Design Therapeutics Inc

Previous wording

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history that may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. Our operations to date have been limited to business planning, organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, developing and optimizing our technology platform, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking research and nonclinical studies for our lead program and our other development programs, early clinical development for our lead program, establishing and enhancing our intellectual property portfolio, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. In March 2022, we completed dosing in the first cohort for the SAD Phase 1 clinical trial of our lead FA GeneTACTM small molecule, DT-216, formulated as the prior DT-216 product candidate. We announced initial data from our SAD Phase 1 clinical trial of the prior DT-216 product candidate in December 2022 and initial data from our MAD Phase 1 clinical trial of the prior DT-216 product candidate in August 2023. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023, and plan to submit a new IND with a new drug product candidate, DT-216P2, which uses the same drug substance, DT-216. In late 2023, we submitted an IND for our second GeneTACTM small molecule, DT-168, an eye drop for the treatment of FECD and have received FDA clearance. As a result, none of our product candidates have been approved for commercial sale. We have never generated any revenue from product sales and have incurred net losses each year since we commenced operations, including a net loss of $66.9 million and $63.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for regulatory approval and commercialization. We expect to incur increasing levels of operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we advance our product candidates through clinical development. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Current wording

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history that may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. Our operations to date have been limited to business planning, organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, developing and optimizing our technology platform, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking research and nonclinical studies for our lead program in FA and our other development programs, early clinical development for our FA and FECD programs, establishing and enhancing our intellectual property portfolio, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. As a result, none of our product candidates have been approved for commercial sale. We have never generated any revenue from product sales and have incurred net losses each year since we commenced operations, including a net loss of $49.6 million and $66.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for regulatory approval and commercialization. We expect to incur increasing levels of operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we advance our product candidates through clinical development. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2023, we had $281.8 million in cash, cash equivalents and investment securities. Based upon our current operating plan, we estimate that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investment securities will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for more than the next 12 months. However, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investment securities will not be sufficient to fund any of our product candidates through regulatory approval, and we will need to raise substantial additional capital to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2024, we had $245.5 million in cash, cash equivalents and investment securities. Based upon our current operating plan, we estimate that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investment securities will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for more than the next 12 months. However, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investment securities will not be sufficient to fund any of our product candidates through regulatory approval, and we will need to raise substantial additional capital to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Previous wording

the timing of any milestone and royalty payments to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), or other future licensors;

Current wording

the timing of any milestone and royalty payments to our current and future licensors;

Previous wording

Because we do not expect to generate revenue from product sales for many years, if at all, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations and expected increases in expenses. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through equity offerings, debt financings or other capital sources, including potential collaborations, licenses or other similar arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Our ability to raise additional funds may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide as a result of macroeconomic factors, including geopolitical conflicts (such as the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine and actions taken by the United States and other governments in response), high inflation, bank failures, global supply chain and labor shortage challenges, and the effects of a health epidemic or pandemic. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

Current wording

Because we do not expect to generate revenue from product sales for many years, if at all, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations and expected increases in expenses. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through equity offerings, debt financings or other capital sources, including potential collaborations, licenses or other similar arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Our ability to raise additional funds may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide as a result of macroeconomic factors, including geopolitical conflicts (such as the geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China, the ongoing Russia/Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Hamas war), inflation, tariffs, bank failures, global supply chain and labor shortage challenges, and the effects of a health epidemic or pandemic. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

Previous wording

We are early in our development efforts, with our research programs currently in the nonclinical or discovery stage. We have a limited history of conducting clinical trials to test our product candidates in humans.

Current wording

We are early in our development efforts and we have only two product candidates in clinical development, with all of our other research programs currently in the nonclinical or discovery stage. We have a limited history of conducting clinical trials to test our product candidates in humans.

Previous wording

We are early in our development efforts and most of our operations to date have been limited to developing our platform technologies and conducting drug discovery and nonclinical studies. Our lead FA GeneTACTM small molecule, DT-216, formulated as the prior DT-216 product candidate entered into a SAD Phase 1 clinical trial in March 2022, the first clinical trial for one of our product candidates and we completed the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial of the prior DT-216 product candidate in August 2023. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023, and plan to submit a new IND with a new product candidate, DT-216P2, which uses the same drug substance, DT-216. As a result, we have limited infrastructure, experience conducting clinical trials as a company and regulatory interactions, and cannot be certain that our clinical trials will be completed on time, if at all, that our planned development programs would be acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or that, if approval is obtained, such product candidates can be successfully commercialized.

Current wording

We are early in our development efforts and most of our operations to date have been limited to developing our platform technologies and conducting drug discovery and nonclinical studies. Our lead FA GeneTAC® small molecule, DT-216, formulated as the prior DT-216 product candidate, entered into a Phase 1 SAD clinical trial in March 2022, the first clinical trial for one of our product candidates and we completed the Phase 1 MAD clinical trial of the prior DT-216 product candidate in August 2023. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023, and have initiated a Phase 1 SAD clinical trial in normal healthy volunteers in Australia to evaluate single doses using multiple routes of administration of DT-216P2, which uses the same drug substance, DT-216. We have also completed dosing in a Phase 1 clinical trial in normal healthy volunteers for DT-168, our FECD GeneTAC®product candidate. As a result, we have limited infrastructure, experience conducting clinical trials as a company and regulatory interactions, and cannot be certain that our clinical trials will be completed on time, if at all, that our planned development programs would be acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or that, if approval is obtained, such product candidates can be successfully commercialized.

