UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

Or

For the transition period from                      to                     .

Commission file number 000-27436

TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 244-4990

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

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 the 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 (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    x  Yes    ¨  No

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition or “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

The aggregate market value of the 57,982,680 shares of voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant based on the closing price on June 30, 2011 was $105.5 million.

As of March 9, 2012, 59,386,542 shares of common stock, $.001 par value, of the registrant were issued and outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

NONE

PART I

NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in the documents incorporated by reference herein may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Reference is made in particular to the description of our plans and objectives for future operations, assumptions underlying such plans and objectives and other forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “expects,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “expects,” “projects,” or similar terms, variations of such terms or the negative of such terms. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations. Actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors, including but not limited to, uncertainties relating to financing and strategic agreements and relationships; difficulties or delays in the regulatory approval process; uncertainties relating to sales, marketing and distribution of our drug candidates that may be successfully developed and approved for commercialization; adverse side effects or inadequate therapeutic efficacy of our drug candidates that could slow or prevent product development or commercialization; dependence on third party suppliers; the uncertainty of protection for our patents and other intellectual property or trade secrets; and competition.

We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations or any changes in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

References herein to “we,” “us,” “Titan,” and “our company” refer to Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [and its subsidiaries] unless the context otherwise requires.

Probuphine™ and ProNeura™ are trademarks of our company. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also includes trade names and trademarks of companies other than Titan.

Overview

Our principal asset is Probuphine™, the first slow release implant formulation of buprenorphine, designed to maintain a stable, round the clock blood level of the medicine in patients for six months following a single treatment. Daily treatment of opioid dependence with sublingual buprenorphine formulations is already a $1+ billion market in the U.S., and a transdermal formulation for the treatment of chronic pain entered the U.S. market in 2011. Probuphine is being developed for the treatment of opioid dependence with the potential to enhance patient compliance to medication, and limit diversion and accidental use of the daily dosed formulations. In October 2011, we had a Pre-New Drug Application meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) that provided clear guidance on the requirements for submitting a New Drug Application (“NDA”). The clinical development program is now complete and preparation of the NDA is in process. At the request of the FDA, we are conducting additional analytical testing of the ethylene vinyl acetate (an inactive co-polymer in Probuphine) and the final product, Probuphine, in order to complete full characterization and establish ‘in-use’ stability. We have also commenced a program with our contract manufacturer to scale-up the manufacturing process for commercial production. We expect to complete these steps and be in a position to submit the NDA in the third quarter of 2012. Our goal is to enter into one or more partnerships with capable pharmaceutical companies to commercialize Probuphine in the U.S. and foreign markets, as well as to potentially develop the product for the treatment of chronic pain.

Probuphine is the first product to utilize ProNeura™, our novel, proprietary, long-term drug delivery technology. Our ProNeura technology has the potential to be used in developing products for the treatment of other chronic conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, where maintaining stable, round the clock blood levels of a drug can benefit the patient and improve medical outcomes.

2

Under a sublicense agreement with Novartis Pharma AG (“Novartis”), we are entitled to royalty revenue of 8-10% of net sales of Fanapt^® (iloperidone), an atypical antipsychotic compound being marketed in the U.S. by Novartis for the treatment of schizophrenia, based on a licensed U.S. patent that expires in April 2017 (inclusive of a six month pediatric extension). We have entered into several agreements with Deerfield Management (“Deerfield), a healthcare investment fund, which entitle Deerfield to most of the future royalty revenues related to Fanapt in exchange for cash and debt considerations, the proceeds from which we have been using to advance the development of Probuphine and for general corporate purposes. We have retained a portion of the royalty revenue from the net sales of Fanapt in excess of specified annual threshold levels; however, based on sales levels to date, it is unlikely that we will receive any revenue from Fanapt in the next several years, if ever.

We operate in only one business segment, the development of pharmaceutical products.

Our Products

Probuphine

We are developing Probuphine for the treatment of opioid dependence. Probuphine is the first product specifically designed for the long-term treatment of opioid dependence and it utilizes ProNeura, our novel, proprietary, long-term drug delivery technology. (see “Continuous Drug Delivery Technology” below). Probuphine is designed to maintain a stable, round the clock blood level of the drug buprenorphine, an approved agent for the treatment of opioid dependence. If approved, Probuphine is expected to provide six months of medication following a single treatment. Probuphine has been shown to be effective with an acceptable safety profile in the following clinical studies:

The goal of any therapy for an addictive disorder is to reduce the use of the substance over time and to engage the patient in treatment long enough for therapeutic gains to be consolidated. In a clinical study, the effectiveness of a treatment for opioid dependence is primarily evaluated by testing a patient’s urine samples for the presence of illicit opioids over the treatment period. In both placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies of Probuphine, every participant was required to provide urine samples three times a week, essentially on alternate days. Any missed sample was considered a positive result (i.e. urine testing positive for illicit opioid). In these studies, the primary effectiveness of the treatment with Probuphine (i.e. the primary endpoint) was established by comparing the negative urine results (i.e. urine testing negative for illicit opioid) between the Probuphine and placebo arms using a statistical technique, specifically ‘the cumulative distribution function of negative urines’, which basically performs a comparative analysis on the relative proportions of negative urines between treatment groups over the time period of treatment. The patients in the Probuphine arm showed clinically meaningful and a statistically significant difference in the negative urines as compared to the placebo arm in both studies, i.e. the Probuphine patients had statistically more negative results than the placebo arm, demonstrating that the treatment with Probuphine was successful in reducing their usage of illicit opioids as compared to the treatment with placebo. These favorable results for Probuphine were also confirmed by a significant difference over the placebo arm in other secondary measures such as retention in treatment, withdrawal symptoms and craving for opioids, all of which are monitored by clinicians to see if a treatment is providing clinically meaningful benefit to the patients.

Results for the first double-blind, placebo-controlled safety and efficacy study have been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, October 2010).

3

Patients who completed the controlled studies were eligible for enrollment in the six-month re-treatment studies, which provided data on up to one full year of treatment. The pharmacokinetic safety study has provided important data on the level of buprenorphine in the blood during the treatment period and gives a good profile of the safety of Probuphine. Data from all of these studies was presented at the International Society of Addiction Medicine Annual Meeting in November 2008 and September 2011, the American Society of Addiction Medicine Annual Meeting in May 2009 and American Society of Addiction Medicine Education Forum in October 2011, and the American College of Neuropharmacology in November 2009.

These studies are part of a registration directed program intended to obtain marketing approval of Probuphine for the treatment of opioid dependence in the U.S. and in Europe. We met with the FDA in October 2011 for a pre-NDA meeting and reviewed the clinical development program as well as the chemistry, manufacturing and controls (“CMC”) aspects of the NDA. Based on this interaction we believe we do not need to conduct any additional clinical studies prior to submitting the NDA and we have commenced the final activities in the CMC area that are necessary to obtain the remaining information while also beginning the preparation of the NDA, which we hope to submit in the third quarter of 2012.

Continuous Drug Delivery Technology

Our continuous drug delivery system consists of a small, solid rod made from a mixture of ethylene-vinyl acetate (“EVA”) and a drug substance. The resulting product is a solid matrix that is placed subcutaneously, normally in the upper arm in a simple office procedure, and is removed in a similar manner at the end of the treatment period. The drug substance is released slowly, at continuous levels, through the process of dissolution. This results in a constant rate of release similar to intravenous administration. We believe that such long-term, linear release characteristics are desirable by avoiding peak and trough level dosing that poses problems for many Central Nervous System (“CNS”) and other therapeutic agents.

Our continuous drug delivery technology was developed to address the need for a simple, practical method to achieve continuous long-term drug delivery, and potentially can provide controlled drug release on an outpatient basis over extended periods of up to 6-12 months. In addition to Probuphine, which is our first product in clinical testing to utilize our proprietary continuous drug delivery technology, we continue to seek opportunities to develop this drug delivery technology for other potential treatment applications in which conventional treatment is limited by variability in blood drug levels and poor patient compliance (e.g. treatment of Parkinson disease with dopamine agonists). Titan was awarded a $0.5 million SBIR grant in August 2010 to conduct non-clinical studies with long-term delivery of dopamine agonists and this data is expected to be available in the second quarter of 2012.

Fanapt^® (iloperidone)

Fanapt (iloperidone) is an atypical antipsychotic approved by the FDA for the treatment of schizophrenia currently being marketed by Novartis in the U.S. Under a sublicense agreement with Novartis, we are entitled to a royalty of 8-10% of net sales, based on a U.S. patent that we licensed from Sanofi-Aventis. The U.S. patent expires in April 2017 (including a six-month pediatric extension). Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Vanda”) owns the development and commercialization rights to the oral and depot formulations of this product for the rest of the world. However, because patent coverage on the compound has now expired in the significant markets outside of the U.S. and no patent term extensions are possible since the product was not approved in these countries prior to patent expiration, we do not expect any royalties on any future sales in such markets.

We have entered into several agreements with Deerfield, which entitle Deerfield to most of the future royalty revenues related to Fanapt in exchange for cash and debt considerations, the proceeds of which have been, and are continuing to be, used to advance the development of Probuphine and for general corporate purposes. We have retained a portion of the royalty revenue from net sales of Fanapt in excess of specified annual threshold levels; however, based on sales levels to date, it is unlikely that we will receive any revenue from Fanapt in the next several years, if ever. We do not incur any ongoing expenses associated with this product.

4

License Agreements

We are a party to several agreements with companies and universities for the performance of research and development activities and for the acquisition of licenses relating to such activities. Expenses under these agreements totaled approximately $36,000, $61,000 and $86,000 in the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

In January 1997, we acquired an exclusive worldwide license under U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications relating to the use of iloperidone for the treatment of psychiatric and psychotic disorders and analgesia from Sanofi-Aventis SA (“Sanofi-Aventis”) (formerly Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.). The Sanofi-Aventis agreement provides for the payment of royalties on future net sales and requires us to satisfy certain other terms and conditions, specifically continued diligent product development and commercialization efforts standard for these types of agreements, in order to retain our rights, all of which have been met to date.

