AGENUS INC

Competition in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is intense. Many pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies have products on the market and are actively engaged in the research and development of products for the treatment of cancer.

Many competitors have substantially greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, sales, distribution, and technical resources, and more experience in research and development, clinical trials, and regulatory matters, than we do. Competing companies developing or acquiring rights to more efficacious therapeutic products for the same diseases we are targeting, or which offer significantly lower costs of treatment, could render our products noncompetitive or obsolete. See Part I-Item 1A. “Risk Factors-Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Product Candidates-Our competitors may have superior products, manufacturing capability, selling and marketing expertise and/or financial and other resources.”

Academic institutions, governmental agencies, and other public and private research institutions conduct significant amounts of research in biotechnology, medicinal chemistry and pharmacology. These entities have become increasingly active in seeking patent protection and licensing revenues for their research results. They also compete with us in recruiting and retaining skilled scientific talent.

The I-O drug landscape is crowded with several competitors developing assets against a number of targets. Our development plans are spread out across various indications and lines of therapy, either alone or in combination with other assets. Our competitors range from small cap to large cap companies, with assets in pre-clinical or clinical stages of development. Therefore, the landscape is dynamic and constantly evolving. We and our partners have I-O antibody programs, currently in clinical stage development targeting various pathways (as mono- or multi-specifics) including PD-1, CTLA-4, TIM-3, LAG-3, CD73, TGFb, CD137, ILT2, and TIGIT. We are aware of many companies that have antibody-based products on the market or in clinical development that are directed to the same biological targets as these programs, including, without limitation, the following: (1) BMS markets ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 antibody, nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, and relatlimab, an anti-LAG-3 antibody, and is currently developing agents targeting TIGIT and TGFb. BMS also has a next generation anti-CTLA-4 antibody in the clinic, which may be competitive to our next generation anti-CTLA-4 program, (2) Merck has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody, and has an anti-CTLA-4, anti-TIGIT and LAG-3 antagonists recruiting in clinical trials, (3) Regeneron has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody and an antibody targeting LAG-3 in the clinic, (4) Roche/Genentech has an approved anti-PD-L1 antibody, a late-stage anti-TIGIT antibody, an anti-TGFb antibody as well as bispecific antibodies targeting CD137, and LAG-3 in clinical development, (5) AstraZeneca has an approved anti PD-L1 antibody, an approved anti-CTLA-4 antibody, and has monoclonal antibodies targeting CD73, as well as bispecifics targeting CTLA-4, TIGIT, TIM-3 in clinical development (6) Merck KGaA has an approved anti-PD-L1 antibody as well as an anti-TIGIT antibody in clinic (7) GSK has an approved anti PD-1 antibody as well as antibodies targeting TIM-3 and TIGIT in the clinic (8) Coherus Biosciences has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody (9) Incyte has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody. Besides these PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies that were approved in the U.S., we are also aware of competitors with approved PD-1 and PD-L1 agents in ex-U.S. geographies such as China. These include Innovent Biologics, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences (Coherus BioSciences has rights to co-develop in U.S. and Canada), Shanghai HengRui Pharmaceuticals, Beigene (Novartis has ex-China rights), CStone Pharmaceuticals, Gloria Biosciences (Arcus Bioscience has rights in North America, Europe, Japan and certain other territories), Alphamab Oncology/3D Medicines and Akeso Bio.

We are also aware of other competitors with clinical-stage PD-1/PD-L1 agents including but not limited to AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, Biocad Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim, Checkpoint Therapeutics, CSPC ZhongQi Pharmaceutical Technology, Genor Biopharma/ Apollomics, ImmuneOncia Therapeutics Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lee’s Pharmaceuticals, Transcenta Holdings (previously Mabspace Biosciences), Maxinovel Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, 3D Medicines, Qilu Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Co Ltd, Sinocelltech, Shandong New Time Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, and Lepu Biopharma (previously Taizhou Houdeaoke Technology). In addition, we are also aware of anti-PD-(L)1 monospecific agents that are preclinical in stage. We are also aware of competitors developing bispecifics targeting PD-1 or PD-L1.

