing declaratory relief and requiring specific performance by Arch, i.e., an award requiring Arch to advance Dr. Harkonen’s legal fees and costs incurred in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, GEHA and Criminal Actions. Arch submitted a brief in opposition and the Company replied.

The matter was heard by the arbitrator panel on May 8, 2009. On May 29, 2009, the arbitrator panel issued an Interim Arbitration Award granting the Company’s request for a partial award requiring Arch to advance Dr. Harkonen’s legal fees and costs incurred in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, GEHA and Criminal Actions. Arch subsequently has begun advancing such fees and costs, including fees and costs previously paid by the Company. The question whether Arch ultimately will be required to cover the advanced fees and costs or, instead, may recoup those fees and costs as not covered by its policy, has not been determined. Unless and until the arbitrator panel rules that such fees and costs are not covered, Arch is obligated to continue advancing such fees and costs. No proceedings to address the ultimate question of coverage are currently scheduled. The Company believes that the jury verdict in the Criminal Action does not constitute a final judgment as defined by the D&O liability insurance policy, and therefore does not alter the current situation with respect to this arbitration or the application of the D&O liability insurance in general.

Arch recently advised the Company that Arch has nearly exhausted the $5.0 million limit of liability of the Arch D&O insurance policy, and that defense costs invoices submitted to Arch collectively exceed the remainder of the Arch policy’s limit. The Company therefore has advised the insurer that issued a $5.0 million D&O insurance policy providing coverage excess of the monetary limits of coverage provided by Arch, Old Republic Insurance Company (“Old Republic”), that the limits of the underlying coverage are expected to be depleted sometime in November 2009, and the Company has submitted invoices for legal services rendered on behalf of Dr. Harkonen and other individuals who were targets of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation to Old Republic for payment.

We believe no change to the status of the interim Arbitration Award has occurred solely due to a jury verdict, therefore we have not recorded any accrued liabilities associated with this matter. The Old Republic $5.0 million excess coverage is the last layer that was contained within the overall D&O policy held by the Company covering this matter. There can be no assurance that this final layer of coverage will not be exceeded before the Criminal Action is finally adjudicated. Amounts, if any, incurred over and above this final $5.0 million policy coverage will be borne solely by the Company.

We have determined that, in accordance with ASC Topic No. 280, previously referred to as SFAS No. 131, we operate in one segment, because operating results are reported only on an aggregate basis to our chief operating decision makers. We currently market Actimmune in the United States for the treatment of chronic granulomatous disease and severe, malignant osteopetrosis.

Our net revenue for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 were as follows (in thousands):

Our net revenue by region for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 were as follows (in thousands):

Our revenue and trade receivables are concentrated with a few customers. We perform credit evaluations on our customers’ financial condition and limit the amount of credit extended. However, we generally do not require collateral on accounts receivable. Concentrations of credit risk, with respect to accounts receivable, exist to the extent of amounts presented in the financial statements. Three customers represented 30%, 29% and 25%, respectively, of total accounts receivable at September 30, 2009, and two customers represented 38% and 32%, respectively, of total accounts receivable at December 31, 2008. No other customer represented more than 10% of accounts receivable at September 30, 2009 or December 31, 2008.

Revenue from customers representing 10% or more of total product revenue during the nine month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, was as follows:

We adopted the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (“FIN 48”) on January 1, 2007, now codified primarily under ASC Topic No. 740. This guidance requires companies to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that a tax position will be sustained upon examination by the appropriate taxing authorities before any tax benefit can be recorded in the financial statements. It also provides guidance on the recognition, measurement, classification and interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions.

We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal and various state and local jurisdictions. The 2005 tax year which we had previously been under examination by the Internal Revenue Service has been reviewed and accepted. Remaining tax years from 1998 through 2007 remain open to examination by the major taxing authorities to which we are subject. Our policy is to record interest related to uncertain tax positions as interest and any penalties as other expense in our statement of operations. As of the date of adoption of this guidance and through September 30, 2009, we did not have any interest or penalties associated with unrecognized tax benefits.

The $2.2 million income tax expense for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009 relates to the gain on sale of our investment in Targanta common stock in March 2009. See also note 5.

In connection with the completion and announcement of our CAPACITY trials, we announced a reduction in force in February 2009. We expect to incur approximately $0.9 million of restructuring charges during 2009, of which approximately $0.8 million has been incurred through September 30, 2009 consisting primarily of severance payments to terminated employees.

The activity in the accrued restructuring balance, included within accrued compensation on the balance sheet, was as follows for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 (in thousands):

In September 2009, we entered into exchange agreements with certain holders of our convertible notes to issue approximately 0.3 million shares of common stock, valued at approximately $4.3 million, in exchange for approximately $4.0 million principal amount of the convertible notes, representing approximately 8% of the aggregate principal outstanding of our 2011 Notes at the date of the agreements. All of the convertible notes we acquired pursuant to the exchange agreements in September 2009 were retired upon the closing of the exchanges in October 2009 upon completion of ten trading days of our common stock necessary to determine the final number of shares to be issued. See also note 7 for a discussion of the exchange agreement that closed in September 2009.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) contains certain information regarding our financial projections, plans and strategies that are 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. These statements involve substantial risks and uncertainty. You can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “plan,” “could,” “should,” “continue” or the negative of such terms or similar words or expressions. These forward-looking statements may also use different phrases.

We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. These forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions about us, may include, among other things, statements which address our strategy and operating performance and events or developments that we expect or anticipate will occur in the future, including, but not limited to, statements in the discussions about:

You should also consider carefully the statements under the heading “Risk Factors” below, which address additional factors that could cause our results to differ from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements are qualified

in their entirety by reference to the factors discussed in this Report, including those discussed in this Report under the heading “Risk Factors” below. Because of the factors referred to above, as well as the factors discussed in this Report under the heading “Risk Factors” below, could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf, you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict which factors will arise. In addition, we cannot assess the impact of each factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. When used in the Report, unless otherwise indicated, “InterMune,” “we,” “our” and “us” refers to InterMune, Inc.

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable. These estimates are the basis for our judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities, which in turn may impact our reported revenue and expenses. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

An accounting policy is deemed to be critical if it requires an accounting estimate to be made based on assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time the estimate is made, and if different estimates that reasonably could have been used, or changes in the accounting estimate that are reasonably likely to occur periodically, could materially change the financial statements. We believe there have been no significant changes during the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 to the items that we disclosed as our critical accounting policies and estimates under Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (as updated in our 8-K we filed with the SEC on September 1, 2009), except for our estimates as they relate to our adoption of the guidance in the Debt Topic of FASB ASC, formerly FSP APB 14-1.

The new guidance requires the issuer of convertible debt that may be settled in shares or cash at their option, such as our $49.0 million 0.25% convertible senior notes due March 2011 that are outstanding as of September 30, 2009, to account for their liability and equity components separately by bifurcating the conversion option from the debt instrument, classifying the conversion option in equity and then accreting the resulting discount on the debt as additional interest expense over the expected life of the debt. The value assigned to the debt component is the estimated fair value, as of the issuance date, of a similar bond without the conversion feature. This required management to make estimates and assumptions regarding interest rates as of the date of original issuance.

We are a biotech company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies in pulmonology and hepatology. Pulmonology is the field of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of lung conditions. Hepatology is the field of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the liver. We were incorporated in California in 1998 and reincorporated in Delaware in 2000 upon becoming a public company. During the past several years, we have reorganized our business by curtailing new investment in non-core areas and focusing our development and commercial efforts in pulmonology and hepatology. Subsequent to the discontinuation of our clinical trial of Actimmune for IPF in 2007, we now have the following key development programs in place: pirfenidone for IPF, the chronic hepatitis C virus (“HCV”) protease inhibitor program and a new target in hepatology.