In November 1997, we granted a worldwide sublicense, exclusive of Japan, to Novartis under which Novartis continued, at its expense, all further development of iloperidone. In April 2001, that sublicense was extended to include Japan. Under this agreement, Novartis agreed to pay Titan a royalty on future net sales of the product equal to 8% of annual worldwide net sales up to $200 million and 10% of annual worldwide net sales above $200 million, in addition to royalty payments owed by us to Sanofi-Aventis. In June 2004, Novartis granted Vanda the worldwide rights to develop and commercialize iloperidone.

In October 2009, Vanda and Novartis amended and restated their sub-license agreement whereby Novartis acquired the U.S. and Canadian rights to commercialize Fanapt, the oral formulation of iloperidone approved in the U.S. Novartis also acquired the U.S. and Canadian development and commercialization rights to the depot formulation previously under development by Vanda and retained the right of first negotiation to co-market Fanapt and the depot formulation in the rest of the world. All of our rights and economic interests in iloperidone, including royalties on sales, remained essentially unchanged under these agreements.

In October 1995, we acquired from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) an exclusive worldwide license to certain U.S. and foreign patents relating to our continuous drug delivery system. The exclusive nature of the MIT license is subject to our continued diligent product development activities. The agreement provides for the payment of a 2% royalty based on sales of products and processes incorporating the licensed technology, as well as 25% of other income (excluding research expense reimbursement) derived from sublicenses of the licensed technology.

In July 2005, we entered into an agreement with the University of Iowa Research Foundation. Under this agreement, we received an exclusive worldwide license to patent rights held by the University of Iowa Research Foundation covering the methods of treating biofilm formation, pseudomoras aeruginosa growth, human deficiency virus, and intracellular pathogens and pathogens causing chronic pulmonary infection using gallium maltolate. Under this agreement, we are required to pay a license issuance fee and certain minimum annual royalty payments. In addition, we are required to pay royalties based on net sales of products and processes incorporating the licensed technology.

Patents and Proprietary Rights

We are the exclusive licensee under the MIT license to two U.S. patents and their European counterparts relating to a long-term drug delivery system. One patent term expired in 2010 while the second patent term expires in 2014. These dates do not include possible term extensions. Four additional patent applications have been filed which incorporate the use of specific compounds with the continuous delivery technology, including two applications related to Probuphine for the potential treatment of opioid addiction and chronic pain. In June 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a patent covering Probuphine for the treatment of opiate addiction. Titan is the assignee of this patent which claims a method for treating opiate addiction with a subcutaneously implanted device comprising buprenorphine and ethylene vinyl acetate, a

5

biocompatible copolymer that releases buprenorphine continuously for extended periods of time. This patent, which also includes certain additional claims covering the composition and dimensions of the device, will expire in April 2024. Patents have issued in Australia, India, Mexico and New Zealand. Further prosecution of these applications is currently proceeding at the USPTO and corresponding agencies in Europe, Canada, Japan, India and Hong Kong.

We hold a license from Sanofi-Aventis under certain issued U.S. patents and certain issued foreign patents relating to iloperidone and its methods of use in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, psychotic disorders and analgesia. The term of the U.S. patent that covers certain aspects of our iloperidone product expires in April 2017, inclusive of a six month extension possible for approval of pediatric indication. Limited foreign patent protection remains in Lichtenstein, Georgia, Korea and the Philippines.

We are the licensee from the University of Iowa Research Foundation (“UIRF”) of two issued U.S. patents (expiring in 2016) relating to methods of use of gallium compounds to inhibit the growth of P. aeruginosa, and the treatment of infections by pathogens causing chronic pulmonary infection. We are also the licensee from UIRF of certain rights to patent applications covering the use of gallium complexes in preventing and also treating bacterial biofilm-based infections, for which patents have issued in South Africa and Mexico and prosecution in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and some Asian countries continues.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly evolving technology and intense competition. Many companies of all sizes, including major pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies, are engaged in the development and commercialization of therapeutic agents designed for the treatment of the same diseases and disorders that we target. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial and other resources, larger research and development staff and more experience in the regulatory approval process. Moreover, potential competitors have or may have patents or other rights that conflict with patents covering our technologies. For risks we face with respect to competition, see “Risk Factors—We face intense competition.”

With respect to Probuphine, Reckitt Benckiser Group, PLC, markets globally a sublingual buprenorphine product (tablet and film formulations) for the treatment of opioid dependence. This product (Subutex^®, Suboxone^®) which is administered daily, will compete with our six-month implantable product for treating opioid dependence. Other forms of buprenorphine are also in development by other companies, including intramuscular injections, buccal delivery and intranasally delivered buprenorphine, which also might compete with our product. In 2010, Alkermes, Inc. received FDA approval to market Vivitrol^®, a one month depot injection of naltrexone as a maintenance treatment for opioid dependent patients who have successfully achieved abstinence. We are aware of one month depot formulations of buprenorphine in early clinical development for the treatment of opioid dependence, but we are not aware of any six-month formulations being developed other than Probuphine.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing of Probuphine has primarily been conducted at DPT Laboratories, Inc., and we are in the process of expanding the manufacturing facility at this contract manufacturer to establish commercial scale capability to support the potential market launch of Probuphine, and ongoing demand following potential approval by the FDA.

Government Regulation

In order to obtain FDA approval of a new drug, a company generally must submit proof of purity, potency, safety and efficacy, among other regulatory standards. In most cases, such proof entails extensive clinical and pre-clinical laboratory tests.

6

The procedure for obtaining FDA approval to market a new drug involves several steps. Initially, the manufacturer must conduct pre-clinical animal testing to demonstrate that the product does not pose an unreasonable risk to human subjects in clinical studies. Upon completion of such animal testing, an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application must be filed with the FDA before clinical studies may begin. An IND application consists of, among other things, information about the proposed clinical trials. Among the conditions for clinical studies and IND approval is the requirement that the prospective manufacturer’s quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”), which must be followed at all times. Once the IND is approved (or if the FDA does not respond within 30 days), the clinical trials may begin.

The results of the pre-clinical and clinical testing on new drugs, if successful, are submitted to the FDA in the form of a New Drug Application (“NDA”). The NDA approval process requires substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. The FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if applicable regulatory requirements are not satisfied. Product approvals, if granted, may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems occur following initial marketing.

The FDA may also require post-marketing testing and surveillance of approved products, or place other conditions on their approvals. These requirements could cause it to be more difficult or expensive to sell the products, and could therefore restrict the commercial applications of such products. Product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur following initial marketing. With respect to patented products or technologies, delays imposed by the governmental approval process may materially reduce the period during which we will have the exclusive right to exploit such technologies.

We believe we are in compliance with all material applicable regulatory requirements. However, see “Risk Factors—We must comply with extensive government regulations” for additional risks we face regarding regulatory requirements and compliance.

Foreign Regulatory Issues

Sales of pharmaceutical products outside the United States are subject to foreign regulatory requirements that vary widely from country to country. Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, approval of a product by a comparable regulatory authority of a foreign country must generally be obtained prior to the commencement of marketing in that country. Although the time required to obtain such approval may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval, the requirements for FDA approval are among the most detailed in the world and FDA approval generally takes longer than foreign regulatory approvals.

Employees

At December 31, 2011, we had 12 full-time employees and several consultants.

7

We do not have the financial or other resources to complete the regulatory approval process or commercialize any product and may not be able to obtain the necessary financing and other resources.

At December 31, 2011, we had cash of approximately $5.4 million, which we believe is sufficient to fund our planned operations into the second quarter of 2012. We will require additional financing in order to complete preparation of the NDA and the regulatory process and seek approval to commercialize Probuphine, for which financing may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Furthermore, we do not have the financial or other resources necessary to commercialize any product and will need either to enter into a corporate partnership or licensing arrangement or raise the substantial funds required to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities in order to commercialize Probuphine (or any other product we may successfully develop) in the event regulatory approval is obtained. There can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into any such partnership or arrangement or raise such funds on acceptable terms, if at all.

We must comply with extensive government regulations.

The research, development, manufacture labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products are subject to an extensive regulatory approval process by the FDA in the U.S. and comparable health authorities in foreign markets. The process of obtaining required regulatory approvals for drugs is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. Approval policies or regulations may change and the FDA and foreign authorities have substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. Regulatory approval may entail limitations on the indicated usage of a drug, which may reduce the drug’s market potential. Even if regulatory clearance is obtained, post-market evaluation of the products, if required, could result in restrictions on a product’s marketing or withdrawal of the product from the market, as well as possible civil and criminal sanctions. Our business will be seriously harmed if our regulatory submissions are delayed or we cancel plans to make submissions for proposed products for any reason.

Probuphine may not receive FDA approval.

Probuphine, which has completed Phase 3 clinical development and is in the NDA preparation stage, will require significant further capital expenditures and regulatory clearances prior to commercialization. Even if we are able to obtain the requisite funding to complete the NDA submission and regulatory process, the FDA can delay, limit or deny approval of the product for many reasons, including:

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA regulatory approval process and are commercialized. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable FDA approval would prevent commercialization of Probuphine in the U.S. and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

8

If any product candidate that we successfully develop does not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community, the revenues that it generates from their sales will be limited.

Even if Probuphine or any other product candidate receives regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. Coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates by third-party payors, including government payors, generally is also necessary for commercial success. The degree of market acceptance of any approved products will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals and clinics, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate significant revenue from such products.

We must comply with extensive government regulations.

The development, manufacture, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products are subject to an extensive regulatory approval process by the FDA in the U.S. and comparable health authorities in foreign markets. The process of obtaining required regulatory approvals for drugs is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. Approval policies or regulations may change and the FDA and foreign authorities have substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. Regulatory approval may entail limitations on the indicated usage of a drug, which may reduce the drug’s market potential. Even if regulatory clearance is obtained, post-market evaluation of the products, if required, could result in restrictions on a product’s marketing or withdrawal of the product from the market, as well as possible civil and criminal sanctions. Our business will be seriously harmed if our regulatory submissions are delayed or we cancel plans to make submissions for proposed products for any reason.

We face risks associated with third parties conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials of our products; as well as our dependence on third parties to manufacture any products that we may successfully develop.