We are aware of companies developing “next-generation” anti-CTLA-4 approaches, which may be competitive to our next-generation anti-CTLA-4 program (AGEN1181). For example, BMS has a next-generation CTLA-4 program in the clinic, a peptide masked version of the non-fucosylated anti CTLA-4 antibody; the peptide masked version is designed to localize activity to the tumor and minimize systemic toxicity associated with parent drug. We are also aware of other next-generation monospecifics targeting CTLA-4 in the clinic, including those from Harbour BioMed, OncoC4/BioNTech, Adagene, BioAtla and Xilio Therapeutics. We are also aware of companies advancing clinical stage, CTLA-4 targeting multispecifics as a next-generation approach, including, but not limited to, Macrogenics, Xencor, AstraZeneca, Akeso Biopharma and Alphamab. We are also aware of next-generation assets targeting CTLA-4 preclinically.

We are also aware of competitors with clinical stage drug candidates against CTLA-4, LAG-3, TIM-3, CD73, TGFb, and CD137, in addition to those named earlier in this section. Additionally, AGEN1777/BMS-986442, our TIGIT bispecific program licensed to BMS is now in clinical development; we are aware of clinical stage anti-TIGIT antibodies, including bispecifics, that could compete with this program. As outlined above, some of these include, but are not limited to AbbVie, Arcus Biosciences, Alligator Biosciences, Beigene, Compass Therapeutics, Compugen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Innovent Biologics, Inhibrx, iTeos Therapeutics, Lyvgen Biopharma, MedPacto, Merck KGaA, Mereo Biopharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, Scholar Rock, and Sanofi. There is no guarantee that our antibody product candidates will be able to successfully compete with our competitors’ antibody products and product candidates.

Additionally, AGEN1571, our ILT2 antibody is now in clinical development. We are aware of other clinical stage anti-ILT2, and anti-HLA-G antibodies that could compete with this program. These include, but are not limited to, Biond Biologics/Sanofi, BMS, Merck, Immune-Onc Therapeutics and Gilead/Tizona Therapeutics. Additionally, some competitors are also developing ILT2 bispecifics; for example, NGM Biopharmaceuticals has a clinical stage bispecific co-targeting ILT2 and ILT4. We are also aware of competitor programs, in monospecific and bispecific formats, that are in preclinical development against this target. There is no guarantee that our antibody product candidates will be able to successfully compete with our competitors’ antibody products and product candidates.

In addition, and prior to regulatory approval, if ever, our other product candidates may compete for access to patients with other products in clinical development, with products approved for use in the indications we are studying, or with off-label use of products in the indications we are studying. We anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as new companies enter markets we seek to address and scientific developments surrounding immunotherapy and other traditional cancer therapies continue to accelerate.

SaponiQx is developing QS-21 STIMULON. Several other vaccine adjuvants are in development or in use and could compete with QS-21 STIMULON for inclusion in vaccines. These adjuvants may include but are not limited to: (1) oligonucleotides, under development by Dynavax, (2) MF59, under development by Novartis, (3) IC31, under development by Intercell (now part of Valneva), (4) MPL, under development by GSK, (5) Matrix-MTM, under development by Novavax, (6) AS03 and additional AS portfolio members, under development by GSK, and (7) TQL 1055, under development by Adjuvance Technologies. In the past, we have provided QS-21 STIMULON to other entities under materials transfer arrangements. There is a risk that material provided pursuant to a MTA is used without our permission to develop synthetic formulations and/or derivatives of QS-21. In addition, other companies and academic institutions are developing saponin adjuvants, including derivatives and synthetic formulations. These sources may be competitive to our ability to execute future partnering and licensing arrangements involving QS-21 STIMULON. We are also aware of other manufacturers of QS-21. The existence of products developed by these and other competitors, or other products of which we are not aware, or which other companies may develop in the future, may adversely affect the marketability of products developed or sold using QS-21 STIMULON.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.