Artiva Biotherapeutics Inc

Previous wording

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We were incorporated in February 2019 and our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, licensing key intellectual property rights, conducting research and development of our product candidates ourselves and with collaborators, collaborating onscale-up of product candidate manufacturing, establishing cold chain delivery logistics and preparing for and conducting our ongoing and planned preclinical studies and clinical trials.

Current wording

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We were incorporated in February 2019 and our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, licensing key intellectual property rights, conducting research and development of our product candidates ourselves and with collaborators, collaborating on scale-up of product candidate manufacturing, establishing cold chain delivery logistics and preparing for and conducting our ongoing and planned preclinical studies and clinical trials.

Previous wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and the significant risk that product candidates will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. For the year ended December 31, 2023 and for the six months ended June 30, 2024, our net losses were $28.7 million and $31.8 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $213.1 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations.

Current wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and the significant risk that product candidates will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. For the year ended December 31, 2023 and for the nine months ended September 30, 2024, our net losses were $28.7 million and $49.3 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $230.6 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations.

Previous wording

The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates is capital-intensive. We expect to spend substantial amounts to advance our product candidates into clinical development and to complete the clinical development of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product candidates, if approved. We will require additional capital, which we may raise through public or private equity or debt financings or other capital sources, which may include strategic collaborations and other strategic arrangements with third parties, to enable us to complete the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, as a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy. In addition, attempting to secure additional financing may divert the time and attention of our management fromday-to-day activities and harm our development efforts. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs.

Current wording

The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates is capital-intensive. We expect to spend substantial amounts to advance our product candidates into clinical development and to complete the clinical development of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product candidates, if approved. We will require additional capital, which we may raise through public or private equity or debt financings or other capital sources, which may include strategic collaborations and other strategic arrangements with third parties, to enable us to complete the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, as a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy. In addition, attempting to secure additional financing may divert the time and attention of our management from day-to-day activities and harm our development efforts. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs.

Previous wording

Our operations have consumed significant amounts of cash since inception. As of June 30, 2024, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments were $46.6 million. Based on our current cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, we estimate that our funds will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into late 2026. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any marketing and commercialization activities.

Current wording

Our operations have consumed significant amounts of cash since inception. As of September 30, 2024, our cash, cash equivalents and investments were $199.6 million. Based on our current cash, cash equivalents and investments, we estimate that our funds will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements at least through the end of 2026. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any marketing and commercialization activities.

Previous wording

Our success depends on our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates utilizing our NK cell therapy platform, including manufacturing capabilities, which leverages relatively novel technologies. While we have had favorable preclinical and early clinical study results based on our platform, we are early in our development efforts and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for any product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. Our understanding of NK cell biology is continuously evolving and this is particularly true in relation to autoimmune diseases where there is limited clinical data available. In particular, our approach in developing treatments for autoimmune diseases with NK cell-based therapies is novel and we have limited experience in doing so as our resources and processes have historically been focused on the development of NK cell-based therapies for cancer. We may also experience timeline delays or serious adverse events, and our product candidates may never become commercialized. All of our product candidates will require significant additional clinical andnon-clinical development, review and approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities in one or more jurisdictions, substantial investment, and significant marketing efforts before they can be successfully commercialized. Our methodology and novel approach to cellular therapy may be unsuccessful in identifying additional product candidates, and any product candidates based on our platform may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may necessitate additional clinical testing, or make the product candidates unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. Further, because all of our product candidates and development programs are based on our NK cell therapy platform, adverse developments with respect to one of our programs may have a significant adverse impact on the actual or perceived likelihood of success and value of our other programs. For example, if our clinical trials of AlloNK encounter safety, efficacy or manufacturing problems, development delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans for our other product candidates in our pipeline could be significantly impaired.

Current wording

Our success depends on our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates utilizing our NK cell therapy platform, including manufacturing capabilities, which leverages relatively novel technologies. While we have had favorable preclinical and early clinical study results based on our platform, we are early in our development efforts and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for any product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. Our understanding of NK cell biology is continuously evolving and this is particularly true in relation to autoimmune diseases where there is limited clinical data available. In particular, our approach in developing treatments for autoimmune diseases with NK cell-based therapies is novel and we have limited experience in doing so as our resources and processes have historically been focused on the development of NK cell-based therapies for cancer. We may also experience timeline delays or serious adverse events, and our product candidates may never become commercialized. All of our product candidates will require significant additional clinical and non-clinical development, review and approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities in one or more jurisdictions, substantial investment, and significant marketing efforts before they can be successfully commercialized. Our methodology and novel approach to cellular therapy may be unsuccessful in identifying additional product candidates, and any product candidates based on our platform may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may necessitate additional clinical testing, or make the product candidates unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. Further, because all of our product candidates and development programs are based on our NK cell therapy platform, adverse developments with respect to one of our programs may have a significant adverse impact on the actual or perceived likelihood of success and value of our other programs. For example, if our clinical trials of AlloNK encounter safety, efficacy or manufacturing problems, development delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans for our other product candidates in our pipeline could be significantly impaired.

