Cabaletta Bio, Inc.

Previous wording

Cellular therapies are a novel approach and negative perception or increased regulatory scrutiny of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates. Cellular therapies remain novel in general, and there are no cellular immunotherapies licensed to date in the United States or the European Union to treat autoimmune diseases or alloimmune responses. CAR T or CAAR T cell therapies for autoimmune or alloimmune diseases may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, CAR Ts and other cellular therapies have in some cases caused severe side effects, including death, and their broader use may therefore be limited. In the future, in the event such severe side effects are observed with other CAR T therapies (including those with a CD19 binder), it may increase negative perception of, and regulatory scrutiny on, our product candidates. For example, in November 2023, the FDA announced that it would be conducting an investigation into reports of T cell malignancies following treatment with BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies. The FDA also stated that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with such approved products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies. In January 2024, the FDA determined that new safety information related to T cell malignancies should be included in the labeling with boxed warning language on these malignancies for all BCMA- and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T cell immunotherapies. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including the insertion of a transgene, is unsafe, and products incorporating gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The patient populations targeted by our product candidates are also typically not at risk of near-term death, even if they may suffer life-threatening symptoms, so patients will need to deem the benefits of cell therapy to be worth the risk of unknown potential adverse side effects. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of autoimmune diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates, in clinical trials of others developing similar products or in the post-approval setting and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of cellular therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop.

Current wording

Cellular therapies are a novel approach to the treatment of autoimmune diseases, and negative perception or increased regulatory scrutiny of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates. There are no cellular immunotherapies licensed to date in the United States or the European Union to treat autoimmune diseases or alloimmune responses. CAR T or CAAR T cell therapies for autoimmune or alloimmune diseases may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, CAR Ts and other cellular therapies have in some cases caused severe side effects, including death, and their broader use may therefore be limited. In the future, in the event such severe side effects are observed with other CAR T therapies (including those with a CD19 binder), it may increase negative perception of, and regulatory scrutiny on, our product candidates. For example, in November 2023, the FDA announced that it would be conducting an investigation into reports of T cell malignancies following treatment with BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies. The FDA also stated that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with such approved products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies. In January 2024, the FDA determined that new safety information related to T cell malignancies should be included in the labeling with boxed warning language on these malignancies for all BCMA- and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T cell immunotherapies. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including the insertion of a transgene, is unsafe, and products incorporating gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The patient populations targeted by our product candidates are also typically not at risk of near-term death, even if they may suffer life-threatening symptoms, so patients will need to deem the benefits of cell therapy to be worth the risk of unknown potential adverse side effects. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of autoimmune diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates, in clinical trials of others developing similar products or in the post-approval setting and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of cellular therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop.

Previous wording

educating medical personnel regarding the potential side effect profile of our product candidates, if licensed, such as the potential adverse side effects related to worsening of systemic lupus erythematosus, or SLE, idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM), or myositis, systemic sclerosis, or SSc, pemphigus, muscle-specific kinase myasthenia gravis, or MuSK MG, or generalized myasthenia gravis, or gMG, adverse effects related to infusion of activated T cells or medication taper, including cytokine release syndrome, or CRS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, or ICANS, or other unexpected adverse effects of therapy with our product candidates or potential class-wide side effects, such as those related to CD19-directed autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies;

Current wording

educating medical personnel regarding the potential side effect profile of our product candidates, if licensed, such as the potential adverse side effects related to worsening of systemic lupus erythematosus, or SLE, idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM), or myositis, systemic sclerosis, or SSc, muscle-specific kinase myasthenia gravis, or MuSK MG, generalized myasthenia gravis, or gMG, pemphigus vulgaris, or PV, multiple sclerosis, or MS, adverse effects related to infusion of activated T cells or medication taper, including cytokine release syndrome, or CRS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, or ICANS, or other unexpected adverse effects of therapy with our product candidates or potential class-wide side effects, such as those related to CD19-directed autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies;

Previous wording

Our product candidates are CAR T or CAAR T cell-based immunotherapies. In our clinical trials and other similarly designed cellular immunotherapies to treat cancer, there have been life threatening events related to ICANS and CRS requiring intense medical intervention, such as intubation or medications to support blood pressure, and in several cases, resulted in death. We have observed events of CRS and ICANS in our ongoing CABA-201 REstoring SElf-Tolerance, or RESETTM, trial. ICANS is a condition that is currently defined clinically by cerebral edema, confusion, drowsiness, speech impairment, tremors, seizures or other central nervous system side effects, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care. CRS is a condition that is currently defined clinically by certain symptoms related to the release of cytokines, which can include fever, chills and low blood pressure, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care with mechanical ventilation or significant medications to support blood pressure. There is a possibility that our product candidates could have similarly life threatening serious adverse side effects, such as ICANS and CRS.