In February 2009, we announced results from the two Phase 3 CAPACITY studies for pirfenidone. The primary endpoint of change in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity (“FVC”) at Week 72 was met with statistical significance in CAPACITY 2 (p=0.001), along with the secondary endpoints of categorical change in FVC and progression-free survival (“PFS”). The primary endpoint was not met in CAPACITY 1 (p=0.501), but supportive evidence of a pirfenidone treatment effect was observed on a number of measures. Pirfenidone was safe and generally well tolerated in both CAPACITY studies. In November 2009, we submitted an NDA for submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), which will be followed by a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”) submission to the European Medicines Agency (“EMEA”).

In May 2008, we initiated a 14-day, Phase 1b study of ITMN-191 with standard of care therapy. In January 2009, we announced top-line results from all six completed dosage cohorts from that study. Viral kinetic performance and safety results were reported for three cohorts in each of which ITMN-191 was given every 12 hours (q12h) and every eight hours (q8h). This study demonstrated sufficient viral kinetic performance to warrant advancing ITMN-191 to a Phase 2b study, which will study both q12h and q8h regimens and both 12- and 24-week treatment durations. The Phase 2b study has begun during the third quarter of 2009. ITMN-191 was generally safe and well tolerated. There were no serious adverse events (“SAEs”) or Grade 4 adverse events (“AEs”) during treatment with ITMN-191.

In November 2008, we, together with Roche and Pharmasset, Inc. announced the initiation of INFORM-1, a dual combination clinical trial investigating the combination of two oral antiviral molecules in the absence of interferon. The initial study evaluated the safety and combined antiviral activity of ITMN-191 (also known as R7227) and R7128, a polymerase inhibitor, in 14 days of combination therapy in treatment-naïve patients infected with HCV genotype 1. These results were announced in April 2009 and discussed at the EASL conference. Patients receiving the combination of R7227 and R7128 for 14 days—without pegylated interferon or ribavirin—experienced a median reduction in viral levels of -4.8 to -5.2 log(10) IU/mL in the highest doses tested. No treatment-related SAEs, no dose reductions and no discontinuations were reported in the study. Pharmacokinetic analysis confirmed that there were no drug-drug interactions between the compounds. The study was amended in April 2009 to include additional cohorts and study different treatment regimens.

Our sole approved product is Actimmune, approved for the treatment of patients with severe, malignant osteopetrosis and chronic granulomatous disease (“CGD”). For the nine month period ended September 30, 2009, Actimmune accounted for all of our product revenue and a majority of this revenue was derived from physicians’ prescriptions for the off-label use of Actimmune in the treatment of IPF.

Total revenue was $27.3 million and $23.3 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, representing an increase of 17%. This increase was attributable to the recognition of a $20.0 million milestone payment from Roche in the third quarter of 2009 associated with the initiation of the Phase 2b clinical trial of ITMN 191 as compared to recognition of a $15.0 million milestone receipt in the third quarter of 2008 under the same collaboration agreement with Roche. Total revenue was $42.1 million and $40.8 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, representing an increase of 3%. This increase was attributable to recognition of the larger milestone receipt noted above in 2009, partially offset by a decrease in sales of Actimmune of approximately $3.7 million, or 16%. In early March 2007, we announced that our Phase III INSPIRE program for Actimmune in IPF had been discontinued and that future Actimmune revenue was expected to decline. For the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, sales of Actimmune accounted for all of our net product revenue. A majority of this revenue was derived from physicians’ prescriptions for the off-label use of Actimmune in the treatment of IPF.

There are a number of variables that impact Actimmune revenue including, but not limited to, the discontinuation of the Phase III INSPIRE clinical trial, the level of enrollment in IPF clinical trials of other companies, new patients started on therapy, average duration of therapy, new data on Actimmune or other products presented at medical conferences and publications in medical journals, reimbursement and patient referrals from physicians. In light of the failure of the INSPIRE clinical trial in 2007, we expect that net sales of Actimmune for the year ending December 31, 2009 will decline when compared with the year ended December 31, 2008.

Cost of goods sold included product manufacturing costs, royalties and distribution costs. Cost of goods sold were $1.0 million and $1.4 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The gross margin percentage for our products was 84% and 81% for these periods in 2009 and 2008, respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2009, cost of goods sold were $5.7 million compared with $7.3 million for the same period last year. The gross margin percentage for our products was 70% and 69% for these periods in 2009 and 2008, respectively. During the second quarter of 2008, we recorded a $0.7 million charge for excess inventory to reflect our decision during the latter part of that quarter to ship only current dated product that had recently been received from Boehringer Ingelheim (“BI”) under the new supply agreement. The decline in dollar value of cost of goods sold for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009 compared to the same periods last year reflects the declining Actimmune revenue.

Research and development expenses were $20.6 million and $25.6 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, representing a decrease of $5.0 million, or 20%. Research and development expenses were $68.0 million and $78.0 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, representing a decrease of $10.1 million or 13%. The decreases in spending for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 compared with the same periods in 2008 primarily reflect the completion of the CAPACITY clinical trials late in 2008 and the amendment to the Roche collaboration agreement entered into in November 2008 whereby Roche funds certain of our research activities.

The following table lists our current product development programs and the research and development expenses recognized in connection with each program during the indicated periods. The category title “Programs-Non specific” is comprised of facilities, personnel costs that are not allocated to a specific development program or discontinued programs and $2.5 million and $2.0 million of stock-based compensation in 2009 and 2008, respectively. Our management reviews each of these program categories in evaluating our business. For a discussion of the risks and uncertainties associated with developing our products, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with potential commercialization of our product candidates, see the Risk Factors below including those under the headings “Risks Related to the Development of Our Products and Product Candidates” and “Risks Related to Manufacturing and Our Dependence on Third Parties.”

The following chart shows the status of our product development programs as of September 30, 2009:

Our development program expenses for the nine month periods ended September 30, were as follows (in thousands):

A significant component of our total operating expenses is our ongoing investments in research and development and, in particular, the clinical development of our product pipeline. The process of conducting the clinical research necessary to obtain FDA approval is costly, time consuming, and variable with respect to the timing of expense recognition. Current FDA requirements for a new human drug to be marketed in the United States include:

Based on our existing budgeted programs and including the impact of stock-based compensation, we expect research and development expenses to be in a range of $90.0 million to $100.0 million in 2009, net of development cost reimbursements under the Roche collaboration.

The $1.7 million in milestone payments made during the third quarter of 2009 were made in connection with the initiation of the Phase 2b study of ITMN-191 in patients chronically infected with HCV. The $13.5 million milestone payment in the first quarter of 2009 was made in accordance with the pirfenidone purchase agreement entered into in November 2007 and our decision in February 2009 to submit NDA and MAA filings for pirfenidone.

General and administrative expenses were $9.9 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2009 compared with $8.2 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2008. For the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, general and administrative expenses were $26.9 million and $22.7 million, respectively, representing an increase of $4.2 million, or 18%. The increased spending for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 compared with the same periods in 2008 is primarily attributed to costs related to preparation for the potential commercialization of pirfenidone. In 2009, including stock-based compensation, we expect general and administrative expenses to be in a range of $35.0 million to $40.0 million, which includes an estimate of approximately $5.0 million for the above mentioned expenses.

Interest income decreased to $0.3 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2009, compared to $1.2 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2008. Interest income also decreased to $1.5 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009, compared to $4.6 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2008. These decreases reflect decreasing investment yields on our cash and short-term investments resulting from lower market interest rates as well as lower average cash and investment balances.