Previous wording

The FDA has cautioned consumers about potential safety risks associated with T-cell therapies. The FDA has approved only a few cell-based therapies for commercialization and to our knowledge, no NK cell-based therapy has been approved for commercial use by any regulatory authority. Additionally, human primary cells are subject todonor-to-donor variability, which can make standardization more difficult. Understanding and addressing variability in the quality of a donor’s cells, could ultimately affect our ability to produce product in a reliable and consistent manner and treat certain patients. As a result, the development and commercialization pathway for our product candidates may be subject to increased uncertainty, as compared to the pathway for new conventional drugs.

Current wording

The FDA has cautioned consumers about potential safety risks associated with T-cell therapies. The FDA has approved only a few cell-based therapies for commercialization and to our knowledge, no NK cell-based therapy has been approved for commercial use by any regulatory authority. Additionally, human primary cells are subject to donor-to-donor variability, which can make standardization more difficult. Understanding and addressing variability in the quality of a donor’s cells, could ultimately affect our ability to produce product in a reliable and consistent manner and treat certain patients. As a result, the development and commercialization pathway for our product candidates may be subject to increased uncertainty, as compared to the pathway for new conventional drugs.

Previous wording

If unacceptable side effects or deaths arise in the development of our product candidates, we, the FDA, the IRBs or ethics committees at the institutions in which our studies are conducted, DSMB or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. For example, the FDA put our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AlloNK in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory B-NHL on clinical hold in April 2021 due to a patient death and lifted the clinical hold in June 2021 after our investigation and amendments to the clinical trial protocol. Although there was no definitive cause of death, the autopsy findings included widespread metastatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and concluded that the death was possibly due to cardiac arrhythmia. The principal investigator determined that this serious adverse event was not related to AlloNK. We may observe undesirable side effects and we may not be able to complete a clinical trial for AlloNK or any of our other product candidates without further delays or at all. Further undesirable side effects, dose-limiting toxicity events, or deaths in clinical trials with our product candidates may cause the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to place a clinical hold on the associated clinical trials, to require additional studies, dosede-escalation, or additional protocol amendments, or otherwise to delay or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect site initiation, patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We expect to have to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Current wording

If unacceptable side effects or deaths arise in the development of our product candidates, we, the FDA, the IRBs or ethics committees at the institutions in which our studies are conducted, DSMB or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. For example, the FDA put our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AlloNK in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory B-NHL on clinical hold in April 2021 due to a patient death and lifted the clinical hold in June 2021 after our investigation and amendments to the clinical trial protocol. Although there was no definitive cause of death, the autopsy findings included widespread metastatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and concluded that the death was possibly due to cardiac arrhythmia. The principal investigator determined that this serious adverse event was not related to AlloNK. We may observe undesirable side effects and we may not be able to complete a clinical trial for AlloNK or any of our other product candidates without further delays or at all. Further undesirable side effects, dose-limiting toxicity events, or deaths in clinical trials with our product candidates may cause the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to place a clinical hold on the associated clinical trials, to require additional studies, dose de-escalation, or additional protocol amendments, or otherwise to delay or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect site initiation, patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We expect to have to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Previous wording

Moreover, because standards forpre-clinical assessment are evolving and may change rapidly, even if we reach an agreement with the FDA on apre-IND proposal, the FDA may not accept the IND submissions as presented, in which the clinical trial timeline could be delayed.

Current wording

Moreover, because standards for pre-clinical assessment are evolving and may change rapidly, even if we reach an agreement with the FDA on a pre-IND proposal, the FDA may not accept the IND submissions as presented, in which the clinical trial timeline could be delayed.

Previous wording

We select the targets for development of our product candidates based on a number of factors, including the estimated patient populations where we believe there is a meaningful addressable market opportunity. However, our projections of the number of people who have the diseases we are seeking to treat, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are estimates based on our knowledge and understanding of these diseases. The total addressable market opportunity for our product candidates will ultimately depend upon a number of factors, including the diagnosis and treatment criteria included in the final label, if approved for sale in specified indications, acceptance by the medical community, patient access, alternative therapies and product pricing and reimbursement. For example, we intend to prioritize evaluation and seeking approval for AlloNK in combination with a B-cell targeted mAb in autoimmune diseases.