Current wording

Our product candidates are CAR T or CAAR T cell-based immunotherapies. In our clinical trials and other similarly designed cellular immunotherapies to treat cancer, there have been life threatening events related to ICANS and CRS requiring intense medical intervention, such as intubation or medications to support blood pressure, and in several cases, resulted in death. We have observed events of CRS and ICANS in our ongoing rese-cel REstoring SElf-Tolerance, or RESETTM, trial. ICANS is a condition that is currently defined clinically by cerebral edema, confusion, drowsiness, speech impairment, tremors, seizures or other central nervous system side effects, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care. CRS is a condition that is currently defined clinically by certain symptoms related to the release of cytokines, which can include fever, chills and low blood pressure, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care with mechanical ventilation or significant medications to support blood pressure. There is a possibility that our product candidates could have similarly life threatening serious adverse side effects, such as ICANS and CRS.

Previous wording

Our product candidates may have serious and potentially fatal consequences due to the targeting of cells within the body due to unexpected protein interactions with the CAR or CAAR. Although we have completed multiple preclinical studies designed to screen for toxicity caused by unintended off-target recognition by the cell binding domain of the DSG3 CAAR, MuSK CAAR and CABA-201 and intend to screen future CAR and CAAR candidates not yet tested in patients through preclinical studies, our product candidates may still recognize and react with one or more proteins unrelated to the intended surface immunoglobin target protein to which it is designed to link. If unexpected binding occurs in normal tissue, our product candidates may target and kill the normal tissue in a patient, leading to serious and potentially fatal adverse events, undesirable side effects, toxicities or unexpected characteristics. Detection of any unexpected targeting may halt or delay any ongoing clinical trials for our product candidates and prevent or delay regulatory approval. While we have developed a preclinical screening process to identify cross-reactivity of our product candidates, we cannot be certain that this process will identify all potential tissue that our product candidates may target. For example, a membrane protein array with DSG3-CAART yielded one weak signal against a protein that is designed to bind to glycoproteins and which was detected in both the test and control conditions. Further analysis of this protein in confirmatory cell-based assays repeatedly demonstrated that DSG3-CAART does not recognize nor activate against this protein. We performed similar preclinical studies for the MuSK CAAR and CABA-201 and did not observe any confirmed off target activity for MuSK-CAART or CABA-201. However, this further analysis may prove to be inaccurate. Any unexpected targeting that impacts patient safety could materially impact our ability to advance our product candidates into clinical trials or to proceed to marketing approval and commercialization. Furthermore, in the event subjects are re-treated, they may respond differently than other subjects given the same dose, and may not tolerate the dose or develop safety concerns.

Current wording

Our product candidates may have serious and potentially fatal consequences due to the targeting of cells within the body due to unexpected protein interactions with the CAR or CAAR. Although we have completed multiple preclinical studies designed to screen for toxicity caused by unintended off-target recognition by the cell binding domain of the DSG3 CAAR, MuSK CAAR and rese-cel and intend to screen future CAR and CAAR candidates not yet tested in patients through preclinical studies, our product candidates may still recognize and react with one or more proteins unrelated to the intended surface immunoglobin target protein to which it is designed to link. If unexpected binding occurs in normal tissue, our product candidates may target and kill the normal tissue in a patient, leading to serious and potentially fatal adverse events, undesirable side effects, toxicities or unexpected characteristics. Detection of any unexpected targeting may halt or delay any ongoing clinical trials for our product candidates and prevent or delay regulatory approval. While we have developed a preclinical screening process to identify cross-reactivity of our product candidates, we cannot be certain that this process will identify all potential tissue that our product candidates may target. For example, a membrane protein array with DSG3-CAART yielded one weak signal against a protein that is designed to bind to glycoproteins and which was detected in both the test and control conditions. Further analysis of this protein in confirmatory cell-based assays repeatedly demonstrated that DSG3-CAART does not recognize nor activate against this protein. We performed similar preclinical studies for the MuSK CAAR and rese-cel and did not observe any confirmed off target activity for MuSK-CAART or rese-cel. However, this further analysis may prove to be inaccurate. Any unexpected targeting that impacts patient safety could materially impact our ability to advance our product candidates into clinical trials or to proceed to marketing approval and commercialization. Furthermore, in the event subjects are re-treated, they may respond differently than other subjects given the same dose, and may not tolerate the dose or develop safety concerns.

Previous wording

Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory agencies. 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 CAR T cell immunotherapies in the cancer setting and requesting life-long monitoring in patients treated with these therapies. Patients in our CAR T and CAART studies could also develop certain life-threatening cancers or malignancies. Our clinical trials of CABA-201 represent the first evaluation of this product candidate in patients and CABA-201 is directed against all B cells expressing CD19; therefore, there is a risk for prolonged B cell aplasia and/or hypogammaglobulinemia, which may predispose patients to infections. Given that the autoimmune and alloimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are, in some cases, less serious than the later stage cancers being treated with other immunotherapy products, we believe the FDA and other regulatory authorities likely will apply a different benefit-risk assessment thresholds such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T therapies, the FDA may ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. We believe tolerance for adverse events in the patient population being pursued with our CAAR T and CAR T cell therapies in autoimmune and alloimmune indications will be lower than it is in oncology, and the risks of negative impact from these toxicities may therefore be higher for us than for CAR T programs in oncology.