Previous wording

Because of the early stage of development of our products candidates, our ability to eventually generate significant revenues from product sales will depend on a number of factors, including:

Current wording

Because of the early stage of development of our product candidates, our ability to eventually generate significant revenues from product sales will depend on a number of factors, including:

Previous wording

The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate any revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our FA, FECD, HD and DM1 GeneTACTM candidates, as well as our other product candidates, which may never occur. In the future, we may also become dependent on other product candidates that we may develop or acquire; however, given our early stage of development, it may be several years, if at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a treatment sufficient to warrant approval for commercialization. If we are unable to develop, or obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, successfully commercialize our product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

Current wording

The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate any revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our FA, FECD, DM1 and HD GeneTAC®candidates, as well as our other product candidates, which may never occur. In the future, we may also become dependent on other product candidates that we may develop or acquire; however, given our early stage of development, it may be several years, if at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a treatment sufficient to warrant approval for commercialization. If we are unable to develop, or obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, successfully commercialize our product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

Previous wording

Clinical drug development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the drug development process, including due to factors outside of our control. Success in nonclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after having promising results in earlier nonclinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, nonclinical findings emerging while clinical trials were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in nonclinical studies or clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Although we have conducted clinical studies of the prior DT-216 product candidate and nonclinical studies of the prior DT-216 product candidate and DT-216P2 for the treatment of patients with FA, certain nonclinical studies of DT-168 for the treatment of patients with FECD and certain nonclinical studies of other potential product candidates targeting expansion repeat driven diseases, we do not know whether DT-216P2 or DT-168 or other potential product candidates targeting expansion repeat driven diseases will perform in future clinical trials as they have performed in these prior studies. Furthermore, for some indications that we are pursuing, such as FECD caused by a nucleotide repeat expansion mutation in the TCF4 gene, there are no animal models of the human disease and therefore our ability to predict human disease outcomes may be reduced.

Current wording

Clinical drug development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the drug development process, including due to factors outside of our control. Success in nonclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after having promising results in earlier nonclinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, nonclinical findings emerging while clinical trials were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in nonclinical studies or clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Although we have initiated clinical trials of DT-216P2, conducted clinical trials of the prior DT-216 product candidate and nonclinical studies of the prior DT-216 product candidate and DT-216P2 for the treatment of patients with FA, completed dosing in a Phase 1 clinical trial of DT-168 in normal healthy volunteers and conducted certain nonclinical studies of DT-168 and certain nonclinical studies of other potential product candidates targeting expansion repeat driven diseases, we do not know whether DT-216P2 or DT-168 or other potential product candidates targeting expansion repeat driven diseases will perform in ongoing or future clinical trials as they have performed in prior studies. Furthermore, for some indications that we are pursuing, such as FECD caused by a nucleotide repeat expansion mutation in the TCF4 gene, there are no animal models of the human disease and therefore our ability to predict human disease outcomes may be reduced.

Previous wording

While we have conducted nonclinical studies of the prior DT-216 product candidate for the treatment of patients with FA, released initial clinical data from our SAD Phase 1 clinical trial in December 2022 and released initial results from the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial of the prior DT-216 product candidate in August 2023 with results showing that DT-216 was generally well-tolerated and exhibited the ability to overcome the FXN transcription impairment that causes FA, previously reported results from the SAD Phase 1 clinical trial showed that three patients on the prior DT-216 product candidate had injection site thrombophlebitis that were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. DT-216 was generally well-tolerated in the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial. However, self-limited injection site thrombophlebitis was observed in five patients across all three dose levels (100mg, 200mg and 300mg), whereas injection site thrombophlebitis was only observed at higher doses (the 400mg and 600mg cohorts) in the SAD Phase 1 clinical trial. Nonclinical studies showed that the injection site reactions were attributable to the formulation excipients in the prior DT-216 product candidate formulation, and that improving the formulation composition could enable higher doses and chronic administration. We have since shown that an improved formulation using a novel and proprietary excipient with DT-216P2 had favorable injection site tolerability following multiple intravenous administrations and enabled dosing to increase tissue exposure. Given the injection site thrombophlebitis observed in the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial and concern for potential worsening of injection site thrombophlebitis at higher doses with multiple administration, and the initial results from animal studies using a novel and proprietary excipient in DT-216P2, instead of advancing the prior DT-216 product candidate through to Phase 2 in the second half of 2023 as originally planned, we decided to pursue development of DT-216P2 to better support the future clinical development and regulatory pathway for the drug substance DT-216. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023 and plan to submit a new IND with DT-216P2. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete development of DT-216P2 with improved injection site tolerability and the absence of other unacceptable side effects on the timeframe we expect, or at all, or that we will be able to achieve our anticipated timeline for resumed Phase 1 clinical development and data.