Current wording

We select the targets for development of our product candidates based on a number of factors, including the estimated patient populations where we believe there is a meaningful addressable market opportunity. However, our projections of the number of people who have the diseases we are seeking to treat, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are estimates based on our knowledge and understanding of these diseases. The total addressable market opportunity for our product candidates will ultimately depend upon a number of factors, including the diagnosis and treatment criteria included in the final label, if approved for sale in specified indications, acceptance by the medical community, patient access, alternative therapies and product pricing and reimbursement. For example, we intend to prioritize evaluation and seeking approval for AlloNK in combination with a B-cell targeted mAb in autoimmune diseases. Incidence and prevalence estimates are frequently based on information and assumptions that are not exact and may not be appropriate, and the methodology is forward-looking and speculative. The process we have used in developing an estimated incidence and prevalence range for the indications we are targeting has involved collating limited data from multiple sources..

Previous wording

The advancement of our product candidates and development programs and the potential commercialization of our current and future product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of our programs, we may seek to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to develop and commercialize such product candidates, such as our collaborations with Affimed. Any of these relationships may require us to incurnon-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business.

Current wording

The advancement of our product candidates and development programs and the potential commercialization of our current and future product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of our programs, we may seek to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to develop and commercialize such product candidates, such as our collaborations with Affimed. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business.

Previous wording

Our product candidates and certain other materials generated or used during their production, including cord blood units, viral vectors and working feeder cell banks, are acquired from and shipped by third parties and stored in freezers maintained by us and by third parties. In addition, our master cell banks are stored in freezers maintained by third parties. If there is a disruption to the supply of these materials, if available materials fail to meet quality standards, or if any of these materials are damaged while in transit or while stored at these facilities, including by the loss or malfunction of these freezers orback-up power systems, as well as by damage from fire, power loss or other natural disasters, we would need to establish replacement products, which could adversely impact our clinical supply and delay our clinical trials and preclinical studies. If we are unable to establish replacement materials in a timely fashion, we could incur significant additional expenses and potential liability to our clinical trial patients whose treatment is delayed, and our business could suffer.

Current wording

Our product candidates and certain other materials generated or used during their production, including cord blood units, viral vectors and working feeder cell banks, are acquired from and shipped by third parties and stored in freezers maintained by us and by third parties. In addition, our master cell banks are stored in freezers maintained by third parties. If there is a disruption to the supply of these materials, if available materials fail to meet quality standards, or if any of these materials are damaged while in transit or while stored at these facilities, including by the loss or malfunction of these freezers or back-up power systems, as well as by damage from fire, power loss or other natural disasters, we would need to establish replacement products, which could adversely impact our clinical supply and delay our clinical trials and preclinical studies. If we are unable to establish replacement materials in a timely fashion, we could incur significant additional expenses and potential liability to our clinical trial patients whose treatment is delayed, and our business could suffer.

Previous wording

The biopharmaceutical industry in general, and the cell therapy field in particular, is characterized by rapidly advancing and changing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face substantial and increasing competition from large and specialty biopharmaceutical companies, as well as public and private medical research institutions and governmental agencies. A large number of cell therapy companies with capabilities and expertise in oncology are advancing development programs in autoimmune diseases. Our known biopharmaceutical competitors developing allogeneic CAR-NK cell or CAR-T cell therapies currently include, among others, Adicet Bio, Inc., Autolus Therapeutics plc, Cabaletta Bio, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc., Century Therapeutics, Inc., Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Galapagos NV, Gracell Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (acquired by AstraZeneca), ImmPACT Bio USA, Inc., Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by BMS), Kite Pharma (acquired by Gilead), Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc., Nkarta, Inc., Novartis AG, Sana Biotechnology, Inc., Shoreline Biosciences Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company Limited and Wugen, Inc.

Current wording

The biopharmaceutical industry in general, and the cell therapy field in particular, is characterized by rapidly advancing and changing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face substantial and increasing competition from large and specialty biopharmaceutical companies, as well as public and private medical research institutions and governmental agencies. A large number of cell therapy companies with capabilities and expertise in oncology are advancing development programs in autoimmune diseases. Our known biopharmaceutical competitors developing allogeneic CAR-NK cell or CAR-T cell therapies currently include, among others, Adicet Bio, Inc., Autolus Therapeutics plc, Cabaletta Bio, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc., Century Therapeutics, Inc., Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Galapagos NV, Gracell Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (acquired by AstraZeneca), ImmPACT Bio USA, Inc. (acquired by Lyell Immunopharma), Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by BMS), Kite Pharma (acquired by Gilead), Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc., Nkarta, Inc., Novartis AG, Sana Biotechnology, Inc., Shoreline Biosciences Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company Limited and Wugen, Inc.