Current wording

Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory agencies. Our clinical trials of rese-cel represent the first evaluation of this product candidate in patients and rese-cel is directed against all B cells expressing CD19; therefore, there is a risk for prolonged B cell aplasia and/or hypogammaglobulinemia, which may predispose patients to infections. Given that the autoimmune and alloimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are, in some cases, less serious than the later stage cancers being treated with other immunotherapy products, we believe the FDA and other regulatory authorities likely will apply a different benefit-risk assessment thresholds such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T therapies, the FDA may ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. We believe tolerance for adverse events in the patient population being pursued with our CAAR T and CAR T cell therapies in autoimmune and alloimmune indications will be lower than it is in oncology, and the risks of negative impact from these toxicities may therefore be higher for us than for CAR T programs in oncology.

Previous wording

Furthermore, treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the studies or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell-based immunotherapies are not normally encountered in routine medical care. Medical personnel may need additional training regarding T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates to understand their side effects. Inadequate training in recognizing or failure to effectively manage the potential side effects of T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition to side effects caused by our product candidates, any preconditioning, administration process or related procedures, which we evaluate from time to time as part of our process improvement and optimization efforts, may also cause adverse side effects. For example, prolonged or persistent cytopenias and ICANS has been noted to be associated with the use of certain lymphodepleting regimens and CAR T therapies.

Current wording

Furthermore, treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the studies or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell-based immunotherapies are not normally encountered in routine medical care. Medical personnel may need additional training regarding T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates to understand their side effects. Inadequate training in recognizing or failure to effectively manage the potential side effects of T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition to side effects caused by our product candidates, any preconditioning, administration process or related procedures, which we evaluate from time to time as part of our process improvement and optimization efforts, may also cause adverse side effects. For example, prolonged or persistent cytopenias and ICANS have been noted to be associated with the use of certain lymphodepleting regimens and CAR T therapies.

Previous wording

In oncology patients receiving CAR T cell therapy, a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen is typically used to condition the patient prior to CAR T cell infusion in order to improve tumor immunogenicity and to promote the expansion of the infused CAR T cells. Together, these effects have been shown to enhance the clinical activity of CAR T cells in oncology patients. These regimens often include cyclophosphamide and fludarabine and are usually administered within the week prior to infusion of CAR T cells. We implemented a preconditioning regimen in the DesCAARTes TM trial where certain subjects were pre-treated with IVIg and cyclophosphamide, and other patients were pre-treated with IVIg, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine prior to DSG3-CAART infusion, have included planned dosing cohorts in the MusCAARTes TM trial where subjects are pre-treated with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide prior to MuSK-CAART infusion, and we have incorporated a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide in our RESETTM clinical trials. We are evaluating CABA-201 without preconditioning in our RESET-PV trial in patients with mPV and mcPV. Serious adverse events have been observed in some patients following CAR T cell infusion, and these include infection, cytokine release syndrome and ICANS. The lymphodepleting and immunomodulatory preconditioning regimen may contribute to the occurrence and severity of these adverse events due to its role in inducing leukopenia, or low levels of white blood cells in the blood, including lymphopenia, or low levels of lymphocytes in the blood, and regulating the activation and effector functions of other immune cells and antibodies, and enhanced CAR T cell activity.

Current wording

In oncology patients receiving CAR T cell therapy, a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen is typically used to condition the patient prior to CAR T cell infusion in order to improve tumor immunogenicity and to promote the expansion of the infused CAR T cells. Together, these effects have been shown to enhance the clinical activity of CAR T cells in oncology patients. These regimens often include cyclophosphamide and fludarabine and are usually administered within the week prior to infusion of CAR T cells. We implemented a preconditioning regimen in the DesCAARTes TM trial where certain subjects were pre-treated with IVIg and cyclophosphamide, and other patients were pre-treated with IVIg, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine prior to DSG3-CAART infusion, have included planned dosing cohorts in the MusCAARTes TM trial where subjects are pre-treated with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide prior to MuSK-CAART infusion, and we have incorporated a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide in our RESETTM clinical trials. We are evaluating rese-cel without preconditioning in our RESET-PVTM trial in patients with mPV and mcPV. Serious adverse events have been observed in some patients following CAR T cell infusion, and these include infection, cytokine release syndrome and ICANS. The lymphodepleting and immunomodulatory preconditioning regimen may contribute to the occurrence and severity of these adverse events due to its role in inducing leukopenia, or low levels of white blood cells in the blood, including lymphopenia, or low levels of lymphocytes in the blood, and regulating the activation and effector functions of other immune cells and antibodies, and enhanced CAR T cell activity.