Current wording

While we have conducted nonclinical studies of the prior DT-216 product candidate for the treatment of patients with FA, released initial clinical data from our Phase 1 SAD clinical trial in December 2022 and released initial results from the Phase 1 MAD clinical trial of the prior DT-216 product candidate in August 2023 with results showing that DT-216 was generally well-tolerated and exhibited the ability to overcome the FXN transcription impairment that causes FA, previously reported results from the Phase 1 SAD clinical trial showed that three patients on the prior DT-216 product candidate had injection site thrombophlebitis that were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. DT-216 was generally well-tolerated in the Phase 1 MAD clinical trial. However, self-limited injection site thrombophlebitis was observed in five patients across all three dose levels (100 mg, 200 mg and 300 mg), whereas injection site thrombophlebitis was only observed at higher doses (the 400 mg and 600 mg cohorts) in the Phase 1 SAD clinical trial. Nonclinical studies showed that the injection site reactions were attributable to the formulation excipients in the prior DT-216 product candidate formulation, and that improving the formulation composition could enable higher doses and chronic administration. We have since shown that a potentially improved formulation using a novel and proprietary excipient with DT-216P2 had favorable injection site tolerability following multiple intravenous administrations and enabled dosing to increase tissue exposure. Given the injection site thrombophlebitis observed in the Phase 1 MAD clinical trial and concern for potential worsening of injection site thrombophlebitis at higher doses with multiple administration, and the initial results from animal studies using a novel and proprietary excipient in DT-216P2, instead of advancing the prior DT-216 product candidate through to Phase 2 in the second half of 2023 as originally planned, we decided to pursue development of DT-216P2 to better support the future clinical development and regulatory pathway for the drug substance DT-216. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023. We have initiated a Phase 1 SAD clinical trial of DT-216P2 in normal healthy volunteers in Australia to evaluate single doses using multiple routes of administration, specifically IV infusion and SC injection and infusion routes. Results from this Phase 1 SAD clinical trial will inform the design of a clinical trial in FA patients, anticipated to begin in mid-2025. We anticipate providing an update in 2026 on the effect of DT-216P2 on endogenous FXN levels following 12 weeks of dosing. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully develop DT-216P2 with improved injection site tolerability and the absence of other unacceptable side effects on the timeframe we expect, or at all, or that we will be able to achieve our anticipated timeline for resumed Phase…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on product candidates using our GeneTACTM platform technologies, and our future success depends on the successful development of this approach. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for any product candidates based on our GeneTACTM platform technologies in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter, and use of our GeneTACTM platform technologies may not ever result in marketable products. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners or establishing our own commercial manufacturing capabilities, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing any products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Further, because all of our product candidates and development programs are based on the same GeneTACTM platform technologies, 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.

Current wording

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on product candidates using our GeneTAC® platform technologies, and our future success depends on the successful development of this approach. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for any product candidates based on our GeneTAC®platform technologies in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter, and use of our GeneTAC®platform technologies may not ever result in marketable products. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners or establishing our own commercial manufacturing capabilities, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing any products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Further, because all of our product candidates and development programs are based on the same GeneTAC® platform technologies, 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.

Previous wording

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are also rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies improving the treatments in the field of expansion repeat driven diseases and small molecules that render our GeneTACTM platform technologies obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates.

Current wording

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are also rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies improving the treatments in the field of expansion repeat driven diseases and small molecules that render our GeneTAC®platform technologies obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates.

Previous wording

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials planned in the future for our product candidates if we are unable to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating.

Current wording

We may not be able to continue our ongoing clinical trials or initiate or continue clinical trials planned in the future for our product candidates if we are unable to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating.

Previous wording

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt ongoing or planned clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials or nonclinical studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. For example, in December 2022, we reported initial data from the SAD Phase 1 clinical trial for the prior DT-216 product candidate, the first clinical trial for one of our product candidates. Initial safety results from Cohorts 1-5 showed that DT-216 was generally well-tolerated after a single dose of the prior DT-216 product candidate, but three patients on the prior DT-216 product candidate had injection site thrombophlebitis that were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. DT-216 was generally well-tolerated in the subsequent MAD Phase 1 clinical trial. However, self-limited injection site thrombophlebitis was observed in five patients across all three dose levels (100mg, 200mg and 300mg), whereas injection site thrombophlebitis was only observed at higher doses (the 400mg and 600mg cohorts) in the SAD Phase 1 clinical trial. Nonclinical studies showed that the injection site reactions were attributable to the formulation excipients in the prior DT-216 product candidate formulation, and that improving the formulation composition could enable higher doses and chronic administration. We have since shown that an improved formulation using a novel and proprietary excipient with DT-216P2 had favorable injection site tolerability following multiple intravenous administrations and enabled dosing to increase tissue exposure. Given the injection site thrombophlebitis observed in the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial and concern for potential worsening of injection site thrombophlebitis at higher doses with multiple administration, the initial results from animal studies with DT-216P2 using a novel and proprietary excipient, instead of advancing the prior DT-216 product candidate with the current formulation through to Phase 2 in the second half of 2023 as originally planned, we decided to pursue development of DT-216P2 that we believe may better support the future clinical development and regulatory pathway for the drug substance DT-216. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023 and plan to submit a new IND with DT-216P2. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete development of a new formulation of DT-216P2 with improved injection site tolerability and the absence of other unacceptable side effects on the timeframe we expect, or at all, or that we will be able to achieve our anticipated timeline for resumed Phase 1 clinical development and data.