Previous wording

Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or toin-license novel compounds that could make our product candidates less competitive. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, discovering, developing, receiving regulatory and marketing approval for or commercializing drugs before we do, which would have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies.

Current wording

Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our product candidates less competitive. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, discovering, developing, receiving regulatory and marketing approval for or commercializing drugs before we do, which would have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies.

Previous wording

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, if the resulting reimbursement rates are insufficient, hospitals may not approve our product for use in their facility or third-party payors may requireco-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Separate reimbursement for the product itself may or may not be available. Instead, the hospital or administering physician may be reimbursed only for providing the treatment or procedure in which our product is used. Further, from time to time, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) revises the reimbursement systems used to reimburse healthcare providers, including the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Outpatient Prospective Payment System, which may result in reduced Medicare payments. In some cases, private third-party payors rely on all or portions of Medicare payment systems to determine payment rates. Changes to government healthcare programs that reduce payments under these programs may negatively impact payments from private third-party payors, and reduce the willingness of physicians to use our product candidates.

Current wording

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, if the resulting reimbursement rates are insufficient, hospitals may not approve our product for use in their facility or third-party payors may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Separate reimbursement for the product itself may or may not be available. Instead, the hospital or administering physician may be reimbursed only for providing the treatment or procedure in which our product is used. Further, from time to time, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) revises the reimbursement systems used to reimburse healthcare providers, including the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Outpatient Prospective Payment System, which may result in reduced Medicare payments. In some cases, private third-party payors rely on all or portions of Medicare payment systems to determine payment rates. Changes to government healthcare programs that reduce payments under these programs may negatively impact payments from private third-party payors, and reduce the willingness of physicians to use our product candidates.

Previous wording

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. Outside the United States, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In some foreign countries, particularly those in Europe, the pricing of biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. The EU provides options for EU Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, it may refuse to reimburse a product at the price set by the manufacturer or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Many EU Member States also periodically review their reimbursement procedures for medicinal products, which could have an adverse impact on reimbursement status. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. The downward pressure on healthcare costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports fromlow-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. Even if a pharmaceutical product obtains a marketing authorization in the EU, there can be no assurance that reimbursement for such product will be secured on a timely basis or at all.

Current wording

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. Outside the United States, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In some foreign countries, particularly those in Europe, the pricing of biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. The EU provides options for EU Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, it may refuse to reimburse a product at the price set by the manufacturer or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Many EU Member States also periodically review their reimbursement procedures for medicinal products, which could have an adverse impact on reimbursement status. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. The downward pressure on healthcare costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. Even if a pharmaceutical product obtains a marketing authorization in the EU, there can be no assurance that reimbursement for such product will be secured on a timely basis or at all.

Previous wording

We may choose to conduct international clinical trials in the future. The acceptance of study data by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (ii) the trials are performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to current GCP requirements; and (iii) the FDA is able to validate the data through anon-site inspection or other appropriate mean. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including the adequacy of the patient population studied and statistical powering, must be met. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, the EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, the EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Current wording

We may choose to conduct international clinical trials in the future. The acceptance of study data by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (ii) the trials are performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to current GCP requirements; and (iii) the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate mean. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including the adequacy of the patient population studied and statistical powering, must be met. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, the EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, the EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Previous wording

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. In order to obtain orphan drug designation, the request must be made before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, anduser-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. In the EU a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization.

Current wording

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. In order to obtain orphan drug designation, the request must be made before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. In the EU a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization.

Previous wording

In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees, fee waivers, protocol assistance and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Moreover, upon grant of a marketing authorization and assuming the requirement for orphan designation are also met at the time the marketing authorization is granted, orphan medicinal products are entitled to aten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The period of exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed Pediatric Investigation Plan. However, during such period, marketing authorizations may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if: (i) the applicant can establish that the second medicinal product, although similar to the orphan medicinal product already authorized is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan medicinal product already authorized; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the orphan medicinal product grants its consent; or (iii) if the marketing authorization holder of the orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of product. The EU exclusivity period can be reduced to six years, if, at the end of the fifth year a medicinal product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation (i.e. the prevalence of the condition has increased above the orphan designation threshold or it is judged that the product is sufficiently profitable so as not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity).

Current wording

In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees, fee waivers, protocol assistance and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Moreover, upon grant of a marketing authorization and assuming the requirement for orphan designation are also met at the time the marketing authorization is granted, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The period of exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed Pediatric Investigation Plan. However, during such period, marketing authorizations may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if: (i) the applicant can establish that the second medicinal product, although similar to the orphan medicinal product already authorized is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan medicinal product already authorized; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the orphan medicinal product grants its consent; or (iii) if the marketing authorization holder of the orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of product. The EU exclusivity period can be reduced to six years, if, at the end of the fifth year a medicinal product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation (i.e. the prevalence of the condition has increased above the orphan designation threshold or it is judged that the product is sufficiently profitable so as not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity).