Previous wording

Subjects in our RESETTM trials, except for our RESET-PV trial, will be treated with a standard preconditioning regimen consisting of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide prior to CABA-201 infusion. In addition, the lymphodepleting regimen may eliminate some of the pathogenic B cells targeted by CABA-201. As a result, the lymphodepleting regimen may contribute to the initial clinical response that may be observed after CABA-201, which may make interpretation of early efficacy difficult to assess and may also delay our ability to characterize the activity of CABA-201 independent of the effects of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. We intend to evaluate this potential impact of preconditioning in our CAAR and CABA-201 studies, through the comparison to non-lymphodepletion arms.

Current wording

Subjects in our RESETTM trials, except for our RESET-PVTM trial, will be treated with a standard preconditioning regimen consisting of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide prior to rese-cel infusion. In addition, the lymphodepleting regimen may eliminate some of the pathogenic B cells targeted by rese-cel. As a result, the lymphodepleting regimen may contribute to the initial clinical response that may be observed after rese-cel, which may make interpretation of early efficacy difficult to assess and may also delay our ability to characterize the activity of rese-cel independent of the effects of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. We intend to evaluate this potential impact of preconditioning in our CAAR and rese-cel studies, through the comparison to non-lymphodepletion arms.

Previous wording

The initial clinical results we have observed may not be predictive of results of subsequent cohorts in this clinical trial, or of any future clinical trials. Because CABA-201, DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART are the first three product candidates that we are testing in the clinic, we may experience preliminary complications surrounding trial design, protocol establishment and execution, establishing trial protocols, patient recruitment and enrollment, quality and supply of clinical doses, or safety issues.

Current wording

The initial clinical results we have observed may not be predictive of results of subsequent cohorts in this clinical trial, or of any future clinical trials. Because rese-cel, DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART are the first three product candidates that we are testing in the clinic, we may experience preliminary complications surrounding trial design, protocol establishment and execution, establishing trial protocols, patient recruitment and enrollment, quality and supply of clinical doses, or safety issues.

Previous wording

Additionally, a failure of our clinical trials of DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART or CABA-201 RESETTM trials could influence physicians’ and regulators’ opinions with regard to the viability of our CABA® platform more broadly, particularly if treatment-related side effects are observed. The occurrence of any of these risks could significantly harm our development plans and business prospects. If treatment-related side effects are observed with the administration of DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART or CABA-201, or if they are viewed as less safe, potent or pure than other therapies, our ability to develop other CAAR T or CAR T cell therapies may be significantly harmed.

Current wording

Additionally, a failure of our clinical trials of DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART or rese-cel RESETTM trials could influence physicians’ and regulators’ opinions with regard to the viability of our CABA® platform more broadly, particularly if treatment-related side effects are observed. The occurrence of any of these risks could significantly harm our development plans and business prospects. If treatment-related side effects are observed with the administration of DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART or rese-cel, or if they are viewed as less safe, potent or pure than other therapies, our ability to develop other CAAR T or CAR T cell therapies may be significantly harmed.

Previous wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe, potent and pure for use in each target indication. Clinical trials are expensive and can take many years to complete, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including in any post-approval studies of our product candidates. In addition, initial success in any clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety, potency and purity profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Similarly, while we believe CABA-201 has a similar overall design to the construct used for the patients in the Nature Medicine, Lancet, Annals of Rheumatic Diseases, and Rheumatology publications, those studies involved a small number of patients, and a different product candidate, and the initial clinical results observed in those studies may not be predictive of clinical trial results with CABA-201 or any of our other product candidates, additionally, because those studies are not our own, we may not have access to accurate follow-up information or peer-reviewed results.

Current wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe, potent and pure for use in each target indication. Clinical trials are expensive and can take many years to complete, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including in any post-approval studies of our product candidates. In addition, initial success in any clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety, potency and purity profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Similarly, while we believe rese-cel has a similar overall design to the construct used for the patients in the Nature Medicine, Lancet, Annals of Rheumatic Diseases, and Rheumatology publications, those studies involved a small number of patients, and a different product candidate, and the initial clinical results observed in those studies may not be predictive of clinical trial results with rese-cel or any of our other product candidates, additionally, because those studies are not our own, we may not have access to accurate follow-up information or peer-reviewed results.

Previous wording

A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of potency or efficacy, insufficient durability of potency or efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical and other nonclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or EMA approval. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products.

Current wording

A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of potency or efficacy, insufficient durability of potency or efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical and other nonclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or European Commission approval. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products.

Previous wording

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. For example, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States but can differ in significant ways as well. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union.

Current wording

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant must obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before commencing clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. For example, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States but can differ in significant ways. It entails the satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission of a marketing authorization application to the relevant competent authorities and the granting of a marketing authorization by those authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union.

Previous wording

Our DesCAARTes TM trial, MusCAARTes TM trial, and RESETTM trials in SLE, myositis, SSc, and gMG and RESET- PVTM sub-study are designed as open-label trials. From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including safety data and evaluations of efficacy, which will be based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following our receipt of additional data or a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data.