Current wording

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt ongoing or planned clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials or nonclinical studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. For example, in December 2022, we reported initial data from the Phase 1 SAD clinical trial for the prior DT-216 product candidate, the first clinical trial for one of our product candidates. Initial safety results from Cohorts 1-5 showed that DT-216 was generally well-tolerated after a single dose of the prior DT-216 product candidate, but three patients on the prior DT-216 product candidate had injection site thrombophlebitis that were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. DT-216 was generally well-tolerated in the subsequent Phase 1 MAD clinical trial. However, self-limited injection site thrombophlebitis was observed in five patients across all three dose levels (100 mg, 200 mg and 300 mg), whereas injection site thrombophlebitis was only observed at higher doses (the 400 mg and 600 mg cohorts) in the Phase 1 SAD clinical trial. Nonclinical studies showed that the injection site reactions were attributable to the formulation excipients in the prior DT-216 product candidate formulation, and that improving the formulation composition could enable higher doses and chronic administration.

Previous wording

Even if we eventually complete planned clinical testing and receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for our product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and/or in the case of the FDA, the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may also approve a product candidate for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agency may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

Current wording

Even if we eventually complete ongoing and planned clinical testing and receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for our product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and/or in the case of the FDA, the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may also approve a product candidate for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agency may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

Previous wording

Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. We cannot be sure that any evaluation we may make of our product candidates as qualifying for Breakthrough Therapy designation will meet the FDA’s expectations. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Current wording

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for some of our product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. For drugs that have been designated as a Breakthrough Therapy, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs designated as a Breakthrough Therapy by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval. Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. We cannot be sure that any evaluation we may make of our product candidates as qualifying for Breakthrough Therapy designation will meet the FDA’s expectations. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Previous wording

In February 2023, the FDA approved omaveloxolone, a Nrf2 activator, for the treatment of FA in adults and adolescents aged 16 years and older and omaveloxolone was commercially launched by Reata Pharmaceuticals in June 2023. Reata Pharmaceuticals was acquired by Biogen in September 2023. We are also aware of a number of companies with active clinical stage FA programs including (i) Larimar Therapeutics evaluating CTI-1601, a cell penetrating peptide FXN recombinant fusion protein, (ii) Lexeo Therapeutics evaluating a cardiac targeted FXN gene therapy, (iii) Minoryx Therapeutics evaluating leriglitazone, a PPAR-gamma agonist, and (iv) PTC Therapeutics evaluating vatiquinone, a 15-lipoxygenase inhibitor. In addition, several companies have stated that they have gene therapy programs for FA including CRISPR Therapeutics, Prime Medicine, Lacerta Therapeutics, Solid Biosciences, and Voyager Therapeutics.

Current wording

In February 2023, the FDA approved omaveloxolone, a Nrf2 activator, for the treatment of FA in adults and adolescents aged 16 years and older and omaveloxolone was commercially launched by Reata Pharmaceuticals in June 2023. Reata Pharmaceuticals was acquired by Biogen in September 2023. We are also aware of a number of companies with active clinical-stage FA programs including (i) Larimar Therapeutics evaluating CTI-1601, a cell penetrating peptide FXN recombinant fusion protein, (ii) Lexeo Therapeutics evaluating a cardiac targeted FXN gene therapy, (iii) Minoryx Therapeutics evaluating leriglitazone, a PPAR-gamma agonist, and (iv) PTC Therapeutics evaluating vatiquinone, a 15-lipoxygenase inhibitor. In addition, several companies have stated that they have gene therapy programs for FA including Astellas Pharma Inc, Capsida Biotherapeutics, Solid Biosciences, and Voyager Therapeutics.

Previous wording

We are aware of a number of companies with active clinical stage FECD programs including (i) Aurion Biotech evaluating Vyznova, expanded donor cells for transplant, (ii) Emmecell evaluating donor cornea endothelial cells delivered through magnetic nanoparticles injected into the anterior chamber, (iii) Kowa Pharmaceutical evaluating Ripasudil, a Rho-kinase inhibitor, for use in conjunction with corneal surgery, (iv) Santen Pharmaceutical evaluating STN1010904, an mTOR inhibitor, and (v) Trefoil Therapeutics evaluating TTHX1114, an engineered FGF1 delivered via intracameral injection, for use in conjunction with corneal surgery.

Current wording

We are aware of a number of companies with active clinical-stage FECD programs including (i) Aurion Biotech evaluating Vyznova, expanded donor cells for transplant, (ii) Emmecell evaluating donor cornea endothelial cells delivered through magnetic nanoparticles injected into the anterior chamber, (iii) Kowa Pharmaceutical evaluating Ripasudil, a Rho-kinase inhibitor, for use in conjunction with corneal surgery, (iv) Santen Pharmaceutical evaluating STN1010904 (licensed from ActualEyes Inc.), an mTOR inhibitor, and (v) Trefoil Therapeutics evaluating TTHX1114, an engineered FGF1 delivered via intracameral injection, for use in conjunction with corneal surgery.