We depend on third-party laboratories and medical institutions to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials for our products and other third-party organizations to perform data collection and analysis, all of which must maintain both good laboratory and good clinical practices. We also depend upon third party manufacturers for the production of any products we may successfully develop to comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices of the FDA, which are similarly outside our direct control. If third party laboratories and medical institutions conducting studies of our products fail to maintain both good laboratory and clinical practices, the

9

studies could be delayed or have to be repeated. Similarly, if the manufacturers of any products we develop in the future fail to comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices of the FDA, we may be forced to cease manufacturing such product until we have found another third party to manufacture the product.

We face risks associated with product liability lawsuits that could be brought against us.

Our clinical liability insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover claims that may be made against us in the event that the use or misuse of our product candidates causes, or merely appears to have caused, personal injury or death. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could severely harm our financial condition, strain our management and other resources or destroy the prospects for commercialization of the product which is the subject of any such claim.

We may be unable to protect our patents and proprietary rights.

Our future success will depend to a significant extent on our ability to:

We cannot assure you that our patent rights will afford any competitive advantages, and these rights may be challenged or circumvented by third parties. Further, patents may not be issued on any of our pending patent applications in the U.S. or abroad. Because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that before a potential product can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in existence for only a short period following commercialization, reducing or eliminating any advantage of the patent. For example, the two U.S. patents licensed by Titan under the MIT license have already expired, and we must rely on the “method of use” patent application for Probuphine to get patent protection and market exclusivity. If we sue others for infringing our patents, a court may determine that such patents are invalid or unenforceable. Even if the validity of our patent rights is upheld by a court, a court may not prevent the alleged infringement of our patent rights on the grounds that such activity is not covered by our patent claims.

In addition, third parties may sue us for infringing their patents. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to:

If required, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain such licenses on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are sued for infringement, we could encounter substantial delays in development, manufacture and commercialization of our product candidates. Any litigation, whether to enforce our patent rights or to defend against allegations that we infringe third party rights, will be costly, time consuming, and may distract management from other important tasks.

10

We also rely in our business on trade secrets, know-how and other proprietary information. We seek to protect this information, in part, through the use of confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants, advisors and others. Nonetheless, we cannot assure you that those agreements will provide adequate protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information and prevent their unauthorized use or disclosure. To the extent that consultants, key employees or other third parties apply technological information independently developed by them or by others to our proposed products, disputes may arise as to the proprietary rights to such information, which may not be resolved in our favor.

We face intense competition.

Competition in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is intense. We face, and will continue to face, competition from numerous companies that currently market, or are developing, products for the treatment of the diseases and disorders we have targeted. Many of these entities have significantly greater research and development capabilities, experience in obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing, marketing, financial and managerial resources than we have. We also compete with universities and other research institutions in the development of products, technologies and processes, as well as the recruitment of highly qualified personnel. Our competitors may succeed in developing technologies or products that are more effective than the ones we have under development or that render our proposed products or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our competitors may achieve product commercialization or patent protection earlier than we will.

Healthcare reform and restrictions on reimbursements may limit our financial returns.

Our ability or the ability of our collaborators to commercialize drug products, if any, may depend in part on the extent to which government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will reimburse consumers for the cost of these products. These third parties are increasingly challenging both the need for and the price of new drug products. Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third party reimbursement may not be available for our own or our collaborator’s drug products to enable us or them to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on their and our investments in research and product development.

We may not be able to retain our key management and scientific personnel.

As a company with a limited number of personnel, we are highly dependent on the services of our executive management and scientific staff, in particular Sunil Bhonsle and Marc Rubin, our President and Executive Chairman, respectively, and our Executive Vice President and Chief Development Officer, all of whom are parties to employment agreements with us. The loss of one or more of such individuals could substantially impair ongoing research and development programs and could hinder our ability to obtain corporate partners. Our success depends in large part upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified personnel. We compete in our hiring efforts with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as universities and nonprofit research organizations, and we may not be successful in our efforts to attract and retain personnel.

Our stock price has been and will likely continue to be volatile.

Our stock price has experienced substantial fluctuations and could continue to fluctuate significantly due to a number of factors, including:

11

Our common stock is deemed to be a “penny stock,” which may make it more difficult for investors to sell their shares due to suitability requirements.

Our common stock is subject to Rule 15g-1 through 15g-9 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), which imposes certain sales practice requirements on broker-dealers which sell our common stock to persons other than established customers and “accredited investors” (generally, individuals with a net worth in excess of $1,000,000 or annual incomes exceeding $200,000 (or $300,000 together with their spouses)). For transactions covered by this rule, a broker-dealer must make a special suitability determination for the purchaser and have received the purchaser’s written consent to the transaction prior to the sale. This rule adversely affects the ability of broker-dealers to sell our common stock and the ability of our stockholders to sell their shares of common stock.

Additionally, our common stock is subject to the SEC regulations for “penny stock.” Penny stock includes any equity security that is not listed on a national exchange and has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions. The regulations require that prior to any non-exempt buy/sell transaction in a penny stock, a disclosure schedule set forth by the SEC relating to the penny stock market must be delivered to the purchaser of such penny stock. This disclosure must include the amount of commissions payable to both the broker-dealer and the registered representative and current price quotations for the common stock. The regulations also require that monthly statements be sent to holders of penny stock that disclose recent price information for the penny stock and information of the limited market for penny stocks. These requirements adversely affect the market liquidity of our common stock.

Our net operating losses and research and development tax credits may not be available to reduce future federal and state income tax payments.

At December 31, 2011, we had federal net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards of $220.9 million and $7.6 million, respectively, and state net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards of $147.2 million and $7.4 million, respectively. Current federal and state tax laws include substantial restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss and tax credits in the event of an ownership change. We have performed a change of ownership analysis through December 31, 2011 and, accordingly, all of our net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards are available to offset future taxable income, if any.

Our stockholder rights plan may discourage or prevent a potential takeover, even if such a transaction would be beneficial to our stockholders.

In December 2011, our board of directors adopted a stockholder rights plan which provides for the potential issuance of dilutive junior preferred stock in the event of the acquisition or proposed acquisition of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock, which acquisition has not been approved by our board of directors.

While we believe that our stockholder rights plan enables our board of directors to maximize stockholder value, it may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control, even under circumstances that some stockholders may consider beneficial.

12

Our executive offices are located in approximately 9,255 square feet of office space in South San Francisco, California that we occupy under a three-year operating lease expiring in June 2013.

We are currently not a party to any material legal or administrative proceedings and are not aware of any pending or threatened legal or administrative proceedings against us.

13

PART II

(a) Price Range of Securities

From December 2008 to June 2010, our common stock was quoted on the OTC Pink Sheets system maintained by Pink OTC Markets Inc. under the symbol TTNP.PK. The Pink Sheets market is extremely limited and any prices quoted may not have been a reliable indication of the value of our common stock. Since June 2, 2010, our common stock has been quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol TTNP.OB.

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock as reported by the Pink OTC Markets Inc. and OTC Bulletin Board, as applicable. The quotations reflect inter-dealer prices without retail markups, markdowns, or commissions and may not represent actual transactions. For current price information, stockholders are urged to consult publicly available sources.

(b) Approximate Number of Equity Security Holders

As of March 9, 2012, there were approximately 142 record holders of our common stock.

(c) Dividends

We have never paid a cash dividend on our common stock and anticipate that for the foreseeable future any earnings will be retained for use in our business and, accordingly, do not anticipate the payment of cash dividends.

14

Performance Graph

The information contained in the Performance Graph shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or “filed” with the SEC or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into a document filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the Exchange Act.

The following graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock with the cumulative total stockholder return of (i) the AMEX Market Index, and (ii) a peer group index consisting of companies reporting under the Standard Industrial Classification Code 2834 (Pharmaceutical Preparations). The graph assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2006 and assumes dividends reinvested. Measurement points are at the last trading day of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The stock price performance on the following graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

COMPARE CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN

AMONG TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AMEX MARKET INDEX AND

SIC CODE INDEX

15

The selected financial data presented below summarizes certain financial data which has been derived from and should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the section beginning on page F-1. See also “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

16

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements in the following discussion and throughout this report that are not historical in nature are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “intend,” “believe,” and similar expressions. Although we believe the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements are inherently subject to risk and we can give no assurances that our expectations will prove to be correct. Actual results could differ from those described in this report because of numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include, without limitation, those described under Item 1A “Risk Factors.” We undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report or to reflect actual outcomes. Please see “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Overview

Our principal asset is Probuphine™, the first slow release implant formulation of buprenorphine, designed to maintain a stable, round the clock blood level of the medicine in patients for six months following a single treatment. Daily treatment of opioid dependence with sublingual buprenorphine formulations is over a $1 billion market in the U.S., and a transdermal formulation of buprenorphine for the treatment of chronic pain entered the U.S. market in 2011. Probuphine is being developed for the treatment of opioid dependence with the potential to enhance patient compliance to medication, and limit diversion and accidental use of the daily dosed formulations. In October 2011, we had a Pre-New Drug Application meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) that provided clear guidance on the requirements for submitting a New Drug Application (“NDA”). The clinical development program is now complete and preparation of the NDA is in process. At the request of the FDA, we are conducting additional analytical testing of the ethylene vinyl acetate (an inactive co-polymer in Probuphine) and the final product, Probuphine, in order to complete full characterization and establish ‘in-use’ stability. We have also commenced a program with our contract manufacturer to scale-up the manufacturing process for commercial production. We expect to complete these steps and be in a position to submit the NDA in the third quarter of 2012. Our goal is to enter into one or more partnerships with capable pharmaceutical companies to commercialize Probuphine in the U.S. and foreign markets, as well as to potentially develop the product for the treatment of chronic pain.

Probuphine is the first product to utilize ProNeura™, our novel, proprietary, long-term drug delivery technology. Our ProNeura technology has the potential to be used in developing products for the treatment of other chronic conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, where maintaining stable, round the clock blood levels of a drug can benefit the patient and improve medical outcomes.

Under a sublicense agreement with Novartis Pharma AG (“Novartis”), we are entitled to royalty revenue of 8-10% of net sales of Fanapt^® (iloperidone), an atypical antipsychotic compound being marketed in the U.S. by Novartis for the treatment of schizophrenia, based on a licensed U.S. patent that expires in April 2017 (inclusive of a six month pediatric extension). During 2011, we entered into several agreements with Deerfield Management (“Deerfield”), a healthcare investment fund, in which we agreed to pay most of this future royalty stream to Deerfield and have been using the proceeds to advance the development of Probuphine and for general corporate purposes. We have retained a portion of the royalty revenue from net sales of Fanapt in excess of specified annual threshold levels; however, based on sales levels to date, it is unlikely that we will receive any revenue from Fanapt in the next several years, if ever.

