Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101, and in January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed chimeric CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Current wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101, and in January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed chimeric CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes and noting that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Previous wording

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company with a limited operating history. We were formed in 2018 and we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights, and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates, including KYV-101 and KYV-201. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success, and viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing program candidates. Investment in biotechnology product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and we have incurred net losses since our inception through September 30, 2024. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, we reported a net loss of $90.0 million and $39.7 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $226.0 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of our product candidates, and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Current wording

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company with a limited operating history. We were formed in 2018 and we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights, and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates, including KYV-101. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success, and viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing program candidates. Investment in biotechnology product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and we have incurred net losses since our inception through March 31, 2025. For the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, we reported a net loss of $44.6 million and $26.7 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $308.2 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of our product candidates, and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Previous wording

conduct further clinical trials for KYV-101 and KYV-201 and our other product candidates;

Current wording

conduct further clinical trials for KYV-101 and our other product candidates;

Previous wording

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since our inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the preclinical and clinical development of, and seek regulatory approval for, KYV-101, KYV-201 and any future product candidates.

Current wording

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since our inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the preclinical and clinical development of, and seek regulatory approval for, KYV-101 and any future product candidates.

Previous wording

manufacture product candidates through contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, in sufficient quantities and at acceptable quality and manufacturing cost to meet commercial demand at launch and thereafter;

Current wording

manufacture products through contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, in sufficient quantities and at acceptable quality and manufacturing cost to meet commercial demand at launch and thereafter;

Previous wording

In connection with the preparation of our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023, material weaknesses were identified in the design and operating effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Current wording

As discussed in Part II, Item 9A of our Annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, we previously identified material weaknesses in the design and operating effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Previous wording

We plan to implement formal risk assessment processes and procedures and design sufficient controls to remediate these weaknesses. We intend to hire additional experienced accounting and financial reporting personnel, formalize design and implementation of internal controls over the financial reporting process, including general controls over information systems. The material weaknesses will not be considered remediated until management completes the design and implementation of the measures described above and the controls operate for a sufficient period of time and management has concluded, through testing, that these controls are effective. We expect to implement new procedures and controls and take efforts to address each of the identified weaknesses during fiscal years 2024 and 2025, and anticipate that the full remediation of the material weaknesses identified will extend beyond December 31, 2024. These remediation measures will be time-consuming and require financial and operational resources.

Current wording

During the year ended December 31, 2024, our management, with the oversight of the Audit Committee of our board of directors, took substantial measures toward remediating the control deficiencies contributing to the material weaknesses. Specifically, we completed an initial risk assessment process and continue to focus on the principles of the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, or COSO, framework related to risk assessment; we have engaged a third-party consulting firm to advise and assist in documenting the design and implementation of internal controls over the financial reporting process, including general controls over information systems; and we have hired additional accounting and IT personnel, including but not limited to a Vice President of Accounting/Corporate Controller, a Head of Information Technology, and an Assistant Controller. Our management is committed to maintaining a strong internal control environment and to continuing to implement a strong system of controls and believe that our ongoing remediation efforts, particularly in the improvement of our control environment, will result in significant improvements to our system of controls. However, the material weaknesses will not be considered remediated until management completes the design and implementation of the measures described above and the controls operate for a sufficient period of time and management has concluded, through testing, that these controls are effective. We will continue to implement new procedures and controls and take efforts to address each of the identified weaknesses. These remediation measures will be time-consuming and require financial and operational resources.

Previous wording

We are required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024. This assessment will need to include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting and will require that we incur substantial additional professional fees and internal costs to expand our accounting and finance functions and that we expend significant management efforts. We may discover additional weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. We may not be able to implement improvements to our management information and control systems in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

Current wording

We may discover additional weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. We may not be able to implement improvements to our management information and control systems in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

Previous wording

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities.

Current wording

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Refer to the section titled “Controls and Procedures” in Part II, Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Previous wording

In addition, our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, clinical and scientific personnel. We are highly dependent upon our Chief Executive Officer and other members of our management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, initiation or completion of our preclinical studies and clinical trials or the commercialization of our product candidates. Although we have executed offer letters with each member of our senior management team, these agreements are terminable at will with or without notice and, therefore, we may not be able to retain their services as expected. We do not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of our executives or any of our employees. This lack of insurance means that we may not have adequate compensation for the loss of the services of these individuals.