Previous wording

We are aware of a number of programs for DM1 including (i) AMO Pharma evaluating tideglusib, a GSK3-ß inhibitor, (ii) Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals evaluating an RNA interference (RNAi) conjugate, (iii) Arthex Biotech evaluating anti-miRNA oligonucleotides, (iv) Astellas Pharma evaluating an AAV-antisense candidate, (v) Avidity Biosciences evaluating an antibody linked siRNA, (vi) Dewpoint Therapeutics evaluating condensate modifying drugs, (vii) Dyne Therapeutics evaluating an antibody linked oligonucleotide, (viii) Entrada Therapeutics evaluating a peptide conjugated oligonucleotide, (ix) an AAV-based RNA degrading gene therapy by Enzerna Biosciences, (x)

Current wording

We are aware of a number of programs for DM1 including (i) AMO Pharma evaluating tideglusib, a GSK3-ß inhibitor, (ii) Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals evaluating an RNA interference (RNAi) conjugate, (iii) Arthex Biotech evaluating anti-miRNA oligonucleotides, (iv) Avidity Biosciences evaluating an antibody linked siRNA, (v) Dyne Therapeutics evaluating an antibody linked oligonucleotide, (vi) EditForce evaluating an RNA editing technology, (vii) an AAV-based RNA degrading gene therapy by Enzerna Biosciences, (viii) small molecules interacting with RNA under evaluation by Expansion Therapeutics, (ix) Harmony Biosciences evaluating a histamine 3 receptor for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in DM1, (x) Juvena Therapeutics evaluating JUV-161, a stem cell-secreted protein, (xi) Modalis Therapeutics evaluating MDL-202, a gene therapy candidate, (xii) PepGen evaluating a peptide conjugated antisense oligonucleotide, (xiii) Transition Bio evaluating condensate therapeutics, and (xiv) Vertex Pharmaceuticals evaluating a peptide conjugated oligonucleotide (licensed from Entrada Therapeutics).

Previous wording

We are aware of a number of companies with active clinical stage HD programs including (i) AskBio evaluating AAV delivered cholesterol 24-hydroxylase gene (ii) Hoffmann-La Roche AG evaluating Tominersen, an antisense oligonucleotide, (iii) Prilenia Therapeutics evaluating a sigma-1 receptor agonist, (iv) PTC Therapeutics evaluating a splicing modifier, (v) Sage Therapeutics evaluating an NDMA-allosteric modulator, (vi) Skyhawk Therapeutics evaluating a splicing modifier, (vii) uniQure evaluating an AAV delivered miRNA, (viii) VICO evaluating an antisense oligonucleotide, and (ix) Wave Life Sciences evaluating an antisense oligonucleotide.

Current wording

We are aware of a number of companies with active clinical-stage HD programs including (i) Alnylam Pharmaceuticals evaluating an RNAi therapeutic, (ii) Annexon Biosciences evaluating a monoclonal antibody, (iii) AskBio evaluating AAV delivered cholesterol 24-hydroxylase gene, (iv) Hoffmann-La Roche AG evaluating Tominersen, an antisense oligonucleotide, (v) Prilenia Therapeutics evaluating a sigma-1 receptor agonist, (vi) PTC Therapeutics evaluating a splicing modifier, (vii) Skyhawk Therapeutics evaluating a splicing modifier, (viii) uniQure evaluating an AAV delivered miRNA, (ix) Vaccinex evaluating a monoclonal antibody, (x) VICO evaluating an antisense oligonucleotide, and (xi) Wave Life Sciences evaluating an antisense oligonucleotide.

Previous wording

We will also compete more generally with other companies developing alternative scientific and technological approaches to modulate individual genes, including other companies working to develop nuclease-based gene editing technologies, such as Beam Therapeutics, CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Intellia Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences and Sangamo Biosciences.

Current wording

We will also compete more generally with other companies developing alternative scientific and technological approaches to modulate individual genes, including other companies working to develop nuclease-based gene editing technologies, such as Beam Therapeutics, CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Intellia Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Biosciences and Verve Therapeutics.

Previous wording

We do not have the ability to conduct all aspects of our nonclinical testing or clinical trials ourselves. As a result, we are and expect to remain dependent on third parties to conduct our nonclinical studies and any future clinical trials of our product candidates. The timing of the initiation and completion of these studies and trials will therefore be partially controlled by such third parties and may result in delays to our development programs. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal requirements, and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs and other third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs are required to comply with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GLP and GCP requirements through periodic inspections of nonclinical study sites, trial sponsors, clinical trial investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of our CROs or clinical trial sites fail to comply with applicable GLP or GCP requirements, the data generated in our nonclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional nonclinical or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations. The failure to comply with these regulations may require us to stop and/or repeat clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process.

Current wording

We do not have the ability to conduct all aspects of our nonclinical testing or clinical trials ourselves. As a result, we are and expect to remain dependent on third parties to conduct our nonclinical studies, our ongoing clinical trials and any future clinical trials of our product candidates. The timing of the initiation and completion of these studies and trials will therefore be partially controlled by such third parties and may result in delays to our development programs. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal requirements, and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs and other third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs are required to comply with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GLP and GCP requirements through periodic inspections of nonclinical study sites, trial sponsors, clinical trial investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of our CROs or clinical trial sites fail to comply with applicable GLP or GCP requirements, the data generated in our nonclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional nonclinical or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations. The failure to comply with these regulations may require us to stop and/or repeat clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process.

Previous wording

We do not have any manufacturing facilities. We rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for nonclinical and clinical testing. We will continue to rely on such third parties for commercial product manufacture, if any of our product candidates are approved. We currently have limited manufacturing arrangements and expect that each of our product candidates will only be covered by single source suppliers for the foreseeable future. This reliance increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products, if approved, or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. For example, as previously announced in May 2023, an unanticipated issue related to the vial stopper used by our vendor for manufacturing the prior DT-216 product candidate caused a short delay in product supply for the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial. In addition, we currently have only one supplier for one of the excipient components of DT-216P2. We may not be able to establish additional sources of supply for this excipient component of DT-216P2 or our other product candidates on a timely basis, or at all, or may be unable to do so on acceptable terms.