Previous wording

Further, we will be required to comply with FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ promotion and advertising rules, which include, among others, standards fordirect-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as“off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet and social media. Although the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, they do restrict promotional communications from companies or their sales force with respect tooff-label uses of products for which marketing clearance has not been issued. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party suppliers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS or similar foreign program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

Current wording

Further, we will be required to comply with FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ promotion and advertising rules, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet and social media. Although the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, they do restrict promotional communications from companies or their sales force with respect to off-label uses of products for which marketing clearance has not been issued. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party suppliers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS or similar foreign program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

Previous wording

Also, we may be subject to the following: state and foreign anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed bynon-governmental, third-party payors, including private insurers, or that apply regardless of payor; state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state and local laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare professionals or marketing expenditures; state and foreign laws that require the reporting of information related to drug pricing; state and local laws requiring the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Current wording

Also, we may be subject to the following: state and foreign anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental, third-party payors, including private insurers, or that apply regardless of payor; state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state and local laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare professionals or marketing expenditures; state and foreign laws that require the reporting of information related to drug pricing; state and local laws requiring the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Previous wording

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities, including certain arrangements we have with physicians who are paid in the form of stock or stock options for services provided to us, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If we or our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors violate these laws, we may be subject to investigations, enforcement actions and/or significant penalties. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations ofnon-compliance with these laws, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

Current wording

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities, including certain arrangements we have with physicians who are paid in the form of stock or stock options for services provided to us, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If we or our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors violate these laws, we may be subject to investigations, enforcement actions and/or significant penalties. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

Previous wording

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, including aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect beginning on April 1, 2013 and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will stay in effect through 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, which was previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning on January 1, 2024. In addition, Congress is considering health reform measures as part of other health reform initiatives. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. In July 2021, the Biden Administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” which contained provisions relating to prescription drugs. On September 9, 2021, in response to this executive order, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, including aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect beginning on April 1, 2013 and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will stay in effect through 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, which was previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning on January 1, 2024. In addition, Congress is considering health reform measures as part of other health reform initiatives. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. In July 2021, the Biden Administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” which contained provisions relating to prescription drugs. On September 9, 2021, in response to this executive order, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU Member States have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and EU, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

Current wording

In the EU, similar developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the EU or Member State level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU Member States have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and EU, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

Previous wording

Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials ofnon-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, hospitals owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees would be considered foreign officials under the FCPA. Recently the SEC and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents or contractors, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers or our employees, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our product in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international activities, our ability to attract and retain employees and our business.

Current wording

Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, hospitals owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees would be considered foreign officials under the FCPA. Recently the SEC and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents or contractors, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers or our employees, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our product in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international activities, our ability to attract and retain employees and our business.

Previous wording

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others. We depend substantially on our agreements with GC Cell, including the licenses granted thereunder. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. For example, our proprietary manufacturing methods depend on technology licensed to us by GC Cell. In addition, GC Cellin-licenses some of the intellectual property rights that GC Cell has licensed to us, or that we have the ability to access under our agreements with GC Cell. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements with GC Cell, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors. In the future, we may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates.

Current wording

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others. We depend substantially on our agreements with GC Cell, including the licenses granted thereunder. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. For example, our proprietary manufacturing methods depend on technology licensed to us by GC Cell. In addition, GC Cell in-licenses some of the intellectual property rights that GC Cell has licensed to us, or that we have the ability to access under our agreements with GC Cell. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements with GC Cell, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors. In the future, we may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates.

Previous wording

We may rely on third parties from whom we license proprietary technology to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the intellectual property we license from them. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to ourin-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by these licensors will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that may be licensed to us. In addition, some of our patent rights areco-owned with GC Cell and others, and may in the future beco-owned with other third parties. We may need the cooperation of GC Cell and any futureco-owners of our patent rights in order to enforce such patent rights against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. It is also possible that our licensors’ orco-owners’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than if we conduct them ourselves. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

We may rely on third parties from whom we license proprietary technology to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the intellectual property we license from them. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by these licensors will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that may be licensed to us. In addition, some of our patent rights are co-owned with GC Cell and others, and may in the future be co-owned with other third parties. We may need the cooperation of GC Cell and any future co-owners of our patent rights in order to enforce such patent rights against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. It is also possible that our licensors’ or co-owners’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than if we conduct them ourselves. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive practice, and companies that may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their larger size and cash resources or greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. We may not be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire. Furthermore, we may be unable toin-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties, which we identify as necessary for our product candidates.