Interest expense decreased to $2.7 million in the third quarter of 2009 compared with $3.0 million for the third quarter of 2008 and decreased to $7.9 million for the nine-months ended September 30, 2009 compared with $10.1 million for the comparable period in 2008. Each period reflects interest expense recorded in connection with our liability under the government settlement reached in October 2006. Interest expense for the nine-months ended September 30, 2008 also includes interest on our $170.0 million 0.25% convertible notes due in March 2011 (the “2011 Notes”), including the amortization of related debt issuance costs. On June 24, 2008, we issued $85.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 5.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2015 (the “2015 Notes”) to certain holders of our existing 2011 Notes in exchange for $85.0 million in aggregate principal amount of their 2011 Notes.

On January 1, 2009, we adopted guidance in the Debt Topic of the FASB ASC, formerly FASB Staff Position No. APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments that May be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement) (FSP APB 14-1). As a result, we have recorded additional interest expense of $1.0 million and $3.7 million in the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009, representing amortization of the debt discount established with our adoption of this guidance. The adoption requires retrospective application, therefore, our previously reported interest expense for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2008 has been restated to reflect additional interest expense of $1.5 million and $7.1 million, respectively. The decrease in interest expense for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009 compared to the same periods in 2008 reflects our declining obligation under our government settlement, the decline in debt discount amortization as a result of the 2009 debt conversions, as well as the June 2008 issuance of the 2015 Notes in exchange for the 2011 Notes. The 2015 Notes may not be settled in cash upon conversion at the option of the issuer and thus do not fall under the requirements of this guidance, thereby removing the debt discount that would have been recorded had the 2011 Notes not been exchanged.

The following table reconciles interest expense for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2008 as previously reported with current year reported results (in thousands):

The exchange agreements were treated as induced conversions as the holders received a greater number of shares of common stock than would have been issued under the original conversion terms of the convertible notes. At the time of the exchange agreements, none of the conversion contingencies were met. Under the original terms of the convertible notes, the amount payable on conversion was to be paid in cash, and the remaining conversion obligation (stock price in excess of conversion price) was payable in cash or shares, at our option. Under the terms of the exchange agreements, all of the settlement was paid in shares. The difference in the value of the shares of common stock sold under the exchange agreements and the value of the shares used to derive the amount payable under the original conversion agreement resulted in a loss on extinguishment of debt of approximately $11.9 million (the inducement loss). As required by new guidance in the Debt Topic of the FASB ASC, upon derecognition of the 2011 Notes, we remeasured the fair value of the liability and equity components using a borrowing rate for similar non-convertible debt that would be applicable to us at the date of the exchange agreements. Because borrowing rates increased, the remeasurement of the components of the convertible notes resulted in a gain on extinguishment of approximately $2.2 million (the revaluation gain). As a result, we recognized a net loss on extinguishment of debt of approximately $0.7 million and $10.3 million during the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009, calculated as the inducement loss, plus an allocation of advisory fees of approximately $0.6 million; less the revaluation gain.

On June 24, 2008, we issued $85.0 million in 2015 Notes to certain holders of our existing 2011 Notes in exchange for $85.0 million in aggregate principal amount of their 2011 Notes. Remaining debt issuance costs of approximately $1.1 million, related to the extinguishment of $85.0 million of the existing 2011 Notes, were expensed during the second quarter of 2008 and have been included in the loss on extinguishment of debt in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

The following table reconciles loss on extinguishment of debt for the nine-months ended September 30, 2008 as previously reported with current year reported results (in thousands):

Other income was $0.4 million and $6.0 million for the three- and nine-month period ended September 30, 2009, respectively, consisting primarily of realized gains from the sale of investments, including our shares of Targanta common stock in the first quarter of 2009. This compares with other income of $1.3 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2008, comprised primarily of a $1.0 million contingent payment in connection with our divestiture of Amphotec in May 2005.

The $2.2 million income tax expense for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009 relates to taxes on the gain on sale of our investment in Targanta common stock in March 2009. The $0.3 million income tax expense for the three-month period ended September 30, 2008 reflected the decline in the fair value of our investment in Targanta common stock compared with the fair value at December 31, 2007.

At September 30, 2009, we had available cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities of $139.7 million compared to $154.7 million at December 31, 2008. The decrease was primarily driven by the use of cash for our operations, partially offset by $63.4 million in net proceeds from our February 2009 public offering and a $20.0 million milestone receipt from Roche resulting from our collaboration agreement with them.

The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximize yields without significantly increasing risk. To achieve this objective, we invest our excess cash in debt instruments of the U.S. federal and state governments and their agencies and high-quality corporate issuers, and, by policy, restrict our exposure by imposing concentration limits and credit worthiness requirements for all corporate issuers. At September 30, 2009, we held approximately $13.1 million of student loan auction rate securities (par value of $13.8 million), classified as long-term assets, which are substantially backed by the federal government. Beginning in February 2008, auctions failed for the entire portfolio of our auction rate securities and have continued to fail since. As a result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or not exist. During the fourth quarter of 2008, we recorded an impairment charge of $3.5 million for the writedown of the carrying value of these securities as we believe the decline in market value is other-than-temporary in nature given the deteriorating credit and financial markets and specifically the auction rate securities market. All of our auction rate securities are currently rated AAA, the highest rating by a rating agency, though a separate rating agency has downgraded two of our securities which we have considered in calculating fair value as of September 30, 2009. If the issuers are unable to successfully close future auctions and their credit ratings deteriorate, we may in the future be required to record further impairment charges on these investments. Based on our expected operating cash flows, and our other sources of cash, including proceeds from our February 2009 public offering, and the results from our CAPACITY trials, we currently anticipate the need to liquidate these investments prior to maturity or estimated time to recovery in order to execute our current business plans. These investments were recorded at fair value as of September 30, 2009 based on a discounted cash flow analysis. During 2009, a portion of our auction rate securities with an aggregate fair value of $3.5 million have been redeemed at par value.

Cash used in operating activities was $87.3 million during the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009, comprised primarily of a net loss of $87.4 million. Significant changes in working capital consisted of a decrease in other accrued liabilities of approximately $10.0 million, primarily consisting of a $4.4 million accelerated payment we made to the Department of Justice in March 2009 and $19.1 million in aggregate payments we made to Roche under our collaboration agreement with them, partially offset by a decline in accrued clinical trial costs of approximately $6.7 million. Other working capital changes included increases to accounts receivable and inventories of approximately $2.0 million and $1.5 million, respectively. Details concerning the loss from operations can be found above in this Report under the heading “Results of Operations.”

Cash used in investing activities was $0.2 million during the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009, comprised of sales and maturities of short-term investments totaling $81.4 million, offset by $81.4 million of short-term investment purchases.

Cash provided by financing activities of $65.1 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009 was primarily due to the receipt of proceeds from our public offering completed in February 2009.

We believe that we will continue to require substantial additional funding to complete the research and development activities currently contemplated and to commercialize our product candidates. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities, together with anticipated cash flows from sales of Actimmune, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses, settlement with the government, debt obligations and capital requirements under our current or contingent business plans through at least the end of 2010. However, this forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary as a result of a number of factors, including the factors discussed under “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” This forward-looking statement is also based upon our current plans and assumptions, which may change, and our capital requirements, which may increase in future periods. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

As a result, we may require additional funds and may attempt to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings, collaborative arrangements with corporate partners or from other sources. We have no commitments for such fund raising activities at this time. Additional funding may not be available to finance our operations when needed or, if available, the terms for obtaining such funds may not be favorable or may result in dilution to our stockholders.