Current wording

We do not have any manufacturing facilities. We rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for nonclinical and clinical testing. We will continue to rely on such third parties for commercial product manufacture, if any of our product candidates are approved. We currently have limited manufacturing arrangements and expect that each of our product candidates will only be covered by single source suppliers for the foreseeable future. This reliance increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products, if approved, or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. For example, as previously announced in May 2023, an unanticipated issue related to the vial stopper used by our vendor for manufacturing the prior DT-216 product candidate caused a short delay in product supply for the Phase 1 MAD clinical trial. In addition, we currently have only one supplier for one of the excipient components of DT-216P2. We may not be able to establish additional sources of supply for this excipient component of DT-216P2 or our other product candidates on a timely basis, or at all, or may be unable to do so on acceptable terms.

Previous wording

As product candidates progress through nonclinical to late-stage clinical trials to marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield, manufacture batch size, change drug product dosage form, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or nonclinical studies or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue. For instance, while DT-216 was generally well-tolerated and exhibited the ability to overcome the FXN transcription impairment that causes FA in the SAD Phase 1 clinical trial and the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial, injection site thrombophlebitis was observed in patients at lower dose levels in the MAD Phase 1 clinical trial. Instead of advancing the prior DT-216 product candidate through to Phase 2 in the second half of 2023 as originally planned, due to concern for potential worsening of injection site thrombophlebitis at higher doses with multiple administration, we decided to pursue development of an improved formulation using a novel and proprietary excipient with DT-216P2 which has shown favorable injection site tolerability that we believe may better support the future clinical development and regulatory pathway for the drug substance, DT-216. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023 and plan to submit a new IND with DT-216P2. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete development of DT-216P2 with improved injection site tolerability and the absence of other unacceptable side effects on the timeframe we expect, or at all, or that we will be able to achieve our anticipated timeline for resumed Phase 1 clinical development and data.

Current wording

As product candidates progress through nonclinical to late-stage clinical trials to marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield, manufacture batch size, change drug product dosage form, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or nonclinical studies or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue. For instance, while DT-216 was generally well-tolerated and exhibited the ability to overcome the FXN transcription impairment that causes FA in the Phase 1 SAD clinical trial and the Phase 1 MAD clinical trial, injection site thrombophlebitis was observed in patients at lower dose levels in the Phase 1 MAD clinical trial. Instead of advancing the prior DT-216 product candidate through to Phase 2 in the second half of 2023 as originally planned, due to concern for potential worsening of injection site thrombophlebitis at higher doses with multiple administration, we decided to pursue development of a potentially improved formulation using a novel and proprietary excipient with DT-216P2 which has shown favorable injection site tolerability that we believe may better support the future clinical development and regulatory pathway for the drug substance, DT-216. We withdrew our IND for the prior DT-216 product candidate in October 2023. We have initiated a Phase 1 SAD clinical trial of DT-216P2 in normal healthy volunteers in Australia to evaluate single doses using multiple routes of administration, specifically IV infusion and SC injection and infusion routes. Results from this Phase 1 SAD clinical trial will inform the design of a clinical trial in FA patients, anticipated to begin in mid-2025. We anticipate providing an update in 2026 on the effect of DT-216P2 on endogenous FXN levels following 12 weeks of dosing. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully develop DT-216P2 with improved injection site tolerability and the absence of other unacceptable side effects on the timeframe we expect, or at all, or that we will be able to achieve our anticipated timeline for resumed Phase 1 clinical development and data.

Previous wording

We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If and when we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claims, or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Current wording

We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If and when we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim, or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2023, we had 58 employees. In addition, we also utilize specialized contract research organizations for additional research and development personnel. Together with our employees, our team comprised approximately 124 full-time equivalents as of December 31, 2023. As we advance our research and development programs, we may be required to further increase the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical development, discovery biology, chemistry, product development, general and administrative matters relating to being a public company, regulatory affairs and, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage any future growth, we must:

Current wording

As of December 31, 2024, we had 54 employees. In addition, we also utilize specialized contract research organizations for additional research and development personnel. Together with our employees, our team comprised approximately 122 full-time equivalents as of December 31, 2024. As we advance our research and development programs, we may be required to further increase the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical development, discovery biology, chemistry, product development, general and administrative matters relating to being a public company, regulatory affairs and, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage any future growth, we must:

Previous wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2023, we had $68.2 million of U.S. federal NOLs and $10.9 million of state NOLs. U.S. federal NOL carryforwards totaling $0.1 million will begin to expire in 2037 unless previously utilized. Federal and state NOL carryforwards of $68.2 million and $0.5 million generated after 2017, may be carryforward indefinitely but can only be utilized to offset 80% of future taxable income. State NOL carryforwards totaling $10.4 million begin to expire in 2037, unless previously utilized. In addition, we have federal and state research and development (R&D) credit carryforwards totaling $6.9 million and $2.3 million, respectively. The federal R&D credit carryforwards will begin to expire in 2038 unless previously utilized. The state R&D credit carryforwards do not expire. Our NOL carryforwards and R&D credits are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. and state tax authorities.