17

Critical Accounting Policies and the Use of Estimates

The preparation of our financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates. We believe the following accounting policies for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 to be applicable:

Revenue Recognition

We generate revenue principally from royalty payments, collaborative research and development arrangements, technology licenses, and government grants. Consideration received for revenue arrangements with multiple components is allocated among the separate units of accounting based on their respective selling prices. The selling price for each unit is based on vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, if available, third party evidence if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor third party evidence is available. The applicable revenue recognition criteria are then applied to each of the units.

Revenue is recognized when the four basic criteria of revenue recognition are met: (1) a contractual agreement exists; (2) transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (4) collectibility is reasonably assured. For each source of revenue, we comply with the above revenue recognition criteria in the following manner:

18

Share-Based Payments

We recognize compensation expense for all share-based awards made to employees and directors. The fair value of share-based awards is estimated at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized as expense, net of estimated pre-vesting forfeitures, ratably over the vesting period of the award. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value method of our awards. Calculating stock-based compensation expense requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the expected term of the share-based awards, stock price volatility, and pre-vesting forfeitures. We estimate the expected term of stock options granted for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 based on the historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual terms of the share-based awards, vesting schedules and the expectations of future employee behavior. We estimate the volatility of our common stock at the date of grant based on the historical volatility of our common stock. The assumptions used in calculating the fair value of stock-based awards represent our best estimates, but these estimates involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management judgment. As a result, if factors change and we use different assumptions, our stock-based compensation expense could be materially different in the future. In addition, we are required to estimate the expected pre-vesting forfeiture rate and only recognize expense for those shares expected to vest. We estimate the pre-vesting forfeiture rate based on historical experience. If our actual forfeiture rate is materially different from our estimate, our stock-based compensation expense could be significantly different from what we have recorded in the current period.

Income Taxes

We make certain estimates and judgments in determining income tax expense for financial statement purposes. These estimates and judgments occur in the calculation of certain tax assets and liabilities, which arise from differences in the timing of recognition of revenue and expense for tax and financial statement purposes.

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. This process involves us estimating our current tax exposure under the most recent tax laws and assessing temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of items for tax and accounting purposes.

We assess the likelihood that we will be able to recover our deferred tax assets. We consider all available evidence, both positive and negative, expectations and risks associated with estimates of future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for a valuation allowance. If it is not more likely than not that we will recover our deferred tax assets, we will increase our provision for taxes by recording a valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets that we estimate will not ultimately be recoverable.

Clinical Trial Accrual

We also record accruals for estimated ongoing clinical trial costs. Clinical trial costs represent costs incurred by clinical research organizations, (“CROs”), and clinical sites. These costs are recorded as a component of research and development expenses. Under our agreements, progress payments are typically made to investigators, clinical sites and CROs. We analyze the progress of the clinical trials, including levels of patient enrollment, invoices received and contracted costs when evaluating the adequacy of accrued liabilities. Significant judgments and estimates must be made and used in determining the accrued balance in any accounting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates under different assumptions. Revisions are charged to expense in the period in which the facts that give rise to the revision become known. The actual clinical trial costs for the Probuphine studies conducted in the past three years have not differed materially from the estimated projection of expenses.

19

Warrants Issued in Connection with Equity Financing

We generally account for warrants issued in connection with equity financings as a component of equity, unless there is a deemed possibility that we may have to settle warrants in cash. For warrants issued with deemed possibility of cash settlement, we record the fair value of the issued warrants as a liability at each reporting period and record changes in the estimated fair value as a non-cash gain or loss in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We have funded our operations since inception primarily through sales of our securities, as well as with proceeds from warrant and option exercises, corporate licensing and collaborative agreements, and government-sponsored research. At December 31, 2011, we had approximately $5.4 million of cash compared to approximately $3.2 million at December 31, 2010.

Our operating activities used approximately $14.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2011. This consisted primarily of the net loss for the period of approximately $15.2 million, approximately $1.9 million related to net non-cash gains on changes in the fair value of warrants and approximately $1.4 million related to net changes in operating assets and liabilities. This was offset in part by approximately $2.8 million related to the non-cash interest expense on our long-term debt and royalty liability, non-cash charges of approximately $32,000 related to depreciation, and approximately $1.2 million related to stock-based compensation expenses. Uses of cash in operating activities were primarily to fund product development programs and administrative expenses. The license agreements with Sanofi-Aventis and MIT require us to pay royalties on future product sales. In addition, in order to maintain license and other rights while products are under development, we must comply with customary licensee obligations, including the payment of patent-related costs, annual minimum license fees, meeting project-funding milestones and diligent efforts in product development. The aggregate commitments we have under these agreements, including minimum license payments, for the next 12 months is approximately $34,000. See “Item 1. Business—License Agreements.”

Net cash used in investing activities of approximately $234,000 during the year ended December 31, 2011 consisted of approximately $236,000 related to purchases of equipment, which was offset in part by approximately $2,000 related to disposals of equipment.

Net cash provided by financing activities of approximately $16.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2011 consisted of approximately $16.5 million of net proceeds from the Deerfield transaction described below and proceeds of approximately $8.0 million received in exchange for substantially all of the remaining Fanapt royalties as described below. This was offset by payments of approximately $7.6 million to repay our outstanding indebtedness to Oxford.

On March 15, 2011, we entered into several agreements with entities affiliated with Deerfield pursuant to which Deerfield agreed to provide $20.0 million in funding to us. Funding occurred on April 5, 2011. Pursuant to

20

the terms of a facility agreement, we issued Deerfield promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $20.0 million. The long-term debt bears interest at 8.5% per annum, payable quarterly, and the long-term debt is repayable over five years, with 10% of the principal amount due on the first anniversary, 15% due on the second anniversary, and 25% due on each of the next three anniversaries. We paid Deerfield a facility fee of $0.5 million. The long-term debt is secured by our assets and has a provision for pre-payment. Deerfield has the right to have the long-term debt repaid at 110% of the principal amount in the event we complete a major transaction, which includes, but is not limited to, a merger or sale of our company or the sale of Fanapt or Probuphine. Under a royalty agreement, in exchange for $3.0 million that was recorded as royalty liability, we agreed to pay Deerfield 2.5% of the aggregate royalties on net sales of Fanapt, subsequent to the funding date, constituting a portion of the royalty revenue we receive from Novartis. The agreements with Deerfield also provide us with the option to repurchase the royalty rights for $40.0 million.

On April 5, 2011, we used approximately $7.6 million of proceeds from the Deerfield funding to repay Oxford in full, including required final payments aggregating $480,000.

On November 14, 2011, we entered into several agreements with Deerfield pursuant to which we agreed to provide a substantial portion of the remaining future royalties on the sales of Fanapt in exchange for $5.0 million in cash that was recorded as royalty liability, a $10.0 million reduction in the principal amount owed to Deerfield under the existing facility agreement and a revised principal repayment schedule of $2.5 million per year for four years commencing in April 2013 to retire the remaining long-term debt of $10.0 million. Deerfield is entitled to the balance of our portion of the royalties on Fanapt (5.5% to 7.5% of net sales, net of the 2.5% we previously agreed to pay to Deerfield) up to specified threshold levels of net sales of Fanapt and 40% of the royalties above the threshold level. We retain 60% of the royalties on net sales of Fanapt above the threshold levels, subject to an agreement that half of any such retained royalties will go towards repayment of our outstanding debt to Deerfield. Funding of the transaction took place on November 25, 2011.

We expect to continue to incur substantial additional operating losses from costs related to the continuation of research and development, clinical trials, the regulatory process, and administrative activities. We believe that our working capital at December 31, 2011, which includes the proceeds from the recent Deerfield transactions, is sufficient to fund our planned operations late into the second quarter of 2012, including the preparation of the Probuphine NDA. In the event we are unable to enter into a corporate partnership or licensing arrangement during this period that provides us with the funds required to complete the regulatory process and commercialize Probuphine, if approved, we will need to obtain additional financing, either through the sale of debt or equity securities, to continue our Probuphine program and other product development activities. If we are unable to complete a debt or equity offering, or otherwise obtain sufficient financing when and if needed, we may be required to reduce, defer or discontinue one or more of our product development activities.

The following table sets forth the aggregate contractual cash obligations as of December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

For a full discussion of risks and uncertainties regarding our need for additional financing, see “Risk Factors—We do not have the financial or other resources to complete the regulatory approval process or commercialize any product and may not be able to obtain the necessary financing and other resources.”

21

Results of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2011 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2010

Our net loss applicable to common stockholders for 2011 was approximately $15.2 million, or approximately $0.26 per share, compared to our net loss applicable to common stockholders of approximately $5.6 million, or approximately $0.09 per share, for 2010. Our net loss for 2011 includes a non-cash gain of $1.9 million resulting from changes in the fair value of warrants issued as part of the March 2011 Deerfield transaction.

We generated royalty revenues during 2011 of approximately $3.6 million compared to approximately $2.5 million during 2010. We generated grant revenues during 2011 of approximately $0.5 million compared to approximately $7.6 million during 2010. We generated no revenues from licensing agreements in 2011 compared to approximately $24,000 during 2010. Royalty revenues during 2011 and 2010 consisted of royalties on sales of Fanapt. Grant revenues during 2011 and 2010 consisted of proceeds from the NIH grants related to our Probuphine and ProNeura related programs.

Research and development expenses for 2011 were approximately $11.2 million compared to approximately $12.9 million in 2010, a decrease of approximately $1.7 million, or 13%. The decrease in research and development costs was primarily associated with a decrease in external research and development expenses related to the Phase 3 clinical trials of our Probuphine product which were completed in 2011. External research and development expenses include direct expenses such as clinical research organization charges, investigator and review board fees, patient expense reimbursements and contract manufacturing expenses. During 2011, our external research and development expenses relating to our Probuphine product development program were approximately $7.7 million compared to approximately $10.1 million for 2010. Other research and development expenses include internal operating costs such as clinical research and development personnel-related expenses, clinical trials-related travel expenses, and allocation of facility and corporate costs. As a result of the risks and uncertainties inherently associated with pharmaceutical research and development activities described elsewhere in this report, we are unable to estimate the specific timing and future costs of our clinical development programs or the timing of material cash inflows, if any, from our products or product candidates.