Current wording

In addition, our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, clinical and scientific personnel. We are highly dependent upon our Chief Executive Officer and other members of our management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, initiation or completion of our preclinical studies and clinical trials or the commercialization of our product candidates. Although we have executed employment agreements or offer letters with each member of our senior management team, these agreements are terminable at will with or without notice and, therefore, we may not be able to retain their services as expected. We do not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of our executives or any of our employees. This lack of insurance means that we may not have adequate compensation for the loss of the services of these individuals.

Previous wording

San Francisco Bay Area. Given the scarcity of professionals with the scientific knowledge that we require and the competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology businesses, we may not succeed in attracting or retaining the personnel we require to continue and grow our operations. If we are not able to attract, integrate, retain and motivate necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

Current wording

We will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial and other resources in order to successfully pursue our clinical development and commercialization efforts. We may not be successful in maintaining our unique company culture and continuing to attract or retain qualified management and scientific and clinical personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biopharmaceutical, biotechnology and other businesses, particularly in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Given the scarcity of professionals with the scientific knowledge that we require and the competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology businesses, we may not succeed in attracting or retaining the personnel we require to continue and grow our operations. If we are not able to attract, integrate, retain and motivate necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

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 federal NOL carryforwards of $48.8 million and state NOL carryforwards of $103.2 million. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, our U.S. federal net operating losses will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of federal net operating losses is limited to no more than 80% of current year taxable income (with certain adjustments). In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. We completed a Section 382 study as of December 31, 2023 and determined that an ownership change had occurred as of such date and we expect approximately $2.0 million of federal net operating losses and $1.9 million California net operating losses to expire unused due to Section 382 limitations. Furthermore, there may be additional ownership changes in the future, including in connection with the IPO or as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. As a result, if we undergo an ownership change, and our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes is limited, it would harm our future results of operations by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

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 federal NOL carryforwards of $79.2 million and state NOL carryforwards of $205.2 million. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, our U.S. federal net operating losses will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of federal net operating losses is limited to no more than 80% of current year taxable income (with certain adjustments). In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. We have performed a Section 382 study as of December 31, 2023, and expect approximately $2.0 million of federal net operating losses and $1.9 million California net operating losses to expire unused due to Section 382 limitations. As of December 31, 2024, the Section 382 study was updated and we concluded that there were no ownership changes during 2024. Furthermore, there may be additional ownership changes in the future, including as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. As a result, if we undergo an ownership change, and our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes is limited, it would harm our future results of operations by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Previous wording

The tax regimes we are subject to or operate under, including with respect to income and non-income taxes, are unsettled and may be subject to significant change. Changes in tax laws, regulations, or rulings, or changes in interpretations of existing laws and regulations, could materially adversely affect our company. For example, the Tax Cuts and JOBS Act, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to such legislation may affect us, and certain aspects thereof could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the IRA includes provisions that will impact the U.S. federal income taxation of certain corporations, including imposing a 15% minimum tax on the book income of certain large corporations and a 1% excise tax on certain corporate stock repurchases that would be imposed on the corporation repurchasing such stock. In addition, many countries in Europe, as well as a number of other countries and organizations (including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission), have proposed, recommended, or (in the case of countries) enacted or otherwise become subject to changes to existing tax laws or new tax laws that could significantly increase our tax obligations in the countries where we do business or require us to change the manner in which we operate our business.

Current wording

The tax regimes we are subject to or operate under, including with respect to income and non-income taxes, are unsettled and may be subject to significant change. Changes in tax laws, regulations, or rulings, or changes in interpretations of existing laws and regulations, could materially adversely affect our company. For example, the Tax Cuts and JOBS Act, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to such legislation may affect us, and certain aspects thereof could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the IRA includes provisions that will impact the U.S. federal income taxation of certain corporations, including imposing a 15% minimum tax on the book income of certain large corporations and a 1% excise tax on certain corporate stock repurchases that would be imposed on the corporation repurchasing such stock. Additionally, new income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. For example, the Trump administration has proposed various U.S. federal tax law changes that, if enacted, could have a material impact on our business, cash flows, financial condition or results of operations. It is also uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. In addition, many countries in Europe, as well as a number of other countries and organizations (including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission), have proposed, recommended, or (in the case of countries) enacted or otherwise become subject to changes to existing tax laws or new tax laws that could significantly increase our tax obligations in the countries where we do business or require us to change the manner in which we operate our business. Future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future tax expense.