Current wording

Our DesCAARTes TM trial, MusCAARTes TM trial, and RESETTM trials in SLE, myositis, SSc, gMG, MS and PV are designed as open-label trials. From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including safety data and evaluations of efficacy, which will be based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following our receipt of additional data or a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data.

Previous wording

For our RESETTM, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and other planned clinical trials, we expect to continue to contract with academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. In the future, we may also contract with non-academic medical centers and hospitals with similar capabilities. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients, including due to failure by patients to comply with post-clinical trial follow-up programs, and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, inadequate institutional safety procedures, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using CABA-201, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and our other product candidates, if licensed, on a commercial basis could have similar difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of CABA-201, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and our other product candidates may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment.

Current wording

For our RESETTM, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and other planned clinical trials, we expect to continue to contract with academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. In the future, we may also contract with non-academic medical centers and hospitals with similar capabilities. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients, including due to failure by patients to comply with post-clinical trial follow-up programs, and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, inadequate institutional safety procedures, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using rese-cel, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and our other product candidates, if licensed, on a commercial basis could have similar difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of rese-cel, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and our other product candidates may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment.

Previous wording

Our DesCAARTes TM trial, our MusCAARTes TM trial, our RESETTM trials in SLE, myositis, SSc, and gMG, our RESET-PVTM sub-study and any additional expected clinical trials for each of our product candidates will enroll a limited number of patients. The activity and toxicity data from these clinical trials of our product candidates may differ from future results of subsequent clinical trials that enroll a larger number of patients. Since the number of patients that we plan to dose in our MusCAARTes TM trial, our RESETTM trials in SLE, myositis, SSc, gMG and RESET-PVTM trial is small, and the number of patients in clinical trials for any future product candidates may be small, the results from such clinical trials, once completed, may be less reliable than results achieved in larger clinical trials, which may hinder our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. In both our RESET-PVTM trial and our MusCAARTes TM trial, we plan to evaluate the toxicity profile of our product candidates and establish the recommended dose for the next clinical trial. The preliminary results of clinical trials with smaller sample sizes, such as our DesCAARTes TM trial, our MusCAARTes TM trial and our RESETTM trials, as well as any clinical trials for future product candidates, can be disproportionately influenced by various biases associated with the conduct of small clinical trials, such as the potential failure of the smaller sample size to accurately depict the features of the broader patient population, which limits the ability to generalize the results across a broader community, thus making the clinical trial results less reliable than clinical trials with a larger number of patients. As a result, there may be less certainty that such product candidates would achieve a statistically significant effect in any future clinical trials. If we conduct any future clinical trials of DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART, or CABA-201, we may not achieve a statistically significant result or the same level of statistical significance, if any, that we might have anticipated based on the results observed in our DesCAARTes TM trial, our MusCAARTes TM trial, and RESETTM trials, respectively.

Current wording

Our DesCAARTes TM trial, our MusCAARTes TM trial, our RESETTM trials in SLE, myositis, SSc, gMG, PV and MS and any additional expected clinical trials for each of our product candidates will enroll a limited number of patients. The activity and toxicity data from these clinical trials of our product candidates may differ from future results of subsequent clinical trials that enroll a larger number of patients. Since the number of patients that we plan to dose in our MusCAARTes TM trial, our RESETTM trials in SLE, myositis, SSc, gMG, PV and MS is small, and the number of patients in clinical trials for any future product candidates may be small, the results from such clinical trials, once completed, may be less reliable than results achieved in larger clinical trials, which may hinder our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. In our RESET-PVTM trial, RESET-MSTM and our MusCAARTes TM trial, we plan to evaluate the toxicity profile of our product candidates and establish the recommended dose for the next clinical trial. The preliminary results of clinical trials with smaller sample sizes, such as our DesCAARTes TM trial, our MusCAARTes TM trial and our RESETTM trials, as well as any clinical trials for future product candidates, can be disproportionately influenced by various biases associated with the conduct of small clinical trials, such as the potential failure of the smaller sample size to accurately depict the features of the broader patient population, which limits the ability to generalize the results across a broader community, thus making the clinical trial results less reliable than clinical trials with a larger number of patients. As a result, there may be less certainty that such product candidates would achieve a statistically significant effect in any future clinical trials. If we conduct any future clinical trials of DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART, or rese-cel, we may not achieve a statistically significant result or the same level of statistical significance, if any, that we might have anticipated based on the results observed in our DesCAARTes TM trial, our MusCAARTes TM trial, and RESETTM trials, respectively.