We do not have any “special purpose” entities that are unconsolidated in our financial statements. We have no commercial commitments or loans with related parties.

In August 2009, the FASB issued Update No. 2009-05, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820)—Measuring Liabilities at Fair Value” (ASU 2009-05). ASU 2009-05 amends ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (the “Codification” or “ASC”) to provide further guidance on how to measure the fair value of a liability, an area where practitioners have been seeking further guidance. It primarily does three things: 1) sets forth the types of valuation techniques to be used to value a liability when a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability is not available, 2) clarifies that when estimating the fair value of a liability, a reporting entity is not required to include a separate input or adjustment to other inputs relating to the existence of a restriction that prevents the transfer of the liability and 3) clarifies that both a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability at the measurement date and the quoted price for the identical liability when traded as an asset in an active market when no adjustments to the quoted price of the asset are required are Level 1 fair value measurements. This standard is effective beginning fourth quarter of 2009. The adoption of this standard is not expected to impact our consolidated financial statements.

Effective April 1, 2009, we adopted a new accounting standard for subsequent events, as codified in ASC 855-10. The update modifies the names of the two types of subsequent events either as recognized subsequent events (previously referred to in practice as Type I subsequent events) or non-recognized subsequent events (previously referred to in practice as Type II subsequent events). In addition, the standard modifies the definition of subsequent events to refer to events or transactions that occur after the balance sheet date, but before the financial statements are issued (for public entities) or available to be issued (for nonpublic entities). It also requires the disclosure of the date through which subsequent events have been evaluated. The update did not result in significant changes in the practice of subsequent event disclosures, and therefore the adoption did not have any impact on our consolidated financial statements. We have evaluated certain events and transactions occurring on or after October 1, 2009 and through November 6, 2009, the date of our Form 10-Q filing, and determined that none met the definition of a subsequent event for purposes of recognition or disclosure in our condensed consolidated financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2009, except as described in Note 13.

Effective April 1, 2009, we adopted three accounting standard updates which were intended to provide additional application guidance and enhanced disclosures regarding fair value measurements and impairments of securities. They also provide additional guidelines for estimating fair value in accordance with fair value accounting. The first update, as codified in ASC 820-10-65, provides additional guidelines for estimating fair value in accordance with fair value accounting. The second accounting update, as codified in ASC 320-10-65, changes accounting requirements for other-than-temporary-impairment (OTTI) for debt securities by replacing the current requirement that a holder have the positive intent and ability to hold an impaired security to recovery in order to conclude an impairment was temporary with a requirement that an entity conclude it does not intend to sell an impaired security and it will not be required to sell the security before the recovery of its amortized cost basis. The third accounting update, as codified in ASC 825-10-65, increases the frequency of fair value disclosures. These updates were effective for fiscal years and interim periods ending after June 15, 2009. The adoption of these accounting updates did not have any impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements (see Note 3 to our condensed consolidated financial statements for additional disclosures).

As a result, we have recorded additional interest expense of $1.0 million, or $0.02 per share, and $3.7 million, or $0.08 per share, in the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2009. The adoption requires retrospective application, therefore, our previously reported net loss for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2008 has been restated to reflect additional interest expense of $1.5 million, or $0.04 per share and $7.1 million, or $0.18 per share, respectively. The decrease in interest expense for 2009 compared to 2008 reflects the June 2008 issuance of the 2015 Notes in exchange for the 2011 Notes. The 2015 Notes may not be settled in cash upon conversion at the option of the issuer and thus do not fall under the requirements of the new guidance in the Debt Topic. The retrospective adoption of this guidance decreased the debt issuance costs included in other assets by an aggregate of $0.4 million, decreased convertible senior notes included in long-term liabilities by $14.9 million, and decreased total stockholders’ deficit by $14.5 million after a charge of $44.0 million to accumulated deficit on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2008.

The securities in our investment portfolio are not leveraged, are classified as available-for-sale and are, due to their short-term nature, subject to minimal interest rate risk. We currently do not hedge interest rate exposure. Because of the short-term maturities of our investments, we do not believe that a change in market rates would have a significant negative impact on the value of our investment portfolio.

The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive from our investments without significantly increasing risk. To achieve this objective, we maintain our portfolio of cash equivalents and short-term and long-term investments in a variety of securities, including obligations of U.S. government-sponsored enterprises, student loans which may have an auction reset feature, corporate notes and bonds, commercial paper, and money market funds. These securities are classified as available for sale and consequently are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value with unrealized gains or losses reported as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive income. Substantially all investments mature within approximately 1-2 years from the date of purchase. Our holdings of the securities of any one issuer, except obligations of U.S. government-sponsored enterprises, do not exceed 10% of the portfolio. If interest rates rise, the market value of our investments may decline, which could result in a realized loss if we are forced to sell an investment before its scheduled maturity. We do not utilize derivative financial instruments to manage our interest rate risks.

At September 30, 2009, we held approximately $13.1 million of student loan auction rate securities (par value of $13.8 million), classified as long-term assets, which are substantially backed by the federal government. Beginning in February 2008, auctions failed for the entire portfolio of our auction rate securities and have continued to fail since. As a result our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or not exist. An auction failure means that the parties wishing to sell securities could not. All of our auction rate securities are currently rated AAA, the highest rating by a rating agency, though a separate rating agency has downgraded two of our securities which we have considered in calculating fair value as of September 30, 2009. If the issuers are unable to successfully close future auctions and their credit ratings deteriorate, we may in the future be required to record further impairment charges on these investments. Based on our expected operating cash flows, and our other sources of cash, including proceeds from our February 2009 public offering, and the results from our CAPACITY trials, we currently anticipate the need to liquidate these investments prior to maturity or estimated time to recovery in order to execute our current business plans. These investments were recorded at fair value as of September 30, 2009 based on a discounted cash flow analysis. The assumptions used in preparing the discounted cash flow model include estimates of, based on data available as of September 30, 2009, interest rates, timing and amount of cash flows, credit and liquidity premiums, and expected holding periods of these securities. Given the current market environment, these assumptions are volatile and subject to change, which could result in significant changes to the fair value of these securities in future periods. We used seven years as the expected holding period. During 2009, several of our auction rate securities with an aggregate fair value of $3.5 million have been redeemed at par value.

The table below presents the principal amounts and weighted-average interest rates by year of maturity for our investment portfolio as of September 30, 2009 by effective maturity (in millions, except percentages):

We have had obligations denominated in euros for the purchase of Actimmune inventory and presently have obligations in euros related to our clinical trials. In 2004, we used foreign currency forward contracts to partially mitigate this exposure, but have not entered into any new foreign currency forward contracts since. We regularly evaluate the cost-benefit of entering into such arrangements, and presently have no foreign currency hedge agreements outstanding.

As of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, we evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, or “disclosure controls.” This controls evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). Disclosure controls are controls and procedures designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Exchange Act, such as this Report, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls are also designed to reasonably ensure that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the CEO and CFO, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based upon the controls evaluation, our CEO and CFO have concluded that, as a result of the matters discussed below with respect to our internal control over financial reporting, our disclosure controls were effective as of the end of the period covered by this Report.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Our internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to management and our board of directors regarding the reliability of financial reporting and preparation of published financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Management assessed our internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2009, the end of the period covered by this report. As a result of this assessment, management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of September 30, 2009. In making our assessment of internal control over financial reporting, we used the criteria issued in the report Internal Control-Integrated Framework by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

There have been no changes to our internal controls over financial reporting during the three months ended September 30, 2009 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Attached as exhibits to this Report, there are “Certifications” of the CEO and the CFO required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Rule 13a-14(a) Certifications. This Controls and Procedures section of the Report includes the information concerning the controls evaluation referred to in the Rule 13a-14(a) Certifications and it should be read in conjunction with the Rule 13a-14(a) Certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented.