Current wording

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive practice, and companies that may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their larger size and cash resources or greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. We may not be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire. Furthermore, we may be unable to in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties, which we identify as necessary for our product candidates.

Previous wording

We rely, and will continue to rely, upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our proprietary manufacturing methods, proprietary technologies, product candidate development programs and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to secure and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our current product candidates and any future product candidates we may develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing or collaborating with our licensors andco-owners to file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our proprietary technologies, development programs and product candidates. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Moreover, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Current wording

We rely, and will continue to rely, upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our proprietary manufacturing methods, proprietary technologies, product candidate development programs and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to secure and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our current product candidates and any future product candidates we may develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing or collaborating with our licensors and co-owners to file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our proprietary technologies, development programs and product candidates. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Moreover, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Previous wording

It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. The patent applications that we own orin-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our proprietary products and technology, including current product candidates, any future product candidates we may develop, and our NK cell therapy technology in the United States or in other foreign countries, in whole or in part. Alternately, our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technologies. It is possible that not all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application or later invalidate or narrow the scope of an issued patent. For example, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our current product candidates, any future product candidates we may develop and our NK cell therapy technology, third parties may challenge their validity, ownership, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable or circumvented. Any successful challenge to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any of our product candidates or gene regulation technology. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our product candidate, if approved, or practicing our own patented technology. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative product candidates in anon-infringing manner. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate and our NK cell therapy platform under patent protection could be reduced. If any of our patents expire or are challenged, invalidated, circumvented or otherwise limited by third parties prior to the commercialization of our product candidate, and if we do not own or have exclusive rights…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our proprietary products and technology, including current product candidates, any future product candidates we may develop, and our NK cell therapy technology in the United States or in other foreign countries, in whole or in part. Alternately, our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technologies. It is possible that not all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application or later invalidate or narrow the scope of an issued patent. For example, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our current product candidates, any future product candidates we may develop and our NK cell therapy technology, third parties may challenge their validity, ownership, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable or circumvented. Any successful challenge to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any of our product candidates or gene regulation technology. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our product candidate, if approved, or practicing our own patented technology. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative product candidates in a non-infringing manner. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate and our NK cell therapy platform under patent protection could be reduced. If any of our patents expire or are challenged, invalidated, circumvented or otherwise limited by third parties prior to the commercialization of our product candidate, and if we do not own or have exclusive righ…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

If the patent applications we hold or havein-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their validity, breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for any of our current or future product candidates or technology, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, encourage competitors to develop competing products or technologies and threaten our ability to commercialize future product candidates. Any such outcome could harm our business.

Current wording

If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their validity, breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for any of our current or future product candidates or technology, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, encourage competitors to develop competing products or technologies and threaten our ability to commercialize future product candidates. Any such outcome could harm our business.

Previous wording

We also may be subject to third party claims arising from prior employment agreements and/or consulting agreements entered into by our officers, employees, independent contractors and/or consultants. Claims may include breach of nondisclosure, nonuse, noncompetition andnon-solicitation provisions, intellectual property assignment and ownership, and misuse or misappropriation of intellectual property, trade secrets and other confidential information, among others. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that we breached the provisions of third party consulting agreements, we may be prohibited from using certain intellectual property, trade secrets and confidential information, effectively blocking our ability to seek patent protection for our inventions and halting the progress of our clinical development and commercialization efforts.

Current wording

We also may be subject to third party claims arising from prior employment agreements and/or consulting agreements entered into by our officers, employees, independent contractors and/or consultants. Claims may include breach of nondisclosure, nonuse, noncompetition and non-solicitation provisions, intellectual property assignment and ownership, and misuse or misappropriation of intellectual property, trade secrets and other confidential information, among others. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that we breached the provisions of third party consulting agreements, we may be prohibited from using certain intellectual property, trade secrets and confidential information, effectively blocking our ability to seek patent protection for our inventions and halting the progress of our clinical development and commercialization efforts.