General and administrative expenses for 2011 were approximately $3.4 million, compared to approximately $3.3 million in 2010, an increase of approximately $0.1 million, or 3%. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily related to increases in non-cash stock compensation costs of approximately $0.3 million, employee-related costs of approximately $0.3 million, marketing-related costs of approximately $0.2 million . This was offset in part by decreases in legal fees of approximately $0.3 million, consulting and professional fees of approximately $0.3 million, and facilities-related costs of $0.1 million.

Net other expense for 2011 was approximately $4.7 million, compared to approximately $0.8 million in 2010. The increase in net other expense during 2011 was primarily related to interest expense of approximately $6.2 million on the Deerfield long-term debt and $0.2 million of interest expense related to the Oxford loans. This was offset in part by a $1.9 million non-cash gain related to decreases in the fair value of the Deerfield warrants.

Year Ended December 31, 2010 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2009

Our net loss applicable to common stockholders for 2010 was approximately $5.6 million, or approximately $0.09 per share, compared to our net loss applicable to common stockholders of approximately $5.9 million, or approximately $0.10 per share, for 2009. Our net loss for 2010 includes a non-cash gain of $1.2 million resulting from the retirement of preferred stock upon dissolution of Ingenex, Inc., our majority-owned subsidiary.

We generated royalty revenues during 2010 of approximately $2.5 million. We had no royalty revenue during 2009. We generated grant revenues during 2010 of approximately $7.6 million. We had no grant revenue during 2009. We generated revenues of $24,000 from licensing agreements in 2010 compared to approximately $79,000

22

during 2009. Royalty revenues during 2010 consisted of royalties on sales of Fanapt. Grant revenues during 2010 consisted of proceeds from the NIH grants related to our Probuphine and ProNeura related programs.

Research and development expenses for 2010 were approximately $12.9 million compared to approximately $2.5 million in 2009, an increase of approximately $10.4 million, or 416%. The increase in research and development costs was primarily associated with an increase in external research and development expenses related to the initiation and ongoing expenses of the Phase 3 clinical trials related to our Probuphine product. External research and development expenses include direct expenses such as clinical research organization charges, investigator and review board fees, patient expense reimbursements and contract manufacturing expenses. During 2010, our external research and development expenses relating to our Probuphine product development program were approximately $10.1 million compared to approximately $0.7 million for 2009. Other research and development expenses include internal operating costs such as clinical research and development personnel-related expenses, clinical trials-related travel expenses, and allocation of facility and corporate costs. As a result of the risks and uncertainties inherently associated with pharmaceutical research and development activities described elsewhere in this report, we are unable to estimate the specific timing and future costs of our clinical development programs or the timing of material cash inflows, if any, from our products or product candidates.

General and administrative expenses for 2010 were approximately $3.3 million, compared to approximately $3.4 million in 2009, a decrease of approximately $0.1 million, or 3%. The decrease in general and administrative expenses was primarily related to decreases in non-cash stock compensation costs of approximately $0.7 million and facilities-related costs of $0.5 million. This was offset in part by increases in employee-related costs of approximately $0.2 million, legal fees of approximately $0.5 million, and consulting and professional fees of approximately $0.3 million.

Net other expense for 2010 was approximately $0.8 million compared to approximately $71,000 in 2009. Net other expense in 2010 consisted primarily of interest expense of approximately $0.7 million and loan fees of approximately $0.1 million resulting from our loans with Oxford and tax-related expenses of approximately $6,000. Net other expense in 2009 consisted primarily of financing-related expenses of approximately $60,000, interest expense of approximately $9,000 and tax-related expenses of approximately $10,000 offset by interest income of approximately $2,000 and net gain of approximately $6,000 resulting from the sale of certain assets.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have never entered into any off-balance sheet financing arrangements and we have never established any special purpose entities. We have not guaranteed any debt or commitments of other entities or entered into any options on non-financial assets.

We held no marketable securities at December 31, 2011 and 2010.

The response to this item is included in a separate section of this Report. See “Index to Consolidated Financial Statements” on Page F-1.

None.

(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures: Our principal executive and financial officers reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act

23

Rule 13a-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based on that evaluation, our principal executive and financial officers concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective in timely providing them with material information relating to the Company, as required to be disclosed in the reports we file under the Exchange Act.

(b) Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting:

Internal control over financial reporting refers to the process designed by, or under the supervision of, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and effected by our board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and includes those policies and procedures that:

(1) Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;

(2) Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorization of our management and directors; and

(3) Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisitions, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Internal control over financial reporting cannot provide absolute assurance of achieving financial reporting objectives because of its inherent limitations. Internal control over financial reporting is a process that involves human diligence and compliance and is subject to lapses in judgment and breakdowns resulting from human failures. Internal control over financial reporting also can be circumvented by collusion or improper management overrides. Due to such limitations, there is a risk that material misstatements may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by internal control over financial reporting. However, these inherent limitations are known features of the financial reporting process. Therefore, it is possible to design into the process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this risk. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the company.

Management has used the framework set forth in the report entitled Internal Control—Integrated Framework published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, known as COSO, to evaluate the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Based on this assessment, management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2011.

The attestation report concerning the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011 issued by OUM & Co., LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, appears in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

(c) Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting: There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13(a)-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f) under the Securities Act of 1934) during our most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

24

PART III

Set forth below are the name, age and position and a brief account of the business experience of each of our executive officers and directors:

Marc Rubin, M.D. served as our President and Chief Executive from October 2007 until December 2008 and was re-engaged as our Executive Chairman in May 2009. Until February 2007, Dr. Rubin served as Head of Global Research and Development for Bayer Schering Pharma, as well as a member of the Executive Committee of Bayer Healthcare and the Board of Management of Bayer Schering Pharma. Prior to the merger of Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Schering AG in June 2006, Dr. Rubin was a member of the Executive Board of Schering AG since joining the Company in October 2003, as well as Chairman of Schering Berlin Inc. and President of Berlex Pharmaceuticals, a division of Schering AG. From 1990 until August 2003, Dr. Rubin was employed by GlaxoSmithKline where he held positions of increasing responsibility in global clinical and commercial development overseeing programs in the United States, Europe, Asia and Latin America. From 2001 through 2003, he was Senior Vice President of Global Clinical Pharmacology & Discovery Medicine. Dr. Rubin holds an M.D. from Cornell University Medical College. Dr. Rubin currently serves on the board of directors of Curis Inc. and Galectin Therapeutics.

Sunil Bhonsle served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from September 1995 until December 2008 and was re-engaged as our President in May 2009. Mr. Bhonsle served in various positions, including Vice President and General Manager—Plasma Supply and Manager—Inventory and Technical Planning, at Bayer Corporation from July 1975 until April 1995. Mr. Bhonsle holds an M.B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley and a B.Tech. in chemical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology.

Victor J. Bauer, Ph.D. serves as the Executive Vice President of Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company he co-founded in January 2004. From February 1997 through March 2003, Dr. Bauer was employed by Titan, most recently as our Executive Director of Corporate Development. From April 1996 until its merger into Titan, Dr. Bauer also served as a director and Chairman of Theracell. From December 1992 until February 1997, Dr. Bauer was a self-employed consultant to companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Prior to that time, Dr. Bauer was with Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals Inc., where he served as President from 1988 through 1992.

Eurelio M. Cavalier was employed in various capacities by Eli Lilly & Co. from 1958 until his retirement in 1994, serving as Vice President Sales from 1976 to 1982 and Group Vice President U.S. Pharmaceutical Business Unit from 1982 to 1993.

25

Hubert E. Huckel, M.D. served in various positions with The Hoechst Group from 1964 until his retirement in December 1992. At the time of his retirement, Dr. Huckel was Chairman of the Board of Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chairman and President of Hoechst-Roussel Agri-Vet Company and a member of the Executive Committee of Hoechst Celanese Corporation. He currently serves on the board of directors of Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

M. David MacFarlane, Ph.D. served as Vice President and Responsible Head of Regulatory Affairs of Genentech, Inc. from 1989 until his retirement in August 1999. Prior to joining Genentech, Inc., he served in various positions with Glaxo Inc., last as Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

Ley S. Smith served in various positions with The Upjohn Company and Pharmacia & Upjohn from 1958 until his retirement in November 1997. From 1991 to 1993 he served as Vice Chairman of the Board of The Upjohn Company, and from 1993 to 1995 he was President and Chief Operating Officer of The Upjohn Company. At the time of his retirement, Mr. Smith was Executive Vice President of Pharmacia & Upjohn, and President of Pharmacia & Upjohn’s U.S. Pharma Product Center.

As indicated above, each of our directors has extensive management and operational experience in one or more facets of the pharmaceutical industry, including research, product development, clinical and regulatory affairs, manufacturing and sales and marketing, providing our company with the leadership needed by a biotechnology company in all stages of its development.

Directors serve until the next annual meeting or until their successors are elected and qualified. Officers serve at the discretion of the board of directors, subject to rights, if any, under contracts of employment. See “Item 6. Executive Compensation—Employment Agreements.”

Board Leadership Structure

Currently, our principal executive officer and chairman of the board positions are held separately by Sunil Bhonsle and Marc Rubin, respectively.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), requires our executive officers, directors and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our common stock and other equity securities. Such executive officers, directors, and greater than 10% beneficial owners are required by SEC regulation to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms filed by such reporting persons.

Based solely on our review of such forms furnished to us and written representations from certain reporting persons, we believe that all filing requirements applicable to our executive officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners were complied with during 2011, except for one transaction on Form 4, which was inadvertently reported late by a former director.

Code of Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code”) that applies to our directors, officers and employees, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (our principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer, respectively). The Code was filed as Exhibit 14 to our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 and has been incorporated by reference into this annual report. A written copy of the Code will be provided upon request at no charge by writing to our Chief Financial Officer, Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 505, South San Francisco, California 94080.

26

Changes in Director Nomination Process for Stockholders

None.