Previous wording

The biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong focus on intellectual property. We face competition from many different players, including large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research organizations and governmental agencies. Any therapeutic candidates we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with the existing standard of care as well as novel therapies that may gain regulatory approval in the future. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. We are the first and only company developing CAAR T drug candidates and one of several developing CAR T drug candidates for the treatment autoimmune diseases where B cells may play a role in initiating or maintaining disease. Additionally, despite the significant differences in discovery, development and target populations between oncology and autoimmune targets, we recognize that companies with an investment and expertise in CAR T cell development for oncology indications could also attempt to leverage their expertise into autoimmune diseases where B cells may play a role in initiating or maintaining disease affected populations. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products.

Current wording

The biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong focus on intellectual property. We face competition from many different players, including large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research organizations and governmental agencies. Any therapeutic candidates we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with the existing standard of care as well as novel therapies that may gain regulatory approval in the future. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Although we are the first and only company developing CAAR T drug candidates, we are one of several developing CAR T drug candidates for the treatment of autoimmune diseases where B cells may play a role in initiating or maintaining disease. Additionally, despite the significant differences in discovery, development and target populations between oncology and autoimmune targets, we recognize that companies with an investment and expertise in CAR T cell development for oncology indications could also attempt to leverage their expertise into autoimmune diseases where B cells may play a role in initiating or maintaining disease affected populations. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products.

Previous wording

Specifically, while rituximab is the first drug for the treatment of PV, the target indication for DSG3-CAART, to have received regulatory approval in the United States in over 60 years, we are aware that multiple biopharmaceutical companies have therapies in clinical development. We are also aware of other biopharmaceutical companies developing therapies for muscle-specific kinase myasthenia gravis, or MuSK MG, SLE, myositis, SSc and gMG. While we do not expect these product candidates to be directly competitive to our product candidates, even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of these other products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

Current wording

Specifically, while rituximab is the first drug to have received regulatory approval in the United States in over 60 years for the treatment of PV, the target indication for DSG3-CAART, and the indication we are evaluating in the RESET-PVTM study, we are aware that multiple biopharmaceutical companies have therapies in clinical development. We are also aware of other biopharmaceutical companies developing therapies for MuSK MG, SLE, myositis, SSc, gMG and MS. While we do not expect these product candidates to be directly competitive to our product candidates, even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of these other products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

Previous wording

One of our core strategies is to pursue clinical development of additional product candidates beyond CABA-201, DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART. Developing, obtaining regulatory approval and commercializing additional product candidates will require substantial additional funding and is prone to the risks of failure inherent in medical product development. We cannot provide you any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of these additional product candidates through the development process.

Current wording

One of our core strategies is to pursue clinical development of additional product candidates beyond rese-cel, DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART. Developing, obtaining regulatory approval and commercializing additional product candidates will require substantial additional funding and is prone to the risks of failure inherent in medical product development. We cannot provide you any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of these additional product candidates through the development process.

Previous wording

As of September 30, 2024, we had 154 full-time employees and one part-time employee. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we continue to broaden our operational capabilities, we expect to expand our employee base and continue to add managerial, operational, sales, research and development, marketing, financial and other personnel. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had 163 full-time employees and four part-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we continue to broaden our operational capabilities, we expect to expand our employee base and continue to add managerial, operational, sales, research and development, marketing, financial and other personnel. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Previous wording

Our operations, Penn’s operations, WuXi’s operations and those of any CMOs, CROs and other contractors and consultants that we may engage could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. Further, global conflicts or political unrest, such as the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and the conflict in the Middle East may disrupt our global clinical trials and increase the likelihood of supply interruptions. Additionally, the effect of global financial and economic conditions and geopolitical events, including presidential elections in the United States, events related thereto such as changes to candidates or political unrest or otherwise, or similar events, may have an impact on our business. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our research, clinical trials, operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

Current wording

Our operations, Penn’s operations, Minaris Advanced Therapies' operations and those of any CMOs, CROs and other contractors and consultants that we may engage could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. Further, global conflicts or political unrest, such as the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and the conflict in the Middle East may disrupt our global clinical trials and increase the likelihood of supply interruptions. Additionally, the effect of global financial and economic conditions and geopolitical events, including the consequences of the presidential transition in the United States, events or changes related thereto, including reductions in force at administrative agencies and tariffs, or political unrest or otherwise, or similar events, may have an impact on our business. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our research, clinical trials, operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