Previous wording

In addition, defending such claims would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, if successful, could cause us to pay substantial damages if we are found to be infringing a third party’s intellectual property rights. These damages potentially include increased damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have infringed such rights willfully. Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us or our third-party service providers, our development, manufacturing or sales activities relating to the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit may be delayed or terminated, as parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief. As a result of patent infringement claims, or in order to avoid potential infringement claims, we may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party, which may require payment of substantial royalties or fees, or require us to grant a cross-license under our intellectual property rights. These licenses may not be available on reasonable terms or at all. Even if a license can be obtained on reasonable terms, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights. If we are unable to enter into a license on acceptable terms, we could be prevented from commercializing one or more of our product candidates, or forced to modify such product candidates, or to cease some aspect of our business operations, which could harm our business significantly. We might also be forced to redesign or modify our product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights, which may result in significant cost or delay to us, or which redesign or modification could be impossible or technically infeasible. Even if we were ultimately to prevail, any of these events could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business. Intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity, adversely impact prospective customers, cause product shipment delays, or prohibit us from manufacturing, importing, marketing or otherwise commercializing our products, services and technology. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided the patents and patent applications we own orin-license is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Current wording

In addition, defending such claims would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, if successful, could cause us to pay substantial damages if we are found to be infringing a third party’s intellectual property rights. These damages potentially include increased damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have infringed such rights willfully. Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us or our third-party service providers, our development, manufacturing or sales activities relating to the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit may be delayed or terminated, as parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief. As a result of patent infringement claims, or in order to avoid potential infringement claims, we may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party, which may require payment of substantial royalties or fees, or require us to grant a cross-license under our intellectual property rights. These licenses may not be available on reasonable terms or at all. Even if a license can be obtained on reasonable terms, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights. If we are unable to enter into a license on acceptable terms, we could be prevented from commercializing one or more of our product candidates, or forced to modify such product candidates, or to cease some aspect of our business operations, which could harm our business significantly. We might also be forced to redesign or modify our product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights, which may result in significant cost or delay to us, or which redesign or modification could be impossible or technically infeasible. Even if we were ultimately to prevail, any of these events could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business. Intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity, adversely impact prospective customers, cause product shipment delays, or prohibit us from manufacturing, importing, marketing or otherwise commercializing our products, services and technology. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided the patents and patent applications we own or in-license is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Previous wording

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property. If we or one of our licensors orco-owners were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States and in Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness lack of written description, ornon-enablement. Third parties might allege unenforceability of our patents because during prosecution of the patent an individual connected with such prosecution withheld relevant information, or made a misleading statement. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. The outcome of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution, but that an adverse third party may identify and submit in support of such assertions of invalidity. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Our patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

Current wording

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property. If we or one of our licensors or co-owners were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States and in Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness lack of written description, or non-enablement. Third parties might allege unenforceability of our patents because during prosecution of the patent an individual connected with such prosecution withheld relevant information, or made a misleading statement. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. The outcome of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution, but that an adverse third party may identify and submit in support of such assertions of invalidity. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Our patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

Previous wording

It is possible that our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, analysis of the scope of relevant patent claims or determination of the expiration of relevant patents, are not complete or thorough. It is also possible that we have not identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States, Europe and elsewhere that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, applications filed before November 29, 2000, and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States, the EU and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates could be filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. After issuance, the scope of patent claims remains subject to construction as determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our product candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States, the EU or elsewhere that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates, if approved. If we fail to identify or correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay monetary damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing our product candidates. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our product candidates in a manner that no longer infringes third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

It is possible that our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, analysis of the scope of relevant patent claims or determination of the expiration of relevant patents, are not complete or thorough. It is also possible that we have not identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States, Europe and elsewhere that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, applications filed before November 29, 2000, and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States, the EU and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates could be filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. After issuance, the scope of patent claims remains subject to construction as determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our product candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States, the EU or elsewhere that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates, if approved. If we fail to identify or correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay monetary damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing our product candidates. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our product candidates in a manner that no longer infringes third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

If any of our licenses or material relationships or anyin-licenses upon which our licenses are based are terminated or breached, we may:

Current wording

If any of our licenses or material relationships or any in-licenses upon which our licenses are based are terminated or breached, we may:

Previous wording

Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. It is not clear what, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. However, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ issued patents. We may become involved in opposition, interference, derivation, inter partes review or other proceedings challenging our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ patent rights, and the outcome of any proceedings are highly uncertain. An adverse determination in any such proceeding could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our owned orin-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

Current wording

Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. It is not clear what, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. However, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ issued patents. We may become involved in opposition, interference, derivation, inter partes review or other proceedings challenging our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ patent rights, and the outcome of any proceedings are highly uncertain. An adverse determination in any such proceeding could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our owned or in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

Previous wording

Further, on June 1, 2023, the European Patent Package (EU Patent Package) regulations were implemented with the goal of providing a singlepan-European Unitary Patent and a new European Unified Patent Court (UPC), for litigation involving European patents. Under the UPC, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the European Patent Package, will by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC provides our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke our European patents, and allows for the possibility of a competitor to obtainpan-European injunctions. It will be several years before we will understand the scope of patent rights that will be recognized and the strength of patent remedies provided by the UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. We will have the right to opt our patents out of the UPC over the first seven years of the court’s existence, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits, if any, of the new unified court.