Formation of Audit Committee and Financial Expert

The Audit Committee (which is formed in compliance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) consists of Ley S. Smith, M. David MacFarlane, Victor J. Bauer and Hubert E. Huckel, each of whom meets the independence requirements and standards currently established by the NYSE Amex (formerly the American Stock Exchange) and the SEC. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Ley Smith is an “audit committee financial expert” and “independent” as defined under the relevant rules of the SEC and the NYSE Amex.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the following discussion and analysis of our executive compensation included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based on such review and discussion with management, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the following disclosure be included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Compensation Committee:

Eurelio M. Cavalier

Hubert E. Huckel

Victor J. Bauer

Overview

During 2009, 2010 and 2011, our organization structure has continued to evolve to support our operations following the adverse events we experienced in 2008 in connection with our iloperidone (Fanapt) and Spheramine development programs that negatively impacted our financial position and the market price of our common stock.

To conserve capital, in December 2008 we effected an approximately 90% reduction in our workforce in order to reduce operations to the minimal level necessary to enable us to continue our efforts to realize the potential value of our assets, particularly the Probuphine program. As part of the reduction plan, Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle entered into separation agreements pursuant to which they ended their employment relationships with us but agreed to assist us during the next six months, as needed, in connection with the aforementioned efforts. Robert Farrell, Chief Financial Officer, assumed the role of President pursuant to the terms of a retention agreement. Accordingly, at the beginning of 2009, we had three employees, including Mr. Farrell who served as our sole executive officer. In April 2009, we terminated Mr. Farrell’s employment and Mr. Bhonsle, a board member, stepped in as our interim President.

In May 2009, following the FDA’s approval of Fanapt, our board recommended the rehiring of certain of our former officers, including Dr. Rubin, who agreed to serve as our Executive Chairman, and Sunil Bhonsle, who assumed the role of President. Their compensation packages were structured by our Compensation Committee with minimal or no base salary, payment of which was also deferred to help maximize our limited cash resources, and to return the executives to an equity position comparable to that which existed prior to their termination five months earlier.

27

During 2010 and 2011, Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle continued as our Executive Chairman and President, respectively, with compensation packages structured to reflect our current level of operations and resources. This compensation discussion describes the material elements of compensation awarded to, earned by, or paid to each of our executive officers who served as named executive officers during the year ended December 31, 2011. This compensation discussion focuses on the information contained in the following tables and related footnotes and narrative for primarily the last completed fiscal year; however, in light of the material changes in our operations and management team described above and elsewhere in this Form 10-K, we also describe compensation actions taken before or after the last completed fiscal year to the extent it enhances the understanding of our executive compensation disclosure.

Compensation Program Objectives and Philosophy

Our Compensation Committee currently oversees the design and administration of our executive compensation program. It reviews and approves all elements of compensation for each of our named executive officers taking into consideration recommendations from our principal executive officer (for compensation other than his own), as well as competitive market guidance. We define our competitive markets for executive talent to be the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries in northern California. To date, we have utilized the Radford Biotechnology Surveys, a third party market specific compensation survey, and, when applicable, other independent third-party compensation consultants to benchmark our executive compensation.

The principal elements of our executive compensation program have historically been base salary, annual cash incentives, long-term equity incentives in the form of stock options, other benefits and perquisites, post-termination severance and acceleration of stock option vesting for certain named executive officers upon termination and/or a change in control. Our other benefits and perquisites have consisted of life, health and disability insurance benefits, and a qualified 401(k) savings plan. Our philosophy has been to position the aggregate of these elements at a level that is competitive within the industry and commensurate with our size and performance. During 2011, our compensation philosophy has evolved to accommodate our changing circumstances, operational needs and limited financial resources during this period.

During 2009, our operations were initially focused on winding down the company while maximizing the value that could be returned to the shareholders. Subsequently, following the approval of Fanapt by the FDA in May 2009, we focused on efforts to realize maximum shareholder value from both Fanapt and Probuphine, while limiting expenses to stay within the available cash resources. Accordingly, our Compensation Committee implemented a compensation plan which substantially limited the base salary while providing additional potential earnings through stock option awards.

During 2011 and 2010, our operations continued to focus on efforts to realize maximum shareholder value from both Fanapt and resumed activities associated with our Probuphine development program. Accordingly, our Compensation Committee implemented a compensation plan which provides base salary and potential earnings through stock option and restricted stock awards.

Base Salaries

During 2011, the base salary of our named executives was reflective of the availability of resources and level of continuing operations. As a result of an amendment to his employment agreement, effective January 1, 2011, Dr. Rubin began receiving an annual salary of $210,000 and Mr. Bhonsle continues to receive an annual salary of $300,000 through December 31, 2012, at which time we expect to have new compensation arrangements in place. In the event new compensation arrangements with Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle have not been determined prior to December 31, 2012, Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle will either (i) make a determination to continue their employment at their then existing respective compensation levels or (ii) terminate their employment arrangements with the Company. See “Employment Agreements” below.

28

During 2010, the base salary of our named executives was reflective of the availability of resources and level of continuing operations. Dr. Rubin did not receive a cash salary during 2010. As a result of an amendment to his employment agreement, effective March 1, 2010, Mr. Bhonsle’s base annual salary was set at $300,000, essentially his 2008 level.

During 2009, the base salary of the named executives was reflective of the limited availability of funds and the reduced level of operations. Accordingly, Mr. Farrell, President and CFO from January to April 2009 accepted an approximately 25% reduction in base salary from his prior year’s base salary. Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle, whose employment was terminated in December 2008, received lump sum severance payments of approximately $384,000 and $277,000, respectively, in January 2009 and continued to provide services in support of winding down the operations. Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle have indicated that such services were undertaken in their roles as directors of Titan and that we did not owe them any consulting fees for work performed prior to their re-employment in May 2009, except for the time during which Mr. Bhonsle assumed the role of Acting President during the months of April and May 2009 for which he was paid approximately $12,400. Following the approval of Fanapt by the FDA, both Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle executed employment agreements pursuant to which, through February 28, 2010, Dr. Rubin was engaged as Executive Chairman with no base salary and Mr. Bhonsle was confirmed as our President with a base salary of $ 200,000 per year, an approximately 33% reduction from the prior year, payment of which was deferred until February 2010.

As we continue to evaluate the strategic alternatives for us going forward and our related human resource requirements, our Compensation Committee will continue to review appropriate base salaries for our executive officers. In making its determination, the Compensation Committee will consider the time commitment necessary and the roles our executives will play in implementing our plans. It is not anticipated that base salaries for the balance of 2012, assuming full time employment for each of them, will be increased materially beyond their current levels.

Long-term Equity Incentives

We provide the opportunity for our named executive officers and other executives to earn a long-term equity incentive award. Long-term incentive awards provide employees with the incentive to stay with us for longer periods of time, which in turn, provides us with greater stability. Equity awards also are less costly to us in the short term than cash compensation. We review long-term equity incentives for our named executive officers and other executives annually.

Historically, for our named executive officers, our stock option grants were of a size and term determined and approved by the Compensation Committee in consideration of the range of grants in the Radford Survey, generally falling within the 50-75% range outlined in the survey. We have traditionally used stock options as our form of equity compensation because stock options provide a relatively straightforward incentive for our executives, result in less immediate dilution of existing shareholders’ interests and, prior to our adoption of FAS 123(R), resulted in less compensation expense for us relative to other types of equity awards. Generally, all grants of stock options to our employees were granted with exercise prices equal to or greater than the fair market value of our common stock on the respective grant dates. For a discussion of the determination of the fair market value of these grants, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and the Use of Estimates.”

29

We do not time stock option grants to executives in coordination with the release of material non-public information. Our stock option grants have a 10-year contractual exercise term. In general, the option grants are also subject to the following post-termination and change in control provisions:

The vesting of certain of our named executive officers’ stock options is accelerated pursuant to the terms of their employment agreements in certain change in control or other material events. These terms are more fully described in “—Employment Agreements” and “—Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control.”

Upon termination of employment of Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle in December 2008, all prior stock option grants ceased further vesting and the vested stock options continued to be available for exercise while they remained members of the board of directors. Prior stock option grants awarded to Mr. Farrell, who continued as the President and Chief Financial Officer until April 2009, continued to vest during the term of his employment and the vested stock options subsequently expired unexercised 90 days following termination of his employment.

At the time of re-engagement of Dr. Rubin as Executive Chairman in May 2009, he was awarded a stock option grant of 1,000,000 shares with immediate vesting of 25% of the grant and the remainder to vest monthly over four years. This was the only compensation provided to Dr. Rubin during 2009. During 2010, Dr. Rubin was awarded 36,000 and 82,800 shares of restricted stock in May and July 2010, respectively. These awards vested over four and six month periods with all restricted shares fully vested by December 31, 2010. Similarly, upon the confirmation of Mr. Bhonsle as the President, he was awarded a stock option grant to purchase 700,000 shares of common stock with immediate vesting of 25% and the remainder to vest monthly over four years. During 2011, Dr. Rubin was awarded a stock option grant to purchase 150,000 shares of common stock with the vesting of 25% after six months and the remainder to vest monthly over the following 18 months. During 2011, Mr. Bhonsle was awarded a stock option grant to purchase 200,000 shares of common stock with the vesting of 25% after six months and the remainder to vest monthly over the following 18 months.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

Members of our Compensation Committee of the board of directors were Mr. Eurelio M. Cavalier, Dr. Hubert E. Huckel and Victor J. Bauer. No member of our Compensation Committee was, or has been, an officer or employee of Titan or any of our subsidiaries, except for Victor J. Bauer, who was employed by Titan from February 1997 through March 2003 as our Executive Director of Corporate Development and from April 1996 until its merger into Titan, Dr. Bauer also served as a Director and Chairman of Theracell.

No member of the Compensation Committee has a relationship that would constitute an interlocking relationship with executive officers or directors of the Company or another entity.

30

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table shows information concerning the annual compensation for services provided to us by our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and our other executive officers for the periods set forth.

For a description of the material terms of employment agreements with our current and former named executive officers, see “—Employment Agreements.”

31

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

Employee Benefits Plans

The principal purpose of our stock incentive plans is to attract, motivate, reward and retain selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards. The stock option plans provides for a variety of awards, including non-qualified stock options, incentive stock options (within the meaning of Section 422 of the Code), stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards, performance-based awards and other stock-based awards.