Current wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2024, we had U.S. federal and state net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards of $86.4 million and $11.1 million, respectively. U.S. federal NOL carryforwards totaling $0.1 million begin to expire in 2037, unless previously utilized. The U.S. federal and certain state NOL carryforwards of $86.3 million and $0.9 million, respectively, generated after 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely but can only be utilized to offset 80% of future taxable income. The remaining state NOL carryforwards totaling $10.2 million begin to expire in 2037, unless previously utilized. In addition, we have U.S. federal and state research and development (“R&D”) credit carryforwards totaling $9.0 million and $3.2 million, respectively. The U.S. federal R&D credit carryforwards will begin to expire in 2038 unless previously utilized. The state R&D credit carryforwards do not expire. Our NOL carryforwards and R&D credits are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. and state tax authorities.

Previous wording

In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards, R&D credits and certain other tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. This could limit the amount of NOLs, R&D credit carryforwards or other applicable tax attributes that we can utilize annually to offset future taxable income or tax liabilities. Subsequent ownership changes and changes to the U.S. tax rules in respect of the utilization of NOLs, R&D credits and other applicable tax attributes carried forward may further affect the limitation in future years. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows. We have completed a Section 382 study to assess whether an ownership change had occurred from our formation through December 31, 2021. Based upon the study, we determined that we experienced multiple ownership changes during 2020, causing the annual utilization of NOLs, R&D credits, and other applicable tax attributes generated before then to be limited. We do not believe any of the NOLs, R&D credits, and other applicable tax attributes generated through December 31, 2021 will expire solely as a result of the limitations caused by these ownership changes. We may experience additional ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership.

Current wording

In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards, R&D credits and certain other tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. This could limit the amount of NOLs, R&D credit carryforwards or other applicable tax attributes that we can utilize annually to offset future taxable income or tax liabilities. Subsequent ownership changes and changes to the U.S. tax rules in respect of the utilization of NOLs, R&D credits and other applicable tax attributes carried forward may further affect the limitation in future years. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows. We have completed a Section 382 study to assess whether an ownership change had occurred from our formation through December 31, 2021. Based upon the study, we determined that we experienced multiple ownership changes during 2020, causing the annual utilization of NOLs, R&D credits, and other applicable tax attributes generated before then to be limited. We do not believe any of the NOLs, R&D credits, and other applicable tax attributes generated through December 31, 2021 will expire solely as a result of the limitations caused by these ownership changes. We may have experienced additional ownership changes since December 31, 2021, and may experience additional ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs to offset U.S. federal taxable income may be subject to further limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us.

Previous wording

In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was enacted, which includes measures that have significantly changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. On June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. However, it is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to additional judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Inflation Reduction Act) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The Inflation Reduction Act also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act or our business.

Current wording

In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was enacted, which includes measures that have significantly changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers. There have been amendments to and executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Inflation Reduction Act) was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The Inflation Reduction Act also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional healthcare reform measures of the current administration will impact the Affordable Care Act or our business.

Previous wording

Recently, 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 legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden's executive order, on September 9, 2021, the 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 to advance these principles. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain 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” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The Inflation Reduction Act permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. These provisions take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the Inflation Reduction Act will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. In response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Recently, 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 legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act, among other things, (i) directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate the price of certain drugs and biologics that have been on the market for at least 7 years covered under Medicare (the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program), 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” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The Inflation Reduction Act permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. These provisions took effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon prices of the first 10 drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Further, on December 7, 2023, an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act was announced. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

Previous wording

We are subject to stringent and changing U.S. and foreign laws, regulations and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions, litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands, fines and penalties, disruptions of our business operations, reputational harm and other adverse business impacts.

Current wording

We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to stringent and changing U.S. and foreign laws, regulations and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our, or our third parties’, actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions, litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands, fines and penalties, disruptions of our business operations, reputational harm and other adverse business impacts.

Previous wording

In the ordinary course of business, we and our collaborators and third-party providers may collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal data and other sensitive information, such as proprietary and confidential business data, trade secrets, intellectual property, and data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials. Our data processing activities subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts, and other obligations that govern the processing of sensitive information by us and on our behalf. In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, which imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant penalties if we violate HIPAA.

Current wording

In the ordinary course of business, we and our collaborators and third-party providers may collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal data and other sensitive information, such as proprietary and confidential business data, trade secrets, intellectual property, and data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials. Our data processing activities subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts, and other obligations that govern the processing of sensitive information by us and on our behalf. In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). In addition, we obtain health information from certain third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, which imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant penalties if we violate HIPAA.

Previous wording

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), (collectively, CCPA) applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, employees and other individuals who are California residents, and requires businesses subject to the CCPA to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines of up to $7,500 per intentional violation and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although the CCPA exempts some data processed in the context of clinical trials, the CCPA may increase compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we may maintain about California residents, should we become subject to the CCPA in the future. At this time, we do not believe we are subject to the CCPA, but should we expand our operations in California such that the CCPA applies to us, the CCPA will impose new and burdensome privacy compliance obligations on our business and will raise new risks for potential fines and class actions. Other states have also enacted data privacy laws, including Virginia and Colorado, and similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels. While these states, like the CCPA, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties upon whom we rely, should we become subject to them in the future.