Current wording

Further, on June 1, 2023, the European Patent Package (EU Patent Package) regulations were implemented with the goal of providing a single pan-European Unitary Patent and a new European Unified Patent Court (UPC), for litigation involving European patents. Under the UPC, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the European Patent Package, will by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC provides our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke our European patents, and allows for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunctions. It will be several years before we will understand the scope of patent rights that will be recognized and the strength of patent remedies provided by the UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. We will have the right to opt our patents out of the UPC over the first seven years of the court’s existence, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits, if any, of the new unified court.

Previous wording

The USPTO, European and other patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In addition, periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO, European and other patent agencies over the lifetime of the patent. While an inadvertent failure to make payment of such fees or to comply with such provisions can in many cases be cured by additional payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in whichnon-compliance with such provisions will result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, and the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents within prescribed time limits. If we or our licensors orco-owners fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates or if we or our licensors orco-owners otherwise allow our patents or patent applications to be abandoned or lapse, it can create opportunities for competitors to enter the market, which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully progress clinical development of or commercialize our product candidates in any indication for which they may be approved.

Current wording

The USPTO, European and other patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In addition, periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO, European and other patent agencies over the lifetime of the patent. While an inadvertent failure to make payment of such fees or to comply with such provisions can in many cases be cured by additional payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance with such provisions will result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, and the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents within prescribed time limits. If we or our licensors or co-owners fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates or if we or our licensors or co-owners otherwise allow our patents or patent applications to be abandoned or lapse, it can create opportunities for competitors to enter the market, which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully progress clinical development of or commercialize our product candidates in any indication for which they may be approved.

Previous wording

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and even in countries where we have sought protection for our intellectual property, such protection can be less extensive than those in the United States. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. In-licensing patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world may similarly be prohibitively expensive, if such opportunities are available at all. Andin-licensing or filing, prosecuting and defending patents even in only those jurisdictions in which we develop or commercialize our product candidates may be prohibitively expensive or impractical. Competitors may use our and our licensors’ andco-owners’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection or licensed patents to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors andco-owners have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States or the EU. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications while they are still pending. The grant proceeding of each national or regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications may be rejected by the relevant patent office, while substantively similar applications are granted by others. For example, relative to other countries, China has a heightened requirement for patentability and specifically requires a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. Furthermore, generic drug manufacturers or other competitors may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ patents, requiring us or our licensors orco-owners to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. Generic drug manufacturers may develop, seek approval for and launch generic versions of our products. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product candidate or technology.

Current wording

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and even in countries where we have sought protection for our intellectual property, such protection can be less extensive than those in the United States. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. In-licensing patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world may similarly be prohibitively expensive, if such opportunities are available at all. And in-licensing or filing, prosecuting and defending patents even in only those jurisdictions in which we develop or commercialize our product candidates may be prohibitively expensive or impractical. Competitors may use our and our licensors’ and co-owners’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection or licensed patents to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors and co-owners have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States or the EU. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications while they are still pending. The grant proceeding of each national or regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications may be rejected by the relevant patent office, while substantively similar applications are granted by others. For example, relative to other countries, China has a heightened requirement for patentability and specifically requires a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. Furthermore, generic drug manufacturers or other competitors may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ patents, requiring us or our licensors or co-owners to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. Generic drug manufacturers may develop, seek approval for and launch generic versions of our products. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product candidate or technology.

Previous wording

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws or regulations in the United States and the EU and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending proprietary rights in such jurisdictions. Moreover, the legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets or other forms of intellectual property, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to prevent competitors in some jurisdictions from marketing competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, are likely to result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, and additionally could put at risk our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ patents of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could increase the risk of our or our licensors’ orco-owners’ patent applications not issuing, or could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, while damages or other remedies may be awarded to the adverse party, which may be commercially significant. If we prevail, damages or other remedies awarded to us, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets. If we or our licensors orco-owners encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition in those jurisdictions.

Current wording

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws or regulations in the United States and the EU and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending proprietary rights in such jurisdictions. Moreover, the legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets or other forms of intellectual property, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to prevent competitors in some jurisdictions from marketing competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, are likely to result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, and additionally could put at risk our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ patents of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could increase the risk of our or our licensors’ or co-owners’ patent applications not issuing, or could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, while damages or other remedies may be awarded to the adverse party, which may be commercially significant. If we prevail, damages or other remedies awarded to us, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets. If we or our licensors or co-owners encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition in those jurisdictions.