Previous wording

There are also current geopolitical tensions with China. Recently, the Biden administration signed multiple executive orders regarding China. One particular executive order titled Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy signed on September 12, 2022 will likely impact the pharmaceutical industry to encourage U.S. domestic manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. Moreover, there have been Congressional legislative proposals, such as the bill titled the BIOSECURE Act, which would, among other things, prohibit U.S. federal funding in connection with biotechnology equipment or services produced or provided by certain named Chinese “biotechnology companies of concern” (which, under the version of legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 9, 2024, are WuXi AppTec, WuXi Biologics, MGI, BGI, and Complete Genomics) and loans and grants to, and federal contracts with any entity that uses biotechnology equipment or services from one of these entities in performance of the government contract, grant, or loan. The legislation also gives the federal government the authority to name additional “biotechnology companies of concern” that are engaged in research activities with the Chinese government and that pose a risk of U.S. national security. Previously, on May 15, 2024, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability approved an updated version of the BIOSECURE Act which would delay the application of the BIOSECURE Act’s provisions (1) until January 1, 2032, with respect to biotechnology equipment and services provided or produced by a named biotechnology company of concern under a contract or agreement entered before the effective date of the legislation and (2) for a period of 5 years after the identification of new biotechnology companies of concern, with respect to biotechnology equipment and services provided or produced by an entity that the government identifies in the future as a biotechnology company of concern. Any additional executive action, legislative action or potential sanctions with China could materially impact one of our current manufacturing partners, WuXi, and our agreement with them. For example, in February 2024, the former chair and ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, former Representative Mike Gallagher and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, respectively, along with Senators Gary Peters and Bill Haggerty sent a letter to the Biden administration requesting that both WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd., WuXi’s parent company, and the affiliated WuXi Biologics be added to the Department of Defense’s Chinese Military Companies List (1260H list), the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security Entity List, and the Department of Treasury’s Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List. While the Biden administration has yet to take action on this letter, adding either or both previousl…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

There are also current geopolitical tensions with China. For example, the Biden administration signed multiple executive orders regarding China, which orders will likely impact the pharmaceutical industry to encourage U.S. domestic manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. Moreover, the BIOSECURE Act, which would, among other things, prohibit U.S. federal funding in connection with biotechnology equipment or services produced or provided by certain named Chinese “biotechnology companies of concern” (which, under the version of legislation included WuXi AppTec and WuXi Biologics) and loans and grants to, and federal contracts with any entity that uses biotechnology equipment or services from one of these entities in performance of the government contract, grant, or loan. Previously, on May 15, 2024, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability approved an updated version of the BIOSECURE Act which would delay the application of the BIOSECURE Act’s provisions (1) until January 1, 2032, with respect to biotechnology equipment and services provided or produced by a named biotechnology company of concern under a contract or agreement entered before the effective date of the legislation and (2) for a period of 5 years after the identification of new biotechnology companies of concern, with respect to biotechnology equipment and services provided or produced by an entity that the government identifies in the future as a biotechnology company of concern. In March 2025, Altaris, LLC, a healthcare investment firm headquartered in New York, completed its acquisition of the US and UK based operations of Minaris Advanced Therapies TM, LLC, or Minaris Advanced Therapies (f/k/a WuXi Advanced Therapies, Inc). On February 28, 2024, former President Biden signed Executive Order 14117 (“Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern”) which implements a new framework to protect the privacy of personal data shared between the U.S. and Europe, which may, in effect, impact privacy laws with “countries of concern” such as China or Russia.

Previous wording

As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, we recorded net losses of $83.3 million and $46.8 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $316.5 million. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if, and as, we:

Current wording

As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, we recorded net losses of $35.9 million and $25.0 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $385.0 million. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if, and as, we:

Previous wording

We currently do not have in-house resources sufficient to enable the development of our product candidates, including our CAR T and CAAR T cell platforms. We are reliant on several manufacturing and support services from Penn through two Master Translational Research Service Agreements, or the CAART Services Agreement and CARTA Services Agreement, respectively, and collectively, the Services Agreements. We also rely on Penn for current manufacturing of CABA-201. Our ability to rely on services from Penn is limited to a specified period of time, to specific capabilities, and is subject to Penn’s right to terminate these services with or without cause. We are reliant on WuXi manufacturing services for MuSK-CAART and CABA-201 in multiple indications through a Development, Manufacturing and Testing Services Agreement, or the WuXi Agreement. Our ability to rely on services from WuXi is limited to a specified period of time, to specific capabilities, and is subject to WuXi’s right to terminate these services with or without cause. If we are unable to establish necessary relationships with third party partners and/or build our own capabilities, our operating and financial results could differ materially from our expectations, and our business could suffer. As we build our own capabilities, and enter into agreements with third parties, we expect to encounter risks and uncertainties frequently experienced by growing companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, including the risks and uncertainties described herein.

Current wording

We currently do not have in-house resources sufficient to enable the development of our product candidates, including our CAR T and CAAR T cell platforms. We are reliant on several manufacturing and support services from Penn through two Master Translational Research Service Agreements, or the CAART Services Agreement and CARTA Services Agreement, respectively, and collectively, the Services Agreements. We also rely on Penn for current manufacturing of rese-cel. Our ability to rely on services from Penn is limited to a specified period of time, to specific capabilities, and is subject to Penn’s right to terminate these services with or without cause. We are reliant on Minaris Advanced Therapies manufacturing services for MuSK-CAART and rese-cel in multiple indications through a