Previous wording

We may be the target of securities litigation in the future, including based on volatility in the market price of our stock. The stock market in general, and Nasdaq and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. The market price of our common stock is likely to be volatile. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. In addition, certain of our directors and officers are involved in ongoing securities or other lawsuits in the context of their roles with other public companies, and our directors or officers may in the future become involved in such litigation. Securities litigation (including the cost to defend against, and any potential adverse outcome resulting from any such proceeding) can be expensive, time-consuming, damage our reputation and divert our management’s and board of directors’ attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Current wording

We may be the target of securities litigation in the future, including based on volatility in the market price of our stock and, as described more fully below, are currently named as a defendant in a recently filed securities class action complaint. The stock market in general, and Nasdaq and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. The market price of our common stock is likely to be volatile. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. In addition, certain of our directors and officers are involved in ongoing securities or other lawsuits in the context of their roles with other public companies, and our directors or officers may in the future become involved in such litigation. Securities litigation (including the cost to defend against, and any potential adverse outcome resulting from any such proceeding) can be expensive, time-consuming, damage our reputation and divert our management’s and board of directors’ attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business. As noted above, in December 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against our company, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of our initial public offering. Per a stipulated schedule, an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2025, or the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with our initial public offering and the prospectus contained therein contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of federal securities laws. We believe we have good and substantial defenses to the claims in the Amended Complaint, but there is no guarantee that we will be successful in these efforts. We are unable to determine whether any loss ultimately will occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by us in our financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2025.

Previous wording

We supply our investigational product candidate, KYV-101, in investigator-initiated trials and on a named patient basis to patients who have exhausted other treatment options and for whom there is a strong scientific rationale to support the use of an unapproved product candidate. The investigator-initiated trials we supply to are located in the United States, and the independent investigators of such trials file INDs for the treatment of multiple or individual patients with KYV-101. We also currently supply KYV-101 for use in single named patients in Germany, through a European distributor. In Germany, these single-patient efforts are termed “Individueller Heilversuch,” or single-patient treatment healing attempts, and occur outside of a controlled clinical trial setting and are not part of a compassionate use program or a codified German regulatory path. These investigator-initiated trials and the provision of KYV-101 on a named patient basis are not a substitute for, or intended to replace, our clinical trials. The primary goal of these healing attempts is not to assess the effectiveness of a potential therapy, but rather to provide the individual patient with the best possible treatment option, as determined by the patient’s physician. We evaluate whether to grant such access or similar access in other foreign countries to KYV-101 outside of our sponsored clinical trials on a case-by-case basis.

Current wording

We supply our investigational product candidate, KYV-101, in investigator-initiated trials and on a named patient basis to patients who have exhausted other treatment options and for whom there is a strong scientific rationale to support the use of an unapproved product candidate. The investigator-initiated trials we supply to are located in the United States and Germany, and the independent investigators of such trials file INDs for the treatment of multiple or individual patients with KYV-101. We also supplied KYV-101 for use in single named patients in Germany, through a European distributor. In Germany, these single-patient efforts are termed “Individueller Heilversuch,” or single-patient treatment healing attempts, and occur outside of a controlled clinical trial setting and are not part of a codified German regulatory path. “Individueller Heilversuch” is a form of compassionate use treatment for an individual patient in Germany, where a procedure or treatment that has not received marketing authorization may be used for the expected benefit of a patient who has exhausted all available treatment options, under the discretion of the treating physician. The provision of KYV-101 on a named patient basis and in investigator-initiated trials are not a substitute for, or intended to replace, our clinical trials. The primary goal of these compassionate use treatments is not to assess the effectiveness, but rather to provide a treatment option to patients who have exhausted all other options. We evaluate whether to grant such access or similar access in other foreign countries to KYV-101 outside of our sponsored clinical trials on a case-by-case basis.

Previous wording

other factors outside of our control, such as the effects of global economic conditions and volatility in the credit and financial markets, inflationary pressures, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, the conflict between Israel and Iran and other geopolitical conditions.

Current wording

other factors outside of our control, such as the effects of global economic conditions and volatility in the credit and financial markets, tariffs imposed by the U.S. and other countries, inflationary pressures, trade wars, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, the conflict between Israel and Iran and other geopolitical conditions.