Our management, including our CEO and CFO, does not expect that our control systems will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within InterMune have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by management override of the control. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Accordingly, our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of our disclosure control system are met and, as set forth above, our CEO and CFO have concluded, based on their evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this Report, that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of our disclosure control system were met.

Prior to December 2008, insurers that issued directors & officers (“D&O”) liability insurance to the Company had advanced all of Dr. Harkonen’s expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, GEHA and Criminal Actions. Those insurers included National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“AIG”), Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”), and Continental Casualty Company (“CNA”). On November 19, 2008, however, the insurer that issued a $5 million D&O insurance policy providing coverage excess of the monetary limits of coverage provided by AIG, Lloyd’s and CNA, Arch Specialty Insurance Company (“Arch”), advised the Company that the limits of the underlying coverage were expected to be depleted by approximately December 15, 2008; that Arch “disclaims coverage” based on misstatements and misrepresentations allegedly made by Dr. Harkonen in documents provided in the application for the Arch policy and the underlying Lloyd’s policy; and, based on that disclaimer, Arch would not be advancing any of Dr. Harkonen’s expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, GEHA and Criminal Actions.

An investment in our common stock is risky. Stockholders and potential investors in shares of our stock should carefully consider the following risk factors, which hereby summarize those risks contained in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, in addition to other information and risk factors in this Report. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for a more comprehensive set of risk factors. We are identifying these risk factors as important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in any written or oral forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of InterMune. We are relying upon the safe harbor for all forward-looking statements in this Report, and any such statements made by or on behalf of InterMune are qualified by reference to the following cautionary statements, as well as to those set forth elsewhere in this Report.

We commenced operations in 1998 and have incurred significant losses to date. Our revenue has been limited primarily to sales of Actimmune derived from physicians’ prescriptions for the off-label use of Actimmune in the treatment of IPF. In March 2007, we discontinued our development of Actimmune for treatment of IPF. Although we are developing pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF, and have announced results for the CAPACITY trials in February 2009, pirfenidone will not be marketed for any diseases before mid-2010, if at all.

We may fail to develop our products on schedule, or at all, for the reasons stated in “Risks Related to the Development of Our Products and Product Candidates”. If this were to occur, our costs would increase and our ability to generate revenue could be impaired.

Drug development is a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage of any of our clinical trials.

To gain approval to market a product for the treatment of a specific disease, we must provide the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities with preclinical and clinical data that demonstrate the safety and statistically significant and clinically meaningful efficacy of that product for the treatment of the disease. Drug development is a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage of any of our clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier preclinical or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical studies. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and the results of clinical trials by other parties may not be indicative of the results in trials we may conduct. For example:

We do not know whether our planned clinical trials will begin on time, or at all, or will be completed on schedule, or at all.

The commencement or completion of any of our clinical trials may be delayed or halted for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:

Our development costs will increase if we have material delays in our clinical trials or if we need to perform more or larger clinical trials than planned. If there are any significant delays for any of our other current or planned clinical trials, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our products and product candidates will be harmed, and our prospects for profitability will be impaired.

We currently depend upon one collaboration partner, Roche, for support in the development and commercialization of our HCV product candidates. If our Collaboration Agreement with Roche terminates, our business and, in particular, the development and commercialization of our HCV product candidates would be significantly harmed.

On October 16, 2006, we entered into the Collaboration Agreement with Roche. Under the Collaboration Agreement, we agreed to collaborate with Roche to develop and commercialize products from our HCV protease inhibitor program. The Collaboration Agreement includes our lead candidate compound ITMN-191, which completed Phase Ib clinical trials. We also agreed to collaborate with Roche on a research program to identify, develop and commercialize novel second-generation HCV protease inhibitors. Assuming that we continue to successfully develop and commercialize these product candidates, under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement we are entitled to receive reimbursement and sharing of expenses incurred in connection with the development of these product candidates and additional milestone payments from Roche. As a result, Roche is providing 67% of the development costs for ITMN-191. In addition, if any of the product candidates we have licensed to Roche are approved for commercialization, we anticipate receiving proceeds in connection with the sales of such products. Roche may terminate the Collaboration Agreement in its entirety, in any country, subject to certain limitations for major countries, or with respect to any product or product candidate licensed under the Collaboration Agreement for any reason on six months’ written notice. If the Collaboration Agreement is terminated in whole or in part and we are unable to enter into similar arrangements with other collaborators, our business could be materially adversely affected.

If Roche fails to perform its obligations under the Collaboration Agreement, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates licensed to Roche and the development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed, curtailed or terminated.

Under the Collaboration Agreement, if marketing authorization is obtained, we have the right to co-promote with Roche our lead candidate compound ITMN-191 and/or any other product candidates licensed to Roche, as applicable, in the United States and Roche has the right to market and sell ITMN-191 and/or any other product candidates licensed to Roche throughout the rest of the world. Roche is also responsible for the manufacturing of the global commercial supply for ITMN-191 and/or any other product candidates licensed to Roche. As a result, we will depend upon the success of the efforts of Roche to manufacture, market and sell ITMN-191 and/or any other product candidates, if approved. However, we have little to no control over the resources that Roche may devote to such manufacturing and commercialization efforts and, if Roche does not devote sufficient time and resources to such efforts, we may not realize the commercial benefits that we anticipate, and our results of operations may be adversely affected. In addition, if Roche were to terminate the Collaboration Agreement, we would not have manufacturing resources to manufacture ITMN-191, and we would need to develop those resources or contract with one or more third party manufacturers, which we may be unable to do at a favorable cost, or at all.

If we materially breach the representations and warranties we made to Roche under the Collaboration Agreement or any of our other contractual obligations, Roche has the right to seek indemnification from us for damages it suffers as a result of such breach. These amounts could be substantial.

We have agreed to indemnify Roche and its affiliates against losses suffered as a result of our material breach of representations and warranties and our other obligations in the Collaboration Agreement. If one or more of our representations and warranties were not true at the time we made them to Roche, we would be in breach of the Collaboration Agreement. In the event of a breach by us, Roche has the right to seek indemnification from us for damages suffered by Roche as a result of such breach. The amounts for which we could become liable to Roche may be substantial.

Roche has the right under certain circumstances to market and sell products that compete with our product candidates that we have licensed to Roche, and any competition by Roche could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Roche has agreed that, except as set forth in the Collaboration Agreement, it will not develop or commercialize certain specific competitive products during the exclusivity period, which extends until October 2011 at the latest. However if neither ITMN-191 nor any other product candidate is in clinical development, Roche may develop or commercialize such competitive products during the exclusivity period in accordance with the Collaboration Agreement. However, if they undertake such development or commercialization, we will have the right to terminate the Collaboration Agreement. Accordingly, despite the exclusivity period, Roche may under certain circumstances develop or commercialize competitive products. Roche has significantly greater financial, technical and human resources than we have and they are better equipped to discover, develop, manufacture and commercialize products. In addition, Roche has more extensive experience than we have in preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products. In the event that Roche competes with us, our business could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Government Regulation and Approval of our Products and Product Candidates

If we fail to comply or have in the past failed to comply with FDA or other government regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses and the promotion of products for which marketing approval has not been obtained, we could be subject to regulatory enforcement action by the FDA or other governmental authorities as well as follow-on actions filed by consumers and other end-payors, which actions could result in substantial fines, sanctions and damage awards against us, any of which could harm our business.

Physicians may prescribe commercially available drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those uses tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. For example, even though the FDA has not approved the use of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF, we are aware that physicians are, and have in the past, prescribing Actimmune for the treatment of IPF. Substantially all of our Actimmune revenue is derived from physicians’ prescriptions for off-label use for IPF. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA and other governmental agencies do, however, restrict manufacturers’ communications on the subject of off-label use. Companies may not promote FDA approved drugs for off-label uses. Accordingly, we may not promote Actimmune for the treatment of IPF. The FDA and other governmental authorities actively enforce regulations prohibiting promotion of off-label uses. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against manufacturers for alleged improper promotion, including us in October 2006 in connection with our reaching comprehensive settlement with the government to resolve all claims as it relates to our promotional activities with respect to Actimmune, and the FDA has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which certain promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. We are aware of many instances, including our own experience as it relates to Actimmune, in which the Office of the Inspector General of the FDA has sought and secured criminal penalties and/or a corporate integrity agreement against pharmaceutical manufacturers requiring payment of substantial fines and monitoring of certain promotional activities to ensure compliance with FDA regulations We engage in medical education activities that are subject to scrutiny under the FDA’s regulations relating to off-label promotion. While we believe we are currently in compliance with these regulations, the regulations are subject to varying interpretations, which are evolving.

If the FDA or any other governmental agency initiates an enforcement action against us and it is determined that we violated prohibitions relating to off-label promotion in connection with past or future activities, we could be subject to civil and/or criminal

fines and sanctions such as those noted above in this risk factor, any of which would have an adverse effect on our revenue, business and financial prospects. As a follow-on to such governmental enforcement actions, consumers and other end-payors of the product may initiate action against us claiming, among other things, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. For example, as a follow-on to the subpoena we received from the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to our promotional and marketing activities in connection with Actimmune and the resulting settlement we reached with the government in October 2006, we have had various class action suits filed against us by consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune as discussed in more detail above in “Item 1. Legal Proceedings”. If the plaintiffs in such follow-on actions are successful, we could be subject to various damages, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs, any of which would also have an adverse effect on our revenue, business and financial prospects.

In addition, some of the agreements pursuant to which we license our products, including our license agreement relating to Actimmune, contain provisions requiring us to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including the FDA’s restriction on the promotion of FDA approved drugs for off-label uses. As a result, if it were determined that we violated the FDA’s rules relating to off-label promotion in connection with our marketing of Actimmune, we may be in material breach of our license agreement for Actimmune. If we failed to cure a material breach of this license agreement, we could lose our rights to certain therapeutic uses for Actimmune under the agreement.

If we fail to fulfill our obligations under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice or the Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

On October 26, 2006, we announced that we entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Under the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California filed an Information charging us with one count of off-label promotion of Actimmune for use with IPF, but has agreed to defer prosecution of such charge during the two year term of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The U.S. Attorney will seek dismissal of the Information after the two year period if we comply with the provisions of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Under the terms of the Corporate Integrity Agreement, the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services has agreed to waive any potential exclusion against us from participation in federal health care programs provided that we comply with the terms of the Corporate Integrity Agreement for a period of five years. If we do not satisfy our obligations under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the U.S. Attorney can proceed with the prosecution against us for actions involving the off-label promotion of Actimmune for use with IPF, as set forth in the Information, and may consider additional actions against us, which could have significant adverse effects on our operations and financial results. If we do not satisfy our obligations under the Corporate Integrity Agreement, the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services could potentially exclude us from participation in federal health care programs, which could have significant adverse effects on our operations and financial results.

We may be required to indemnify certain of our former officers and directors if any action is taken by the U.S. Attorney or other authorities with respect to those individuals in connection with the off-label promotion of Actimmune for use with IPF, and there can be no assurance that our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance will cover all of these indemnification obligations.

We may not be able to obtain, maintain and protect certain proprietary rights necessary for the development and commercialization of our products or product candidates.

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection on our products and product candidates and successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to commercialize our products will also depend in part on the patent positions of third parties, including those of our competitors. The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents has emerged to date. Accordingly, we cannot predict with certainty the scope and breadth of patent claims that may be afforded to other companies’ patents. We could incur substantial costs in litigation if we are required to defend against patent suits brought by third parties, or if we initiate suits to protect our patent rights.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain, and we cannot ensure that:

Others have filed and in the future may file patent applications covering uses and formulations of interferon gamma-1b, a pegylated version of this product, and other products in our development program. If a third party has been or is in the future issued a patent that blocked our ability to commercialize any of our products, alone or in combination, for any or all of the diseases that we are targeting, we would be prevented from commercializing that product or combination of products for that disease or diseases unless we obtained a license from the patent holder. We may not be able to obtain such a license to a blocking patent on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If we cannot obtain, maintain and protect the necessary proprietary rights for the development and commercialization of our products or product candidates, our business and financial prospects will be impaired.

Litigation or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement could require us to spend substantial time and money and could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize products.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability and the ability of our collaborators to avoid infringing patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may accuse us or our collaborators of employing their proprietary technology in our products, or in the materials or processes used to research or develop our products, without authorization. Any legal action against our collaborators or us claiming damages and/or seeking to stop our commercial activities relating to the affected products, materials and processes could, in addition to subjecting us to potential liability for damages, require our collaborators or us to obtain a license to continue to utilize the affected materials or processes or to manufacture or market the affected products. We cannot predict whether we, or our collaborators, would prevail in any of these actions or whether any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If we are unable to obtain such a license, we, or our collaborators, may be unable to continue to utilize the affected materials or processes or manufacture or market the affected products or we may be obligated by a court to pay substantial royalties and/or other damages to the patent holder. Even if we are able to obtain such a license, the terms of such a license could substantially reduce the commercial value of the affected product or products and impair our prospects for profitability. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether or to what extent the commercial value of the affected product or products or our prospects for profitability may be harmed as a result of any of the liabilities discussed above. Furthermore, infringement and other intellectual property claims, with or without merit, can be expensive and time-consuming to litigate and can divert management’s attention from our core business.

Risks Related to Our Financial Results and Other Risks Related to Our Business

Revenue from the sale of Actimmune has been declining and is expected to decline further.

Physicians may choose not to prescribe Actimmune or provide fewer patient referrals for Actimmune for the treatment of IPF for a variety of reasons, some of which are because:

Negative conditions in the global markets may impair the liquidity of a portion of our investment portfolio.

Our investment securities include high-grade auction rate securities, corporate debt securities and government agency securities. As of September 30, 2009, our long-term investments consisted of high-grade (AAA rated) auction rate securities issued by state municipalities with a fair value of approximately $13.1 million. Our auction rate securities are debt instruments with a long-term maturity and an interest rate that is reset in short intervals through auctions. The recent conditions in the global credit markets have prevented some investors from liquidating their holdings of auction rate securities because the amount of securities submitted for sale has exceeded the amount of purchase orders for such securities. If there is insufficient demand for the securities at the time of an auction, the auction may not be completed and the interest rates may be reset to predetermined higher rates. Although to date, we have not recorded any significant realized gains or losses on our auction rate securities or recognized any significant unrealized gains or losses on investments, when auctions for these securities fail, the investments may not be readily convertible to cash until a future auction of these investments is successful or they are redeemed or mature. If the credit ratings of the security issuers deteriorate and any decline in market value is determined to be other-than-temporary, we would be required to adjust the carrying value of the investment and record an impairment charge in the statement of operations. Throughout most of 2008 and all of 2009 to date, auctions failed for the entire $13.1 million of our auction rate securities classified as noncurrent and have continued to fail since. As a result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or not exist.

Failure to accurately forecast our future Actimmune demand could result in additional charges for excess inventories or non-cancelable purchase obligations.

We base many of our operating decisions on anticipated revenue trends and competitive market conditions, which are difficult to predict. Based on projected revenue trends, we acquired inventories and entered into non-cancelable purchase obligations in order to meet anticipated increases in demand for our products. However, more recent projected revenue trends resulted in us recording charges of $0.7 million, $1.6 million and $4.5 million in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively, for excess inventories from previous years’ contractual purchases. If revenue levels experienced in future quarters are substantially below our expectations, especially revenue from sales of Actimmune, we could be required to record additional charges for excess inventories and/or non-cancelable purchase obligations.

Failure to attract, retain and motivate skilled personnel and cultivate key academic collaborations will delay our product development programs and our business development efforts.

We had 118 full-time employees as of October 30, 2009, and our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel and on our ability to develop relationships with leading academic scientists. Competition for personnel and academic collaborations is intense. We are highly dependent on our current management and key scientific and technical personnel, including Daniel G. Welch, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, as well as the other principal members of our management. None of our employees, including members of our management team, has a long-term employment contract, and any of our employees can leave at any time. Our success will depend in part on retaining the services of our existing management and key personnel and attracting and retaining new highly qualified personnel. In addition, we may need to hire additional personnel and develop additional academic collaborations if we expand our research and development activities. We do not know if we will be able to attract, retain or motivate personnel or cultivate academic collaborations. Our inability to hire, retain or motivate qualified personnel or cultivate academic collaborations would harm our business.

On April 2, 2009, we agreed with Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”) to exchange $22,750,000 in aggregate principal amount of our .25% Convertible Senior Notes due 2011 (the “2011 Notes”) beneficially owned by Credit Suisse for 772,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, valued at $17.03 per share, plus an aggregate number of shares of our common stock equal to $10,967,840 divided equally over each of the ten trading days through the period ending on April 15, 2009, subject to extension in limited circumstances, and divided on each such day by the volume-weighted average price per share of our common stock as reported on The NASDAQ Stock Market, subject to a floor price cap of $14.00 per share, unless otherwise agreed to by us, and a ceiling price cap of $19.00 per share (the “Credit Suisse Exchange Shares”). We closed the transaction and issued 1,478,940 shares of our common stock to Credit Suisse on April 16, 2009.

In a separately negotiated transaction, on April 2, 2009, we agreed with RHP Master Fund, Ltd. (“Rock Hill”), to exchange $9,500,000 in aggregate principal amount of 2011 Notes beneficially owned by Rock Hill for 636,500 shares of our common stock (the “Rock Hill Exchange Shares” and together with the Credit Suisse Exchange Shares, the “Exchange Shares”). We closed the transaction and issued these shares on April 9, 2009.

On September 22, 2009, we agreed with funds affiliated with Visium Asset Management (“Visium”) to exchange $3,787,000 in aggregate principal amount of our 2011 Notes for an aggregate of 249,942 shares of our common stock. We closed this transaction and issued these shares on September 24, 2009.

Upon the closing of these separate transactions with Credit Suisse, Rock Hill and Visium, $36,037,000 of the 2011 Notes have been retired.

As the Exchange Shares were exchanged by us with Credit Suisse, Rock Hill and Visium exclusively and solely for 2011 Notes, the transactions are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(a)(9) thereof. No sales of securities of the same class as the Exchange Shares have been or are to be made by us by or through an underwriter at or about the same time as the exchange for which the exemption is claimed. Neither Credit Suisse nor Rock Hill has made, nor will be requested to make, any cash payment to the Company in connection with the exchange, and we will not receive any proceeds from the issuance of the Exchange Shares. No consideration has been, or is to be, given, directly or indirectly, to any person in connection with the transaction, except for payments by us of the fees and expenses of its legal and financial advisors. Goldman, Sachs & Co. acted as our financial advisor in connection with these transactions.

Pursuant to the requirements 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.


InterMune, Inc.

By:		/s/ BRUCE TOMLINSON
Bruce Tomlinson
Vice President, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer


Large accelerated filer		¨		Accelerated filer		x		Non-accelerated filer		¨


		Page

Item
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION		3
1. Financial Statements:		3
a. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008		3
b. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008		4
c. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008		5
d. Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements		6
2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		19
3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		28
4. Controls and Procedures		30
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION		31
1. Legal Proceedings		31
1A. Risk Factors		34
2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities		40
6. Exhibits		40
Signatures		42


	September 30, 2009			December 31, 2008¹
	(Unaudited, in thousands)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	41,345		$	63,765
Available-for-sale securities		85,186			73,454
Accounts receivable, net of allowances of $70 at September 30, 2009 and $58 at December 31, 2008		5,136			3,123
Inventories		2,790			1,249
Deferred taxes		—			205
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		3,284			3,195

Total current assets		137,741			144,991
Non-current available-for-sale securities		13,148			17,494
Property and equipment, net		4,069			6,582
Other assets (includes restricted cash of $1,429 at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008)		2,197			2,743

Total assets	$	157,155		$	171,810

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	20,221		$	19,148
Accrued compensation		4,174			6,939
Deferred taxes		—			205
Liability under government settlement		10,933			6,023
Other accrued liabilities		9,598			15,996

Total current liabilities		44,926			48,311
Deferred rent		1,060			1,426
Deferred collaboration revenue		57,263			59,717
Liability under government settlement		9,117			17,642
Convertible notes		128,153			155,085
Commitments and contingencies (Note 9)
Stockholders’ deficit:
Common stock		46			39
Additional paid-in capital		801,549			690,454
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		1,933			(1,415	)
Accumulated deficit		(886,892	)		(799,449	)

Total stockholders’ deficit		(83,364	)		(110,371	)

Total liabilities and stockholders’ deficit	$	157,155		$	171,810


	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2009			2008¹			2009			2008¹
	(Unaudited, in thousands, except per share data)
Revenue, net
Actimmune®	$	6,493		$	7,505		$	19,635		$	23,297
Collaboration revenue		20,818			15,818			22,454			17,454

Total revenue, net		27,311			23,323			42,089			40,751
Costs and expenses:
Cost of goods sold		1,019			1,413			5,737			7,276
Research and development		20,608			25,618			67,965			78,028
Acquired research and development milestone payments		1,750			—			15,250			—
General and administrative		9,916			8,205			26,911			22,744
Restructuring charges		55			—			795			—

Total costs and expenses		33,348			35,236			116,658			108,048

Loss from operations		(6,037	)		(11,913	)		(74,569	)		(67,297	)
Other income (expense):
Interest income		331			1,212			1,498			4,644
Interest expense		(2,714	)		(2,971	)		(7,934	)		(10,067	)
Loss on extinguishment of debt, net		(724	)		—			(10,264	)		(1,294	)
Other income		396			18			6,043			1,286

Loss from continuing operations before income taxes		(8,748	)		(13,654	)		(85,226	)		(72,728	)
Income tax expense		23			325			2,217			—

Loss from continuing operations		(8,771	)		(13,979	)		(87,443	)		(72,728	)
Discontinued operations:
Income (loss) from discontinued operations		—			(3	)		—			71

Net loss	$	(8,771	)	$	(13,982	)	$	(87,443	)	$	(72,657	)

Basic and diluted loss per share
Continuing operations	$	(0.19	)	$	(0.36	)	$	(2.00	)	$	(1.87	)
Discontinued operations		—			—	²		—			—	²

Net loss per share	$	(0.19	)	$	(0.36	)	$	(2.00	)	$	(1.87	)

Shares used in computing basic and diluted net loss per share		45,431			39,031			43,810			38,954