2002 Stock Incentive Plan

In July 2002, we adopted the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, or the 2002 Plan. The 2002 Plan assumed the options which remain available for grant under our option plans previously approved by stockholders. Under the 2002 Plan and predecessor plans, a total of approximately 7.4 million shares of our common stock were authorized for issuance to employees, officers, directors, consultants, and advisers. Options granted under the 2002 Plan and predecessor plans may either be incentive stock options within the meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code and/or options that do not qualify as incentive stock options; however, only employees are eligible to receive incentive stock options. Options granted under the option plans generally expire no later than ten years from the date of grant, except when the grantee is a 10% shareholder, in which case the maximum term is five years from the date of grant. Options generally vest at the rate of one fourth after one year from the date of grant and the remainder ratably over the subsequent three years, although options with different vesting terms are granted from time-to-time. Generally, the exercise price of any options granted under the 2002 Plan must be at least 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant, except when the grantee is a 10% shareholder, in which case the exercise price shall be at least 110% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant.

In August 2005, we adopted an amendment to the 2002 Plan to (i) permit the issuance of shares of restricted stock and stock appreciation rights to participants under the 2002 Plan, and (ii) increase the number of shares issuable pursuant to grants under the 2002 Plan from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

2001 Stock Option Plan

In August 2001, we adopted the 2001 Employee Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, or the 2001 NQ Plan, pursuant to which 1,750,000 shares of common stock were authorized for issuance for option grants to employees and consultants who are not officers or directors of Titan. Options granted under the option plans generally expire no later than ten years from the date of grant. Option vesting schedule and exercise price are determined at time of grant by the board of directors. Generally, the exercise prices of options granted under the 2001 NQ Plan were 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. The 2001 Stock Option Plan expired in August 2011.

32

General

Set forth below is information regarding the 2002 Plan and the 2001 NQ Plan, which we refer to herein collectively as the Stock Option Plans.

Administration. The Stock Option Plans are administered by our Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee may in certain circumstances delegate certain of its duties to one or more of our officers. The Compensation Committee has the power to interpret the Stock Option Plans and to adopt rules for the administration, interpretation and application of the plans according to their terms.

Grant of Awards; Shares Available for Awards. Certain employees, consultants and directors are eligible to be granted awards under the plans. The Compensation Committee will determine who will receive awards under the plans, as well as the form of the awards, the number of shares underlying the awards, and the terms and conditions of the awards consistent with the terms of the plans.

A total of approximately 9.1 million shares of our common stock are available for issuance or delivery under our existing Stock Option Plans. The number of shares of our common stock issued or reserved pursuant to the Stock Option Plans will be adjusted at the discretion of our Board or the Compensation Committee as a result of stock splits, stock dividends and similar changes in our common stock. In addition, shares subject to grant under our prior option plans (including shares under such plans that expire unexercised or are forfeited, terminated, canceled or withheld for income tax withholding) shall be merged and available for issuance under the 2002 Stock Option Plan, without reducing the aggregate number of shares available for issuance reflected above.

Stock Options. The Stock Option Plans permit the Compensation Committee to grant participants incentive stock options, which qualify for special tax treatment in the United States, as well as non-qualified stock options. The Compensation Committee will establish the duration of each option at the time it is granted, with a maximum ten-year duration for incentive stock options, and may also establish vesting and performance requirements that must be met prior to the exercise of options. Stock option grants (other than incentive stock option grants) also may have exercise prices that are less than, equal to or greater than the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Incentive stock options must have an exercise price that is at least equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Stock option grants may include provisions that permit the option holder to exercise all or part of the holder’s vested options, or to satisfy withholding tax liabilities, by tendering shares of our common stock already owned by the option holder for at least six months (or another period consistent with the applicable accounting rules) with a fair market value equal to the exercise price.

Stock Appreciation Rights. The Compensation Committee may also grant stock appreciation rights, which will be exercisable upon the occurrence of certain contingent events. Stock appreciation rights entitle the holder upon exercise to receive an amount in any combination of cash, shares of our common stock (as determined by the Compensation Committee) equal in value to the excess of the fair market value of the shares covered by the stock appreciation right over the exercise price of the right, or other securities or property owned by us.

Other Equity-Based Awards. In addition to stock options and stock appreciation rights, the Compensation Committee may also grant certain employees, consultants and directors shares of restricted stock, with terms and conditions as the Compensation Committee may, pursuant to the terms of the Stock Option Plan, establish. The Stock Option Plan does not allow awards to be made under terms and conditions which would cause such awards to be treated as deferred compensation subject to the rules of Section 409A of the Code.

Change-in-Control Provisions. In connection with the grant of an award, the Compensation Committee may provide that, in the event of a change in control, any outstanding awards that are unexercisable or otherwise unvested will become fully vested and immediately exercisable.

33

Amendment and Termination. The Compensation Committee may adopt, amend and rescind rules relating to the administration of the Stock Option Plans, and amend, suspend or terminate the Stock Option Plans, but no amendment will be made that adversely affects in a material manner any rights of the holder of any award without the holder’s consent, other than amendments that are necessary to permit the granting of awards in compliance with applicable laws. We have attempted to structure the Stock Option Plans so that remuneration attributable to stock options and other awards will not be subject to a deduction limitation contained in Section 162(m) of the Code.

34

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END

The following table summarizes the number of securities underlying outstanding plan awards for each named executive officer as of December 31, 2011.

No options were exercised by our named executive officers during 2011.

Pension Benefits

We do not sponsor any qualified or non-qualified defined benefit plans.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

We do not maintain any non-qualified defined contribution or deferred compensation plans. The Compensation Committee, which is comprised solely of “outside directors” as defined for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code, may elect to provide our officers and other employees with non-qualified defined contribution or deferred compensation benefits if the Compensation Committee determines that doing so is in our best interests. We sponsor a tax qualified defined contribution 401(k) plan in which Dr. Rubin, Dr. Bucalo, Mr. Bhonsle, and Mr. Farrell participated.

35

Employment Agreements

Marc Rubin

In October 2007, we entered into an employment agreement with Marc Rubin (the “First Rubin Agreement”) in connection with his joining our company as President and Chief Executive Officer. The First Rubin Agreement provided for an annual salary of $415,000 and an annual discretionary bonus of 0-50% based on the achievement of individual and company performance goals to be established by Dr. Rubin in consultation with senior management and approved by our board of directors. Upon joining Titan, Dr. Rubin received options to acquire 1,500,000 shares of our common stock that were to vest monthly over a four-year period, subject to a requirement of at least 12 months of employment for the vesting of any options. The First Rubin Agreement provided for the termination of employment by either party at any time for any reason by giving written notice to the other party. In the event his employment was terminated by us without Cause or by Dr. Rubin for Good Reason, or in the event of his death or Disability (as such terms are defined in such agreement), Dr. Rubin would be entitled to 12 months’ severance. The First Rubin Agreement contained customary non-competition and non-solicitation provisions. Dr. Rubin’s compensation package was determined based on a review of CEO compensation information provided in the Radford Biotechnology Survey. In addition, we engaged Compensation Resources, a consulting firm, to provide information on current CEO compensation packages for similar companies. In connection with its review of Dr. Rubin’s proposed compensation package, our Compensation Committee retained ExeQuity LLP, a consulting firm specializing in executive compensation, which concurred that the proposed compensation was appropriate and within the mid-range for similarly situated executives.

In December 2008, we entered into a separation agreement with Dr. Rubin (the “Rubin Severance Agreement”) pursuant to which we paid Dr. Rubin a one-time severance payment of $384,326, representing the net present value of his base salary for 12 months less an amount he forfeited to enable us to make severance payments to certain other employees. The Rubin Severance Agreement stated that the exercise period of all vested options held by Dr. Rubin would terminate 90 days after he ceases to be a member of our board. Under the Rubin Severance Agreement, Dr. Rubin agreed to provide transition services to us through June 15, 2009 at an hourly rate of $205 to be paid at such time as we receive proceeds from the sale of the company or our assets or royalties from Fanapt™. Services provided by Dr. Rubin during this interim period were conducted within the scope of his responsibilities as a member of our board of directors and, accordingly, no payments are owed to him for transition services.

In May 2009, in connection with our re-engagement of our executive officers following the FDA’s approval of Fanapt™, we entered into a new employment agreement with Dr. Rubin to serve as our Executive Chairman (the “Third Rubin Agreement”). Pursuant to the Third Rubin Agreement, as such agreement was amended effective March 1, 2010, June 15, 2010 and December 27, 2010, he received no cash salary through December 2010. In May 2009, we granted Dr. Rubin options to purchase 1,000,000 shares of our common stock that vest as follows: 25% immediately and the balance monthly over a four-year period. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all unvested options held by Dr. Rubin automatically will become vested and exercisable immediately prior to the occurrence of a change of control. One half of the options will accelerate in the event we sell or transfer all or substantially all of our rights in iloperidone. In addition, in the event that we declare a dividend or similar distribution following such sale or transfer, we have agreed to retain for Dr. Rubin’s benefit an amount equal to the dividend amount for distribution to him only upon the actual vesting and exercise by him of the unvested options. In consideration for entering into the March 1, 2010 amendment agreement, we issued Dr. Rubin 36,000 restricted shares that vested in four monthly installments through June 30, 2010. In consideration for entering into the June 15, 2010 amendment agreement, we issued Dr. Rubin 82,800 restricted shares that vested in six monthly installments through December 31, 2010. In consideration for entering into the December 27, 2010 amendment agreement, we agreed to pay Dr. Rubin an annual salary of $210,000 for the period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. On December 30, 2011, we agreed to extend the term of Dr. Rubin’s employment with us through December 31, 2012 at an annual salary of $210,000 for the period of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. The Third Rubin Agreement contains non-competition provisions applicable during the term of employment.

36

Sunil Bhonsle

In December 2007, we amended our employment agreement with Sunil Bhonsle in order to maintain parity with the agreements with Drs. Rubin and Bucalo described herein (the “First Bhonsle Agreement”). The First Bhonsle Agreement, which was originally entered into in August 1995, provided for a base salary and eligibility to receive an annual performance bonus up to a specified percentage of base salary. The actual amount of the annual bonus was discretionary and determined based upon the executive’s performance, our performance and certain performance targets approved by our Compensation Committee. The First Bhonsle Agreement provided that Mr. Bhonsle would be entitled to 12 months’ severance in the event that his employment was terminated by us without Cause or by him for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in such agreement or six months in the event of their death or disability and provided for the continued vesting of the employee’s stock options during the severance period in the event of termination without Cause or for Good Reason. The First Bhonsle Agreement contained customary non-competition and non-solicitation provisions.