Previous wording

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. Such delayed side effects might be observed during the long-term follow-up FDA has insisted upon for certain gene therapy products. For example, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to healthcare practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. Other potentially significant negative consequences include that:

Current wording

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. Such delayed side effects might be observed during the long-term follow-up FDA has insisted upon for certain gene therapy products. For example, in 2024 the FDA initiated class safety labeling changes for BCMA- or CD19-directed genetically modified autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies after it concluded that changes to the boxed warning were warranted to highlight the serious risk of T cell malignancies. In addition to labeling changes, if we were to identify delayed side effects with any of our product candidates, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to healthcare practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. Other potentially significant negative consequences include that:

Previous wording

These and other risks associated with our collaboration with Intellia may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Current wording

These and other risks associated with our collaboration with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Intellia, may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Previous wording

We rely on third party CMOs to manufacture and supply cell therapy products for our research and development purposes and for our clinical trials. Under our Master Services Agreement with WuXi ATU Advanced Therapies Inc., dated March 2022, or the WuXi Agreement, WuXi provides us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate. In July 2023, we entered into a Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the ElevateBio Agreement, with ElevateBio Base Camp, Inc., or ElevateBio, pursuant to which ElevateBio is undertaking process development services for the development of a low-cost, fully closed manufacturing process for our CAR T-cell product candidates. Under an addition to the ElevateBio Agreement dated November 1, 2024 we engaged ElevateBio as a second source supplier to provide us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate. Pursuant to our Licence and Supply Agreement with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Limited, or Oxford, dated September 2023, or the Oxford Agreement, we recently engaged Oxford to undertake lentiviral vector process development services, with the intention for Oxford to ultimately manufacture and supply to us lentiviral vectors for research and development purposes and for use in connection with our clinical trials. Although we believe we currently have sufficient clinical-grade vector in inventory to move forward with our anticipated clinical trials, there is no guarantee that sufficient clinical-grade vector will be available in the quantities we require in the future or on terms that are acceptable to us.

Current wording

We rely on third party CMOs to manufacture and supply cell therapy products for our research and development purposes and for our clinical trials. Under our Master Services Agreement with Advanced Therapies Inc., dated March 2022, or the Advanced Therapies Agreement, Advanced Therapies provides us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate. Under our Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the Elevate Agreement, with ElevateBio Base Camp, Inc., or Elevate, we engaged Elevate in November 2024 to provide us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate. Pursuant to our License and Supply Agreement with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Limited, or Oxford, dated September 2023, or the Oxford Agreement, we engaged Oxford to undertake lentiviral vector process development services, with the intention for Oxford to ultimately manufacture and supply to us lentiviral vectors for research and development purposes and for use in connection with our clinical trials. Although we believe we currently have sufficient clinical-grade vector in inventory to move forward with our anticipated clinical trials, there is no guarantee that sufficient clinical-grade vector will be available in the quantities we require in the future or on terms that are acceptable to us.

Previous wording

Moreover, if we are unable to manufacture or contract for a sufficient supply of our product candidates on acceptable terms, or if we encounter delays or difficulties in the scale-up of our manufacturing processes or our relationships with WuXi or other manufacturers, our preclinical and human clinical testing schedule would be delayed. This in turn would delay the submission of product candidates for regulatory approval and thereby delay the market introduction and subsequent sales of any products that receive regulatory approval, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if any of our product candidates are approved for sale, our inability to manufacture or contract for a sufficient supply of such potential future products on acceptable terms would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Moreover, if we are unable to manufacture or contract for a sufficient supply of our product candidates on acceptable terms, or if we encounter delays or difficulties in the scale-up of our manufacturing processes or our relationships with Advanced Therapies or other manufacturers, our preclinical and human clinical testing schedule would be delayed. This in turn would delay the submission of product candidates for regulatory approval and thereby delay the market introduction and subsequent sales of any products that receive regulatory approval, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if any of our product candidates are approved for sale, our inability to manufacture or contract for a sufficient supply of such potential future products on acceptable terms would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. For example, there could be issued patents of which we are not aware that our current or potential future product candidates infringe. There also could be patents that we believe we do not infringe, but that we may ultimately be found to infringe. Competitors may file continuing patent applications claiming priority to already issued patents in the form of continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part applications, in order to maintain the pendency of a patent family and attempt to cover our product candidates.

Current wording

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. We are aware of third-party U.S. and European patents related to CAR T cells for use in treating autoimmune diseases, which may be relevant to our product candidates. If these patent rights were enforced against us, we believe that we have defenses against any such action, including that these patents are not valid. There could be additional issued patents of which we are not aware that our current or potential future product candidates infringe. There also could be patents that we believe we do not infringe, but that we may ultimately be found to infringe. Competitors may file continuing patent applications claiming priority to already issued patents in the form of continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part applications, in order to maintain the pendency of a patent family and attempt to cover our product candidates.

Previous wording

We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents and other intellectual property rights do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, including our research programs, product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof, and could result in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant. We may not be able to enter into licensing arrangements or make other arrangements at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms. Any inability to secure licenses or alternative technology could result in delays in the introduction of our products or lead to prohibition of the manufacture or sale of products by us. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. 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.

Current wording

We cannot provide any assurances that no valid third-party patents and other intellectual property rights can be enforced against our current technology, including our research programs, product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof. If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could result in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant. We may not be able to enter into licensing arrangements or make other arrangements at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms. Any inability to secure licenses or alternative technology could result in delays in the introduction of our products or lead to prohibition of the manufacture or sale of products by us. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. 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.

Previous wording

Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we or one of our licensing partners may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our or our licensors’ pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents or our licensors’ patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, insufficient written description or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our or our licensors’ patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court recently has changed some legal principles that affect patent applications, granted patents and assessment of the eligibility or validity of these patents. As a consequence, issued patents may be found to contain invalid claims according to the newly revised eligibility and validity standards. Some of our owned or in-licensed patents may be subject to challenge and subsequent invalidation or significant narrowing of claim scope in proceedings before the USPTO, or during litigation, under the revised criteria, which also could make it more difficult to obtain patents. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our or our licensors’ patents could limit our ability to assert our or our licensors’ …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we or one of our licensing partners may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our or our licensors’ pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents or our licensors’ patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, insufficient written description or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our or our licensors’ patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.

Previous wording

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors have in the past and may in the future be employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Current wording

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors have in the past and may in the future be employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors and we may in the future be subject to claims that our former employees, consultants, or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor, co-inventor, or owner of trade secrets. Although it is our policy to require our employees and consultants who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning that intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own or such party may breach the assignment agreement, or we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Previous wording

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any of our product candidates, one or more of our or our licensors’ issued U.S. patents or issued U.S. patents that we may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term, or PTE, of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar patent term restoration provisions to compensate for commercialization delay caused by regulatory review are also available in certain foreign jurisdictions, such as in

Current wording

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any of our product candidates, one or more of our or our licensors’ issued U.S. patents or issued U.S. patents that we may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term, or PTE, of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar patent term restoration provisions to compensate for commercialization delay caused by regulatory review are also available in certain foreign jurisdictions, such as in Europe under Supplemental Protection Certificate, or SPC. However, we may not be granted any extensions for which we apply because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. In addition, to the extent we wish to pursue patent term extension based on a patent that we in-license from a third party, we would need the cooperation of that third party. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Previous wording

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, in June 2023, a new unitary patent system was introduced, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of the system. Under the unitary patent system, after a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor can request unitary effect, thereby getting a European patent with unitary Effect, or a Unitary Patent. Each Unitary Patent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court, or UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC may be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of the new unitary patent system.

Current wording

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, in June 2023, a new unitary patent system was introduced, which significantly impacts European patents, including those granted before the introduction of the system. Under the unitary patent system, after a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor can request unitary effect, thereby getting a European patent with unitary Effect, or a Unitary Patent. Each Unitary Patent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court, or UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC may be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of the new unitary patent system.

Previous wording

We have conducted, are currently conducting, and may in the future conduct one or more clinical trials of our current or future product candidates outside the United States, including in Germany. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such as inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical power, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, we would need to conduct additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming.

Current wording

We have conducted, are currently conducting, and may in the future conduct one or more clinical trials of our current or future product candidates outside the United States. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such as inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical power, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, we would need to conduct additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming.

Previous wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101. While the FDA noted that it currently believes that the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA stated that it is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action. In January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed chimeric CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. However, because all currently approved CAR T-cell immunotherapies are in oncology indications, there can be no assurance that the FDA will reach the same risk-benefit analysis in other indications, such as autoimmune. Given that the autoimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are different indications from the approved oncology indications, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may apply a different benefit-risk assessment threshold such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T therapies, the FDA could ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Current wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101. While the FDA noted that it currently believes that the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA stated that it is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action. In January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed chimeric CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes and noting that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. Because all currently approved CAR T-cell immunotherapies are in oncology indications, however, there can be no assurance that the FDA will reach the same risk-benefit analysis in other indications, such as autoimmune. Given that the autoimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are different indications from the approved oncology indications, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may apply a different benefit-risk assessment threshold such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T therapies, the FDA could ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Previous wording

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, 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 President Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Current wording

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted SIP proposals that are pending review by the FDA.

Previous wording

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal, state and foreign enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions, significant fines and penalties and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring that business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time-and resource-consuming and may divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

Current wording

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal, state and foreign enforcement bodies have continued to increase their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions, significant fines and penalties and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring that business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time-and resource-consuming and may divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

Previous wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval pathway, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date accelerated approval is granted. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. In addition, FDORA gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw accelerated approval on an expedited basis if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, such studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit or the sponsor fails to send the necessary updates to the FDA. The FDA is empowered to take action against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory study or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials for products receiving accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Current wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval pathway, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date accelerated approval is granted. The FDA has issued draft guidance that proposes criteria it will evaluate to determine if a trial is underway, including whether enrollment in the trial has been initiated. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. In addition, FDORA gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw accelerated approval on an expedited basis if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, such studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit or the sponsor fails to send the necessary updates to the FDA. The FDA is empowered to take action against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory study or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials for products receiving accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Although we received Fast Track designation for KYV-101 for the treatment of patients with refractory lupus nephritis in May 2023, for KYV-101 for the treatment of patients with myasthenia gravis, or MG, in December 2023 and for KYV-101 for the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis in January 2024 and Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation for KYV-101 for the treatment of SPS in July 2024 and for the treatment of MG in August 2024, these designations do not assure that we will experience a faster development process, regulatory review or regulatory approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw a Fast Track or other accelerated review designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Additionally, qualification for any expedited review procedure does not ensure that we will ultimately obtain regulatory approval for such product candidate. Access to an expedited program may expedite the development or approval process, but it does not change the standards for approval.

Current wording

Although we received Fast Track designation for KYV-101 for the treatment of patients with refractory lupus nephritis in May 2023, for KYV-101 for the treatment of patients with myasthenia gravis, or MG, in December 2023 and for KYV-101 for the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis in January 2024 and RMAT designation for KYV-101 for the treatment of SPS in July 2024 and for the treatment of MG in August 2024, these designations do not assure that we will experience a faster development process, regulatory review or regulatory approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw a Fast Track or other accelerated review designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Additionally, qualification for any expedited review procedure does not ensure that we will ultimately obtain regulatory approval for such product candidate. Access to an expedited program may expedite the development or approval process, but it does not change the standards for approval.

Previous wording

A company may request RMAT designation of its product candidate, which designation may be granted if the product meets the following criteria: (1) it is a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and potential eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites post-approval, if appropriate. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence (such as electronic health records); through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy.

Current wording

A company may request RMAT designation of its product candidate, which designation may be granted if the product meets the following criteria: (i) it is a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (ii) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (iii) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and potential eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites post-approval, if appropriate. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence (such as electronic health records); through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy.

Previous wording

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or, collectively, the ACA, was enacted in the United States, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, or MDRP, are calculated for drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the MDRP, extended manufacturer Medicaid rebate obligations to utilization by individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and biologics, and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, congressional, and executive branch challenges to the ACA, which have resulted in delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. In addition, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the IRA into law, which, among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA 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 possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how other such challenges, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration, will impact the ACA and our business.

Current wording

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or, collectively, the ACA, was enacted in the United States, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, or MDRP, are calculated for drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the MDRP, extended manufacturer Medicaid rebate obligations to utilization by individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and biologics, and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, congressional, and executive branch challenges to the ACA, which have resulted in delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. In addition, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, former President Biden signed the IRA into law, which, among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA 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 possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how other such challenges, and any healthcare reform measures of the Trump administration, will impact the ACA and our business.

Previous wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, resulted in reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 4% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain IND products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA authorization under an FDA expanded access program; however, manufacturers are not obligated to provide IND products under the current federal right to try law. In certain countries outside the United States, reimbursement for products that have not yet received marketing authorization may be provided through national managed access programs.

Current wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, resulted in reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 4% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. In addition, in certain countries outside the United States, reimbursement for products that have not yet received marketing authorization may be provided through national managed access programs.

Previous wording

In December 2021, Regulation No. 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the European Union. This Regulation, which entered into force in January 2022 and will apply as of January 2025, is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at European Union level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation foresees a three-year transitional period and will permit EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the European Union, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the European Union could be negatively affected.

Current wording

In December 2021, Regulation No. 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the European Union. This Regulation, which entered into force in January 2022 and took effect as of January 2025, is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at European Union level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation foresees a three-year transitional period and will permit EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the European Union, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the European Union could be negatively affected.

Previous wording

We also expect our non-U.S. activities to increase over time. We plan to engage third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals, and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate and other related parties for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Current wording

Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate and other related parties for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Previous wording

Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards.

Current wording

Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. Additionally, in 2024, the FTC finalized updates to the Health Breach Notification Rule that, among other things, clarified its applicability to health apps and other similar technologies and expanded the information the breach notification requirements for entities subject to the rule which may add additional complexity to compliance obligations going forward.

Previous wording

Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. New consumer privacy laws entered into force in Connecticut, Colorado, Virginia and Utah in 2023. Additionally, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and others have adopted privacy laws, which take effect from July 1, 2024 through 2026. Some state laws also minimize what data can be collected from consumers and how businesses may use and disclose it. These state privacy laws also require businesses to make disclosures to consumers about data collection, use and sharing practices. In addition, some of these laws (including the CPRA), along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data, such as the Washington My Health My Data Act, which became effective in 2024. In addition, a number of other states have proposed new privacy laws, some of which are similar to the above-discussed recently passed laws. Such proposed legislation, if enacted, may add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country would make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance.

Current wording

Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. New consumer privacy laws entered into force in Connecticut, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Virginia and Utah in 2023 and 2024. Additionally, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee and others have adopted privacy laws, which took or will take effect from January 1, 2025 through 2026. Some state laws also minimize what data can be collected from consumers and how businesses may use and disclose it. These state privacy laws also require businesses to make disclosures to consumers about data collection, use and sharing practices. In addition, some of these laws (including the CPRA), along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data, such as the Washington My Health My Data Act, which became effective in 2024, Nevada’s Consumer Health Data Privacy Law, which became effective in 2024, and Connecticut’s amendments to its privacy law to address health data, which became effective in 2023. In addition, a number of other states have proposed new privacy laws, some of which are similar to the above-discussed recently passed laws. Such proposed legislation, if enacted, may add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country would make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance.

Previous wording

The GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of individuals within the European Economic Area, or EEA, or the United Kingdom. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA or United Kingdom as well as to those outside the EEA or United Kingdom if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA or United Kingdom or the monitoring of their behavior. The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the EEA Member States and the United Kingdom governing the processing of personal data, imposes strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze and transfer personal data, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. In particular, these obligations and restrictions concern the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the transfer of personal data out of the EEA or the United Kingdom, security breach notifications, security and confidentiality of the personal data and imposition of substantial potential fines for breaches of the data protection obligations. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Currently, the EU GDPR and UK GDPR remain largely aligned, but a bill to amend the existing UK framework has been reintroduced (in a different form) by the new UK Government and was announced as a bill which has been introduced into Parliament at the King’s speech on July 17, 2024. At this time, there is no specific clarity on the provisions of the bill, or to the extent to which it will amend the UK framework, beyond general descriptions on its intended purpose. This bill, if passed, may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk exposure as we may no longer be able to take a unified approach across the EEA and the United Kingdom, and we will need to amend our processes and procedures to align with the new framework.

Current wording

The GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of individuals within the European Economic Area, or EEA, or the United Kingdom. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA or United Kingdom as well as to those outside the EEA or United Kingdom if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA or United Kingdom or the monitoring of their behavior. The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the EEA Member States and the United Kingdom governing the processing of personal data, imposes strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze and transfer personal data, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting and access to certain data such as the European Health Data Space Regulation. In particular, these obligations and restrictions concern the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the transfer of personal data out of the EEA or the United Kingdom, security breach notifications, security and confidentiality of the personal data and imposition of substantial potential fines for breaches of the data protection obligations. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Currently, the EU GDPR and UK GDPR remain largely aligned, but a bill to amend the existing UK framework has been reintroduced (in a different form) by the new UK Government and was announced as a bill which has been introduced into Parliament at the King’s speech on July 17, 2024. At this time, there is no specific clarity on the provisions of the bill, or to the extent to which it will amend the UK framework, beyond general descriptions on its intended purpose. This bill, if passed, may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk exposure as we may no longer be able to take a unified approach across the EEA and the United Kingdom, and we will need to amend our processes and procedures to align with the new framework.