Current wording

Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services to the extent we become subject to these laws in the future. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, employees and other individuals who are California residents, and requires businesses subject to the CCPA to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. While these states, like the CCPA, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties upon whom we rely, should we become subject to them in the future.

Previous wording

Certain jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EU and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant organizations based in the United States who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations.

Current wording

Certain jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions have adopted similarly stringent data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EU and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant organizations based in the United States who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations.

Previous wording

Our employees and personnel may use generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to perform their work, and the disclosure and use of personal data in generative AI technologies is subject to various privacy laws and other privacy obligations. Governments have passed and are likely to pass additional laws regulating generative AI. Our use of this technology could result in additional compliance costs, regulatory investigations and actions, and consumer lawsuits. If we are unable to use generative AI, it could make our business less efficient and result in competitive disadvantages.

Current wording

Our employees and personnel use generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to perform certain tasks at work, and the disclosure and use of personal data in generative AI technologies is subject to various privacy laws and other privacy obligations. Governments have passed and are likely to pass additional laws regulating generative AI. Our use of this technology could result in additional compliance costs, regulatory investigations and actions, and consumer lawsuits. If we are unable to use generative AI, it could make our business less efficient and result in competitive disadvantages.

Previous wording

In addition to data privacy and security laws, we are bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. For example, certain privacy laws, such as the GDPR and the CCPA, require customers to impose specific contractual restrictions on their service providers.

Current wording

In addition to data privacy and security laws, we are bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. For example, certain privacy laws, such as the GDPR and the CCPA, require customers to impose specific contractual restrictions on their service providers. We may publish privacy policies and other statements concerning data privacy, and security. Regulators in the United States are increasingly scrutinizing these statements, and if these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators or other adverse consequences.

Previous wording

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and consumer data privacy expectations) are quickly changing in an increasingly stringent fashion, creating some uncertainty as to the effective future legal framework. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf. In addition, these obligations may even require us to change our business model. Although we endeavor to comply with all applicable data privacy and security obligations, we may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) to do so. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties upon whom we rely may fail to comply with such obligations which could negatively impact our business operations and compliance posture. If we fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences. These consequences may include, but are not limited to, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections and similar); litigation (including class-related claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for significant statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process personal data or operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or revision or restructuring our operations.

Current wording

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and consumer data privacy expectations) are quickly changing in an increasingly stringent fashion, creating some uncertainty as to the effective future legal framework. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and has, in some instances, prompted changes to our information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf. In addition, these obligations may even require us to change our business model. Although we endeavor to comply with all applicable data privacy and security obligations, we may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) to do so. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties upon whom we rely may fail to comply with such obligations which could negatively impact our business operations and compliance posture. If we fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences. These consequences include, but are not limited to, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections and similar); litigation (including class-related claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for significant statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process personal data or operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or revision or restructuring our operations.

Previous wording

Obtaining and enforcing patents is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications or maintain and/or enforce patents that may issue based on our patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development results before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such results before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

Current wording

Obtaining and enforcing patents is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications or maintain and/or enforce patents that may issue based on our patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Recent reforms and changes at government agencies of the United States and those of non-U.S. jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications, and the maintenance, enforcement, or defense of our issued patents. For example, the ability of the USPTO and other applicable patent authorities to properly administer their functions is highly dependent on the levels of funding available to the agency and their ability to retain key personnel and fill key leadership appointments, among various factors. Termination of employees or delays in replacing or hiring for key positions could significantly impact the ability of the USPTO and other applicable patent authorities to fulfill their functions and could greatly impact our ability to timely and adequately prosecute or maintain our patent applications, and our ability to timely and adequately maintain, enforce, or defend our issued patents. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development results before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such results before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

Previous wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs, and may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act), signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. 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. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs, and may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act), signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. 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. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. We cannot predict how decisions by the federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patent rights. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Amgen v. Sanofi (2023) that a functionally claimed genus was invalid for failing to comply with the enablement requirement of the Patent Act. In addition, the Federal circuit recently issued a decision, In re Cellect, LLC (2023) involving the interaction of patent term adjustment (PTA), terminal disclaimers, and obvious-type double patenting which may affect the patent term of any issued patents that rely on any PTA. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. In the 2013 case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed by Congress authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate prices directly with participating manufacturers for selected medicines covered by Medicare even if these medicines are protected by an existing patent. For small molecule medicines, the process begins seven years after initial approval by the FDA. While we do not believe that the IRA or its effects will impact our ability to obtain patents in the near future, we cannot be certain whether it will affect our patent strategy in the long run.

Current wording

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. We cannot predict how decisions by the federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patent rights. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Amgen v. Sanofi (2023) that a functionally claimed genus was invalid for failing to comply with the enablement requirement of the Patent Act. In addition, the Federal circuit recently issued a decision, In re Cellect, LLC (2023) involving the interaction of patent term adjustment (PTA), terminal disclaimers, and obvious-type double patenting which may affect the patent term of any issued patents that rely on any PTA. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. In the 2013 case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed by Congress authorizes the Secretary of the Department of HHS to negotiate prices directly with participating manufacturers for selected medicines covered by Medicare even if these medicines are protected by an existing patent. For small molecule medicines, the process begins seven years after initial approval by the FDA. While we do not believe that the IRA or its effects will impact our ability to obtain patents in the near future, we cannot be certain whether it will affect our patent strategy in the long run.