In December 2008, we entered into a separation agreement with Mr. Bhonsle (the “Bhonsle Severance Agreement”) pursuant to which we paid Mr. Bhonsle a one-time severance payment of $277,487, representing the net present value of his base salary for 12 months less an amount he forfeited to enable us to make severance payments to certain other employees. The Bhonsle Severance Agreement stated that the exercise period of all vested options held by Mr. Bhonsle would terminate on March 15, 2009 and on such date all of his vested options terminated unexercised. Mr. Bhonsle agreed to provide transition services to us through June 15, 2009 at an hourly rate of $150 to be paid at such time as we receive proceeds from the sale of the company or our assets or royalties from Fanapt™. In April 2009, upon our termination of Mr. Farrell, Mr. Bhonsle stepped in to act as our sole executive officer. Services provided by Mr. Bhonsle from January until April 2009 were conducted within the scope of his responsibilities as a member of our board of directors and, accordingly, no payments were owed to him for such transition services. We paid Mr. Bhonsle approximately $12,400 in April 2009.

In May 2009, in connection with our re-engagement of our executive officers following the FDA’s approval of Fanapt™, we entered into a new employment agreement with Mr. Bhonsle to serve as our President (the “Third Bhonsle Agreement”). The Third Bhonsle Agreement provided that until February 28, 2010, he was entitled to a cash salary of $200,000 per annum, payment of which was deferred until we began receiving royalty payments from Fanapt. Mr. Bhonsle was granted options to purchase 700,000 shares of our common stock that vest as follows: 25% immediately and the balance monthly over a four-year period; provided, however, that the vesting of 100,000 shares is also contingent upon the sale or partnering of the Probuphine program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all unvested options held by Mr. Bhonsle automatically will become vested and exercisable immediately prior to the occurrence of a change of control. Effective March 1, 2010, we amended the Third Bhonsle Agreement to provide that from the effective date through June 30, 2010, he was entitled to a salary of $300,000 per annum. The amendment also provides that one half of the options will accelerate in the event we sell or transfer all or substantially all of our rights in iloperidone. In addition, in the event that we declare a dividend or similar distribution following such sale or transfer, we have agreed to retain for Mr. Bhonsle’s benefit an amount equal to the dividend amount for distribution to him only upon the actual vesting and exercise by him of the unvested options. Effective July 1, 2010, as further amended effective December 27, 2010 and December 30, 2011, we amended the Third Bhonsle Agreement to provide that Mr. Bhonsle would continue to be entitled to a salary of $300,000 per annum through December 31, 2012. The Third Bhonsle Agreement contains non-competition provisions applicable during the term of employment.

37

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL

As set forth above under “Employment Agreements,” as of December 31, 2008, we had terminated our employment arrangements with Drs. Bucalo and Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle and undertaken to make the lump sum or monthly severance payments agreed upon. At such date, we had also restructured our employment arrangement with Mr. Farrell and paid him a lump sum retention bonus in consideration of his agreement to terminate the severance provisions of his agreement. During 2009, we terminated Mr. Farrell’s employment agreement and rehired Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle.

Pursuant to the Third Rubin Agreement and the Third Bhonsle Agreement, assuming a change of control had taken place as of December 31, 2011, Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bhonsle would have been entitled to accelerated vesting of their outstanding stock options described in the table below:

38

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Summary of Director Compensation

Non-employee directors are entitled to receive a fee for each meeting attended and all directors are entitled to receive stock options pursuant to our stockholder-approved stock option plans, including an initial grant of 10,000 options upon becoming a director, an annual grant of 20,000 options thereafter, and an annual grant of 5,000 options for each committee on which they serve. Directors are not precluded from serving us in any other capacity and receiving compensation therefor. Non-employee directors have also historically received an annual retainer fee of $15,000 in addition to the fee received for each meeting attended. In May 2009, in recognition of the large number (almost weekly) of telephonic and in-person meetings attended by the members of the board to help manage the company between January and May 2009, each member of the board was awarded a stock option grant to purchase 100,000 shares of common stock with immediate vesting. In July, 2009, each non-employee director was awarded 2,500 shares of restricted stock in lieu of fees earned. Non-employee directors receive $500 for each telephonic board meeting attended.

The following table summarizes compensation that our directors earned during 2011 for services as members of our board.

The following table sets forth, as of February 29, 2012, certain information concerning the beneficial ownership of our common stock by (i) each stockholder known by us to own beneficially five percent or more of our outstanding common stock; (ii) each director; (iii) each named executive officer; and (iv) all of our executive officers and directors as a group, and their percentage ownership and voting power.

39

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth aggregate information regarding our equity compensation plans in effect as of December 31, 2011:

40

The following members of our board of directors, representing a majority of our board, meet the independence requirements and standards currently established by the NYSE Amex: Victor J. Bauer, Eurelio M. Cavalier, Hubert E. Huckel, M. David MacFarlane and Ley S. Smith.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions. None.

Director Independence. The following members of our Board of Directors meet the independence requirements and standards currently established by the NYSE Amex: Victor J. Bauer, Eurelio M. Cavalier, Hubert E. Huckel, M. David MacFarlane, and Ley S. Smith.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, the Board of Directors met 12 times and took action by written consent 2 times and no director attended fewer than 75% of the meetings of the Board of Directors and Board of Directors committees of which the director was a member.

Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee makes recommendations to the Board of Directors concerning salaries and incentive compensation for our officers, including our Chief Executive Officer, and employees and administers our stock option plans. The Compensation Committee consists of Eurelio M. Cavalier, Hubert E. Huckel and Victor J. Bauer, each of whom meets the independence requirements and standards currently established by the NYSE Amex. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, the Compensation Committee took action by written consent 2 times.

Nominating Committee. The purpose of the Nominating Committee is to assist the Board of Directors in identifying qualified individuals to become board members, in determining the composition of the Board of Directors and in monitoring the process to assess Board effectiveness. The Nominating Committee consists of Eurelio M. Cavalier, M. David MacFarlane and Ley S. Smith, each of whom meets the independence requirements and standards currently established by the NYSE Amex. The Nominating Committee did not meet or take action by written consent during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Audit Committee. The Audit Committee (which is formed in compliance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) consists of Ley S. Smith, M. David MacFarlane, Victor J. Bauer and Hubert E. Huckel, each of whom meets the independence requirements and standards currently established by the NYSE Amex and the SEC. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Ley S. Smith is an “audit committee financial expert” and “independent” as defined under the relevant rules of the SEC and the NYSE Amex. The Audit Committee assists the Board by overseeing the performance of the independent auditors and the quality and integrity of Titan’s internal accounting, auditing and financial reporting practices. The Audit Committee is responsible for retaining (subject to stockholder ratification) and, as necessary, terminating, the independent auditors, annually reviews the qualifications, performance and independence of the independent auditors and the audit plan, fees and audit results, and pre-approves audit and non-audit services to be performed by the auditors and related fees. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, the Audit Committee met 4 times.

41

Aggregate fees billed by OUM & Co. LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Audit Fees—This category includes aggregate fees billed by our independent auditors for the audit of our annual financial statements, audit of management’s assessment and effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, review of financial statements included in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and services that are normally provided by the auditor in connection with statutory and regulatory filings for those fiscal years.

Audit-Related Fees—This category consists of services by our independent auditors that, including accounting consultations on transaction related matters, are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements and are not reported above under Audit Fees.

Tax Fees—This category consists of professional services rendered for tax compliance and preparation of our corporate tax returns and other tax advice.

All Other Fees—During the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, OUM & Co. LLP did not incur any fees for other professional services.

The Audit Committee reviewed and approved all audit and non-audit services provided by OUM & Co. LLP and concluded that these services were compatible with maintaining its independence. The Audit Committee approved the provision of all non-audit services by OUM & Co. LLP. Of the total number of hours expended during OUM & Co. LLP’s engagement to audit the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011, none of the hours were attributed to work performed by persons other than permanent, full-time employees of OUM & Co. LLP.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

In accordance with the SEC’s auditor independence rules, the Audit Committee has established the following policies and procedures by which it approves in advance any audit or permissible non-audit services to be provided to us by our independent auditor.

Prior to the engagement of the independent auditors for any fiscal year’s audit, management submits to the Audit Committee for approval lists of recurring audit, audit-related, tax and other services expected to be provided by the independent auditors during that fiscal year. The Audit Committee adopts pre-approval schedules describing the recurring services that it has pre-approved, and is informed on a timely basis, and in any event by the next scheduled meeting, of any such services rendered by the independent auditor and the related fees.

The fees for any services listed in a pre-approval schedule are budgeted, and the Audit Committee requires the independent auditor and management to report actual fees versus the budget periodically throughout the year. The Audit Committee will require additional pre-approval if circumstances arise where it becomes necessary to engage the independent auditor for additional services above the amount of fees originally pre-approved. Any audit or non-audit service not listed in a pre-approval schedule must be separately pre-approved by the Audit Committee on a case-by-case basis.

42

Every request to adopt or amend a pre-approval schedule or to provide services that are not listed in a pre-approval schedule must include a statement by the independent auditors as to whether, in their view, the request is consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence.

The Audit Committee will not grant approval for:

Tax services proposed to be provided by the auditor to any director, officer or employee of Titan who is in an accounting role or financial reporting oversight role must be approved by the Audit Committee on a case-by-case basis where such services are to be paid for by us, and the Audit Committee will be informed of any services to be provided to such individuals that are not to be paid for by us.

In determining whether to grant pre-approval of any non-audit services in the “all other” category, the Audit Committee will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including the following four basic guidelines:

PART IV

(a)    1.    Financial Statements

An index to Consolidated Financial Statements appears on page F-1.

2.    Schedules

All financial statement schedules are omitted because they are not applicable, not required under the instructions or all the information required is set forth in the financial statements or notes thereto.

43

(b)    Exhibits

44

45

46

TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS