Beam Therapeutics Inc

Current report

Disruptions at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, and other government agencies from funding cuts, personnel losses, regulatory reform, government shutdowns and other developments could hinder our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA regarding our clinical development programs and develop and secure approval of our product candidates in a timely manner, which would negatively impact our business.

Current report

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in foreign jurisdictions, such as the European Medicines Agency and its Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, play an important role in the development of our product candidates by providing guidance on our clinical development programs and reviewing our regulatory submissions, including initial new drug applications, or INDs, requests for special designations, and marketing applications. If these oversight and review activities are disrupted, then correspondingly our ability to develop and secure timely approval of our product candidates could be impacted in a negative manner.

Current report

For example, the recent loss of FDA leadership and personnel could lead to disruptions and delays in FDA guidance, review, and approval of our product candidates. Pursuant to President Trump’s E.O. 14210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, announced on March 27, 2025, a reorganization and reduction in force, or RIF, across HHS of approximately 20,000 employees (82,000 to 62,000), with the FDA’s workforce to decrease by 3,500 full-time employees. Shortly thereafter, thousands of employees at the FDA were fired on April 1, 2025. Subsequently, there have been reports from the preliminary budget memorandum for HHS that the administration will propose an additional 30% cut in the overall budget for HHS, with a reduction of $700 million in funding at the FDA ($7.2 billion to $6.5 billion) for the 2026 federal fiscal year.

Current report

Further, while the FDA’s review of marketing applications and other activities for new drugs and biologics is largely funded through the user fee program established under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, it remains unclear how the administration’s RIF and budget cuts will impact this program and the ability of the FDA to provide guidance and review our product candidates in a timely manner. For example, while the RIF reportedly did not specifically target FDA reviewers, many operations, administrative and policy staff that help support such reviews were affected and those losses could lead to delays in PDUFA reviews and related activities. In addition, while currently unclear, there is a risk that the RIF and budget cutbacks could threaten the integrity of the PDUFA program itself, because for the FDA to obligate user fees collected under PDUFA in the first place, a certain amount of non-user fee appropriations must be spent on the process for the review of applications plus certain other costs during the same fiscal year.

Current report

There is also substantial uncertainty as to how regulatory reform measures being implemented by the Administration across the government will impact the FDA and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over our activities. For example, since taking office, President Trump has issued a number of executive orders that could have a significant impact on the manner in which the FDA conducts its operations and engages in regulatory and oversight activities. These include E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” January 31, 2025; E.O. 14212, “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,” February 13, 2025; and E.O. 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative,” February 21, 2025. If these or other orders or executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

Current report

Similarly, actions by the U.S. government have significantly disrupted the operations of U.S. government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FDA, which have traditionally provided funding for basic research, research and development, and clinical testing. These U.S. government actions have included, among other things, suspending, terminating and withholding of disbursements of funds owed under ongoing contracts, grants, and other financial assistance agreements; declining to continue multi-year research projects for additional annual budget periods; canceling or delaying solicitations for new contract, grant and other financial assistance awards; canceling or delaying proposal evaluation processes and issuance of such new awards; substantially reducing federal agency staff responsible for managing contract and financial assistance programs; eliminating agency information and resources for facilitating research activity; delaying or terminating federal agency procedures for authorizing international transactions; initiating aggressive enforcement actions that may disrupt the operations of major research universities that are significant contributors to life sciences research in the U.S.; and threatening access to federal agency contracts and other funding awards based on companies’ otherwise lawful corporate policies and choice of counsel. These U.S. government actions could, directly or indirectly, significantly disrupt, delay, prevent, or increase the costs of our research and product commercialization programs, including our ability to develop new product candidates, conduct clinical trials, implement research collaborations with other companies or institutions, and obtain approvals to market and sell new products.

Current report

In addition, government funding of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions and the ability of the SEC to timely review our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets.

Current report

At the same time, disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies may result from public health events similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, during the pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. In the event of a similar public health emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the United States facing similar circumstances may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to a similar public health emergency and may also experience delays in their regulatory activities.

Current report

Accordingly, if any of the foregoing developments and others impact the ability of the FDA to provide us with guidance regarding our clinical development programs or delay the FDA’s review and processing of our regulatory submissions, including INDs and new drug applications or biologics license applications, our business would be negatively impacted. Further, any future government shutdown could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Current report

Changes in U.S. trade policy could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations

Current report

The new U.S. administration has imposed a series of tariffs on U.S. trading partners. On April 2, 2025, an executive order issued by the new administration announced a “baseline” reciprocal tariff of 10% on all U.S. trading partners effective April 5, 2025, and higher individualized reciprocal tariffs on 57 countries (with certain product exemptions for pharmaceutical-related imports, among others). Earlier the administration imposed a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico for goods not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, and tariffs equaling 20% on China. In response, several countries threatened retaliatory measures including Canada and China who then imposed retaliatory tariffs. Prior to when the country-specific reciprocal tariffs were scheduled to take effect, the United States. delayed the effective date of such tariffs for all countries except China. As of April 16, 2015, the 10% baseline reciprocal tariff on all countries remains in effect, in addition to the tariffs on China (which were a minimum of 145%) and Canada and Mexico (which were 25% for goods that are not covered by the USMCA).

Current report

Between March 13, 2025, and April 16, 2025, the Trump Administration initiated several national-security investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 including on the import of pharmaceuticals (including active pharmaceutical ingredients). Each investigation will examine the impact of these imports on U.S. national security culminating in a decision by the President whether to take action to remedy any identified threats, including by imposing additional tariffs. The statute provides that the Commerce Department report must be completed within 270 days of initiation and that the President must decide whether to act within 90 days of receiving the report.

Current report

Separately, on April 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 into imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, including finished drug products, medical countermeasures, critical inputs such as active pharmaceutical ingredients, and key starting materials, and derivative products of those items. The investigation will examine the impact of these imports on U.S. national security culminating in a decision by the President whether to take action to remedy any identified threats, including by imposing additional tariffs. The statute provides that the Commerce Department report must be completed within 270 days of initiation and that the President must decide whether to act within 90 days of receiving the report.

Current report

The extent and duration of increased tariffs and trade restrictions and the resulting impact on general economic conditions and on our business are uncertain and depend on various factors. If we are unable to mitigate these risks through supply chain adjustments or other measures, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Previous report

Our owned patents and patent applications and in-licensed patents and patent applications and other intellectual property may be subject to priority disputes or to inventorship disputes and similar proceedings. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Previous report

Although we have an option to exclusively license certain patents and patent applications directed to Cas9 and Cas12a from Editas, who in turn has licensed such patents from various academic institutions including Broad Institute, we do not currently have a license to such patents and patent applications. Certain of the U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application to which we hold an option are co-owned by Broad Institute and MIT, and in some cases co-owned by Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard, which we refer to together as the Boston Licensing Parties, and were involved in U.S. interference No. 106,048 with one U.S. patent application co-owned by the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, which we refer to together as the University of California. On September 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the CAFC, affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO’s, or PTAB’s, holding that there was no interference-in-fact. An interference is a proceeding within the USPTO to determine priority of invention of the subject matter of patent claims filed by different parties.

Previous report

On June 24, 2019, the PTAB declared an interference (U.S. Interference No. 106,115) between ten U.S. patent applications ((U.S. Serial Nos. 15/947,680; 15/947,700; 15/947,718; 15/981,807; 15/981,808; 15/981,809; 16/136,159; 16/136,165; 16/136,168; and 16/136,175) that are co-owned by the University of California, and 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and 9,840,713, and U.S. Serial No. 14/704,551)) that are co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties, which we have an option to under the Editas License Agreement. In the declared interference, the University of California has been designated as the junior party and the Boston Licensing Parties have been designated as the senior party.

Previous report

As a result of the declaration of interference, an adversarial proceeding in the USPTO before the PTAB has been initiated, which is declared to ultimately determine priority, specifically and which party was first to invent the claimed subject matter. An interference is typically divided into two phases. The first phase is referred to as the motions or preliminary motions phase while the second is referred to as the priority phase. In the first phase, each party may raise issues including but not limited to those relating to the patentability of a party’s claims based on prior art, written description, and enablement. A party also may seek an earlier priority benefit or may challenge whether the declaration of interference was proper in the first place. Priority, or a determination of who first invented the commonly claimed invention, is determined in the second phase of an interference. The ten University of California patent applications and the 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties involved in U.S. Interference No. 106,115 generally relate to CRISPR/Cas9 systems or eukaryotic cells comprising CRISPR/Cas9 systems having fused or covalently linked RNA and the use thereof in eukaryotic cells. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a decision that the Boston Licensing Parties have priority of invention over University of California with respect to a single RNA CRISPR-Cas9 system that functions in eukaryotic cells. This decision is being appealed. There can be no assurance that the U.S. interference will be resolved in favor of the Boston Licensing Parties on appeal. If the U.S. interference resolves in favor of University of California, or if the Boston Licensing Parties’ patents and patent application are narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, we may lose the ability to license the optioned patents and patent application and our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license to relevant third party patents that cover our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Previous report

We or our licensors may be subject to similar interferences in the future with the same risks as described above. For example, on December 14, 2020, the PTAB declared an interference (U.S. Interference No. 106,126) between 14 U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,889,418; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and 9,840,713, and U.S. Serial Nos. 14/704,551 and 15/330,876) that are co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties, which we have an option to under the Editas License Agreement, and one U.S. patent application (U.S. Serial Nos. 14/685,510) that is owned by Toolgen, Inc, or Toolgen. In the declared interference, the Boston Licensing Parties have been designated as the junior party and Toolgen has been designated as the senior party. On September 28, 2022, the PTAB issued an order suspending proceedings in the priority phase of the interference. We cannot predict with any certainty when a decision will be made. The 14 U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties involved in U.S. Interference No. 106,126 generally relate to CRISPR/Cas9 systems or eukaryotic cells comprising CRISPR/Cas9 systems having fused or covalently linked RNA and the use thereof in eukaryotic cells.

Previous report

On June 21, 2021, the PTAB declared an interference (U.S. Interference No. 106,133) between the same 14 U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,889,418; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and 9,840,713, and U.S. Serial Nos. 14/704,551 and 15/330,876, co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties) as named in the interference with Toolgen, and one U.S. patent application (U.S. Serial Nos. 15/456,204) that is owned by Sigma-Aldrich Co., LLC, or Sigma-Aldrich. In the declared interference, the Boston Licensing Parties have been designated as the junior party and Sigma-Aldrich has been designated as the senior party. On December 14, 2022, the PTAB issued an order suspending proceedings in the priority phase of the interference. We cannot predict with any certainty when a decision will be made.

Previous report

We or our licensors may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our owned patents or patent applications or in-licensed patents or patent applications or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners to enforce any patents that issue from such patent applications against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

Previous report

If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any interference proceedings or other priority, validity (including any patent oppositions), or inventorship disputes to which we or they are subject, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights through the loss of one or more of our owned, licensed, or optioned patents, or such patent claims may be narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, or through loss of exclusive ownership of or the exclusive right to use our owned or in-licensed patents. In the event of loss of patent rights as a result of any of these disputes, we may be required to obtain and maintain licenses from third parties, including parties involved in any such interference proceedings or other priority or inventorship disputes. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our patent claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates. Even if we or our licensors are successful in an interference proceeding or other similar priority or inventorship disputes, it could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.

Previous report

The intellectual property landscape around gene editing technology, including base editing and delivery technology, is highly dynamic, and third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and may prevent, delay or otherwise interfere with our product discovery and development efforts.

Previous report

The field of gene editing, especially in the area of base editing technology, is still in its infancy, and no base editing product candidates have reached the market. Due to the intense research and development that is taking place by several companies, including us and our competitors, in this field and in the field of delivery technology, the intellectual property landscape is evolving and in flux, and it may remain uncertain for the coming years. There may be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future.

Previous report

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators and licensors to develop, manufacture, market, and sell any product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be subject to and may in the future become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and any product candidates we may develop, including interference proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions such as oppositions before the EPO. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications that are owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates and they may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit.

Previous report

As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of therapies, products or their methods of use or manufacture. We are aware of certain third-party patents and patent applications that, if issued, may be construed to cover our base editing technology, delivery technology and product candidates. There may also be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to technologies, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents.

Previous report

Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. Our product candidates make use of CRISPR-based technology, which is a field that is highly active for patent filings. The extensive patent filings related to CRISPR and Cas make it difficult for us to assess the full extent of relevant patents and pending applications that may cover our base editing platform technology and product candidates and their use or manufacture. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our base editing platform technology and product candidates. For example, we are aware of a patent portfolio that is co-owned by the University of California, University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, or the University of California Portfolio, which contains multiple patents and pending applications directed to gene editing. The University of California portfolio includes, for example, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,266,850; 10,227,611; 10,000,772; 10,113,167; 10,301,651; 10,308,961; 10,337,029; 10,351,878; 10,407,697; 10,358,659; 10,358,658; 10,385,360; 10,400,253; 10,421,980; 10,415,061; 10,428,352; 10,443,076; 10,487,341; 10,513,712; 10,519,467; 10,526,619; 10,533,190; 10,550,407; 10,563,227; 10,570,419; 10,577,631; 10,597,680; 10,612,045; 10,626,419; 10,640,791; 10,669,560; 10,676,759; 10,752,920; 10,774,344; 10,793,878; 10,900,054; 10,982,230; 10,982,231; 10,988,780; 10,988,782; 11,001,863; 11,008,589; 11,008,590; 11,028,412; 11,186,849; 11,242,543; 11,274,318; 11,293,034; 11,332,761; 11,401,532; 11,473,108; 11,479,794; 11,549,127; 11,634,730; 11,674,159; 11,814,645; 11,970,711, which are expected to expire around March 2033, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment, or PTA, or patent term extension, or PTE, and any disclaimed term for terminal disclaimers. The University of California portfolio also includes numerous additional pending patent applications. If these patent applications issue as patents, they are expected to expire around March 2033, excluding any PTA, PTE, and any disclaimed term for terminal disclaimers. As discussed above, certain applications in the University of California Portfolio are currently subject to U.S. Interference No. 106,115 with certain U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application that are co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties to which we have an option under the Editas License Agreement. Although we have an option to exclusively license certain patents and patent applications directed to Cas9 and Cas12a from Editas, who in turn has licensed such patents from various academic institutions including Broad Institute, we do not currently have a license to such patents and patent applications. Certain members of the University of California Portfolio are being opposed in Europe by multiple parties. For …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous report

The opposition procedure before the EPO allows one or more third parties to challenge the validity of a granted European patent within nine months after grant date of the European patent. Opposition proceedings may involve issues including, but not limited to, priority, patentability of the claims involved, and procedural formalities related to the filing of the patent application. As a result of the opposition proceedings, the Opposition Division can revoke a patent, maintain the patent as granted, or maintain the patent in an amended form. Most of the claims of European patent EP2,800,811 B1 were maintained without amendment by the Opposition Division, but this decision is being appealed. In April 2021, the claims of European patent EP3,241,902 B1 were revoked in their entirety, and that decision is not appealed. In February 2022, the claims of European patent EP3,401,400 B1 were maintained in amended form by the Opposition Division, and this decision is being appealed. It is uncertain how oppositions filed against EP3,597,749 B1 will be resolved. If these patents are maintained by the Opposition Division with claims similar to those that are currently opposed, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we do not obtain a license to these patents. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Previous report

Numerous other patents and patent applications have been filed by other third parties directed to gene editing, guide nucleic acids, PAM sequence variants, split inteins, Cas12b or gene editing in the context of immune therapy or chimeric antigen receptors.

Previous report

Because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our field, third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may file patent infringement claims or lawsuit against us, and if we are found to infringe such third-party patents, we may be required to pay damages, cease commercialization of the infringing technology, or obtain a license from such third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Previous report

Our ability to commercialize our product candidates in the United States and abroad may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms to relevant third-party patents that cover our product candidates, delivery platform technology or base editing platform technology. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable, and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing, and marketing any product candidates we may develop and our technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. We also could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Previous report

Defense of third-party claims of infringement of misappropriation, or violation of intellectual property rights involves substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee time and resources from our business. Some third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any of the foregoing events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous report

Item 5. Other Information.

Previous report

(c)

Previous report

Director and Officer Trading Arrangements

Previous report

The following table describes for the quarterly period covered by this report each trading arrangement for the sale or purchase of Company securities adopted or terminated by our directors and officers that is either (1) a contract, instruction or written plan intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c), or a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” or (2) a “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” (as defined in Item 408(c) of Regulation S-K):

Previous report

Consists of 35,000 shares issuable upon exercise of options to purchase the Company’s common stock pursuant to the Rule 10b-5-1 trading arrangement

Previous report

Includes up to 10,000 shares issuable upon exercise of options to purchase the Company’s common stock pursuant to the Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement.

Previous report

The number of shares subject to covered restricted stock units ("RSUs") that will be sold to satisfy applicable tax withholding obligations upon vesting is unknown as the number will vary based on the extent to which vesting conditions are satisfied, the market price of the Company’s common stock at the time of settlement and the potential future grant of additional RSUs subject to this arrangement. This trading arrangement, which applies to RSUs whether vesting is based on the passage of time and/or the achievement of performance goals, provides for the automatic sale of shares that would otherwise be issuable on each settlement date of a covered RSU in an amount sufficient to satisfy the applicable withholding obligation, with the proceeds of the sale delivered to the Company in satisfaction of the applicable withholding obligation.