	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2009			2008¹
	(Unaudited, in thousands)
Cash flows used in operating activities:
Net loss	$	(87,443	)	$	(72,657	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation		2,738			2,630
Amortization		4,090			8,744
Stock-based compensation expense		5,934			5,182
Loss on extinguishment of debt, net of transaction costs		9,669			1,294
Deferred taxes		2,275			41
Net realized gains on sales of available for sale securities		(6,380	)		(336	)
Deferred rent		(366	)		(242	)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable, net		(2,013	)		658
Inventories		(1,541	)		(127	)
Other assets		(140	)		2,362
Accounts payable and accrued compensation		(1,692	)		4,297
Other accrued liabilities		(10,013	)		2,922
Deferred collaboration revenue		(2,454	)		(2,454	)

Net cash used in operating activities		(87,336	)		(47,686	)

Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment		(225	)		(1,408	)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities		(81,376	)		(109,128	)
Sales of available-for-sale securities		31,021			73,139
Maturities of available-for-sale securities		50,422			71,789

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities		(158	)		34,392
Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net		65,074			1,653

Net cash provided by financing activities		65,074			1,653

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents		(22,420	)		(11,641	)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		63,765			88,946

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	41,345		$	77,305


Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:
Non-cash financing activities:
Extinguishment of debt, net of unamortized debt discount, in exchange for common stock		30,600			—


	As of September 30,
	2009	2008
Shares issuable upon exercise of stock options	4,423	5,077
Shares issuable upon conversion of convertible notes	6,766	8,432


	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2009			2008			2009			2008
Net loss¹	$	(8,771	)	$	(13,982	)	$	(87,443	)	$	(72,657	)

Basic and diluted net loss per share:
Weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding		46,134			39,294			44,429			39,166
Less: weighted-average shares subject to repurchase		(703	)		(263	)		(619	)		(212	)

Weighted-average shares used in computing basic and diluted net loss per share		45,431			39,031			43,810			38,954

Basic and diluted net loss per share¹	$	(0.19	)	$	(0.36	)	$	(2.00	)	$	(1.87	)


September 30, 2009	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Money market funds	$	19,178	$	—	$	—	$	19,178
Obligations of government-sponsored enterprises		—		42,159		—		42,159
Obligations of United States government		—		10,171		—		10,171
Corporate debt securities		—		9,527		—		9,527
Commercial paper		—		24,988		—		24,988
Auction rate securities		—		—		16,498		16,498

Total	$	19,178	$	86,845	$	16,498	$	122,521


December 31, 2008	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Money market funds	$	33,952	$	—	$	—	$	33,952
Obligations of government-sponsored enterprises		—		50,775		—		50,775
Obligations of United States government		—		9,000		—		9,000
Corporate debt securities		—		16,650		—		16,650
Commercial paper		—		20,494		—		20,494
Targanta common stock		512		—		—		512
Auction rate securities		—		—		17,514		17,514

Total	$	34,464	$	96,919	$	17,514	$	148,897


	Auction rate Securities
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2009			2008			2009			2008
Balance at beginning of period	$	16,752		$	23,376		$	17,514		$	27,000
Accretion and interest income		31			—			76			—
Net settlements		(318	)		(3,000	)		(2,888	)		(6,000	)
Unrealized gain/(loss) included in other comprehensive income		33			(1,031	)		1,796			(1,655	)

Balance at end of period	$	16,498		$	19,345		$	16,498		$	19,345


	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses			Fair Value
September 30, 2009
Obligations of government-sponsored enterprises	$	42,081	$	79	$	(1	)	$	42,159
Money market funds		19,178		—		—			19,178
Commercial paper		24,991		—		(3	)		24,988
Corporate debt securities		9,468		60		(1	)		9,527
Obligations of United States government		10,168		3		—			10,171
Auction rate securities		14,702		1,796		—			16,498

Total	$	120,588	$	1,938	$	(5	)	$	122,521


	Three Months Ended						Nine Months Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2009			2008¹			2009			2008¹
Net loss	$	(8,771	)	$	(13,982	)	$	(87,443	)	$	(72,657	)
Change in unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities, net of tax expense of $0 and $2,275 for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and tax expense of $325 and $0 for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2008		(40	)		(538	)		3,348			(2,585	)

Comprehensive loss	$	(8,811	)	$	(14,520	)	$	(84,095	)	$	(75,242	)


	September 30, 2009		December 31, 2008
Net unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities, net of tax of $0 at September 30, 2009 and $2,275 at December 31, 2008, (including $0 and ($1,763)), respectively, related to Targanta shares)	$	1,933	$	(1,415	)


	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2009		2008		2009		2008
United States	$	6,441	$	7,494	$	19,479	$	23,249
Other countries		20,870		15,829		22,610		17,502

Total net revenue	$	27,311	$	23,323	$	42,089	$	40,751


	Nine Months Ended September 30,
Customer	2009		2008
CuraScript, Inc.	36	%	42	%
Nova Factor	29	%	30	%
Caremark	20	%	17	%


	Restructuring Liabilities at December 31, 2008		Charges		Cash Payments			Restructuring Liabilities at September 30, 2009
Workforce reduction	$	38	$	795	$	(735	)	$	98


	Preclinical	Phase I	Phase II	Phase III
Pulmonology
*Pirfenidone*—Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY)				X
*Anti-inflammatory/antifibrotic*	X

Hepatology
*ITMN-191*—Chronic hepatitis C program; protease inhibitor			X
*Next generation protease inhibitor*	X
*Second Target in hepatology*	X


Development Program	2009		2008
Pulmonology	$	36,950	$	43,688
Hepatology		20,253		24,813
Programs—Non-specific		10,762		9,527

Total	$	67,965	$	78,028


	Three Months Ended		Nine Months Ended
	September 30, 2008
Interest expense, as previously reported	$	1,520	$	4,101
Adjustments and reclassification:
Amortization of debt discount and debt issuance costs in connection with adoption of new guidance		1,451		7,079
Reclassification to loss on extinguishment of debt		—		(1,113	)

Interest expense, as reported herein	$	2,971	$	10,067


	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2008
Loss on extinguishment of debt, as previously reported	$	—
Adjustments and reclassification:
Adjustments, net in connection with adoption of ASC Debt Topic guidance		181
Reclassification from interest expense		1,113

Loss on extinguishment of debt, as reported herein	$	1,294


	2009			2010			2011			2012	2013 and Beyond			Total			Fair Value at September 30, 2009
Assets:
Available-for-sale securities	$	47.6		$	58.3			—		—	$	17.5		$	123.4		$	122.5
Average interest rate		0.3	%		1.0	%		—		—		1.5	%		0.8	%		—
Liabilities:
0.25% convertible senior notes due 2011		—			—		$	49.0		—		—		$	49.0		$	49.9
Average interest rate		—			—			.25	%	—		—			.25	%		—
5.0% convertible senior notes due 2015		—			—			—		—	$	85.0		$	85.0		$	93.9
Average interest rate		—			—			—		—		5.0	%		5.0	%		—


Exhibit Number		Description of Document
3.1		Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of InterMune.(1)

3.2		Certificate of Ownership and Merger, dated April 26, 2001.(2)

3.3		Bylaws of InterMune.(1)

3.4		Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of InterMune.(3)

3.5		Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of InterMune.(4)

31.1		Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).(5)

31.2		Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).(5)

32.1*		Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350).(5)


Exhibit Number		Description of Document
3.1		Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of InterMune.(1)

3.2		Certificate of Ownership and Merger, dated April 26, 2001.(2)

3.3		Bylaws of InterMune.(1)

3.4		Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of InterMune.(3)

3.5		Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of InterMune.(4)

31.1		Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).(5)

31.2		Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).(5)

32.1*		Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350).(5)