Previous wording

To become and remain profitable, we or any potential future collaborator must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential at an adequate profit margin after cost of goods sold and other expenses. All of our product candidates are in the early stages of development and we will require additional preclinical studies, clinical development, regulatory review and approval, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. We initiated our DesCAARTes TM trial of DSG3-CAART, targeting pathogenic B cells in patients with mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, or mPV, in June 2020. The DesCAARTes TM trial is no longer dosing patients for treatment with DSG3-CAART after evaluation of clinical and translational data from the combination cohort, where patients were pre-treated with IVIg, cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to DSG3-CAART infusion. Our IND for MuSK-CAART, targeting pathogenic B cells in a subset of patients with myasthenia gravis, or MG, became effective in January 2022. The MusCAARTes™ trial is not currently dosing patients as we evaluate clinical and translational data from the A1 and A2 cohorts, where patients were treated with MuSK-CAART without preconditioning. Our INDs for CABA-201, which are designed to treat patients with active LN or active SLE without renal involvement, patients with myositis, patients with SSc, and patients with gMG became effective in March 2023, May 2023, September 2023 and November 2023, respectively. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

Current wording

To become and remain profitable, we or any potential future collaborator must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential at an adequate profit margin after cost of goods sold and other expenses. All of our product candidates are in the early stages of development and we will require additional preclinical studies, clinical development, regulatory review and approval, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

Previous wording

*We will require substantial additional financing to develop and commercialize our product candidates and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing or cannot obtain financing at the levels we require, we may be delayed in our plans or unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Current wording

*We will require substantial additional financing to develop and commercialize our product candidates and implement our operating plans. We have also identified conditions that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we fail to obtain additional financing or cannot obtain financing at the levels we require, we may be forced to delay, reduce or discontinue our plans and operations or unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Previous wording

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including our DesCAARTes TM trial, our MusCAARTes TM trial, our RESETTM trials, and our research and development, preclinical studies and clinical trials for any future product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates, to enable commercial production of our products, if licensed, and to initiate and complete registration trials for multiple products. As of September 30, 2024, we had $183.0 million of cash, cash equivalents and investments. Since our initial public offering, we have generated cash from public offerings of our common stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase our common stock resulting in aggregate net proceeds of approximately $280 million. While we currently expect our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments to be sufficient to fund our operations into the first half of 2026, which includes initial clinical data on efficacy endpoints and tolerability from the initial CABA-201 treated patients in the RESETTM clinical trials, we expect to require significant additional financing to complete these clinical trials and any future clinical trials of these and our other product candidates. Further, if marketing approval is received, we will require significant additional amounts of cash to launch and commercialize our product candidates. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Additionally, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may require substantial additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities, and may need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Current wording

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including our MusCAARTes TM trial and our RESETTM trials, and our research and development, preclinical studies and clinical trials for any future product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates, to enable commercial production of our products, if licensed, and to initiate and complete registration trials for multiple products. As of March 31, 2025, we had $131.8 million of cash and cash equivalents. Since our initial public offering, we have generated cash from public offerings of our common stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase our common stock resulting in aggregate net proceeds of approximately $280.0 million. While we currently expect our existing cash and cash equivalents to be sufficient to fund our operations into the first half of 2026 which includes initial clinical data on efficacy endpoints and tolerability from the initial rese-cel treated patients in the RESETTM clinical trials, we expect to require significant additional financing to complete these clinical trials and any future clinical trials of these and our other product candidates. Further, if marketing approval is received, we will require significant additional amounts of cash to launch and commercialize our product candidates. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Additionally, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may require substantial additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities, and may need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Previous wording

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates. If we do not adequately protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. To protect our proprietary position, we have in-licensed patent rights in the United States and abroad relating to the product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive, complex and time-consuming. Our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

Current wording

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates. If we do not adequately protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. To protect our proprietary position, we have filed and in-licensed patent rights in the United States and abroad relating to the product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive, complex and time-consuming. We or our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

Previous wording

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to biological and pharmaceutical products commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. 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. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. However, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent was entitled to the patent. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in the patents or pending patent applications we in-license, or that our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Current wording

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to biological and pharmaceutical products commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. 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. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. However, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent was entitled to the patent. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in the patents or pending patent applications, or that we and our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Previous wording

Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, the patents or pending patent applications we in-license may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in post-grant review procedures, derivation proceedings, reexaminations, or inter partes review in the United States, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized.

Current wording

Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, the patents or pending patent applications that we own or in-license may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in post-grant review procedures, derivation proceedings, reexaminations, or inter partes review in the United States, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized.

Previous wording

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of the patents we in-license or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law is more restrictive than U.S. patent law in connection with the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body and Chinese bankruptcy law may not provide a licensee the same protections as U.S. bankruptcy law. This could impact our in-license under the IASO Agreement with IASO, a China-based company, if IASO declared bankruptcy, and could have a material adverse effect on the development of CABA-201.

Current wording

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of the patents we in-license or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law is more restrictive than U.S. patent law in connection with the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body and Chinese bankruptcy law may not provide a licensee the same protections as U.S. bankruptcy law. This could impact our in-license under the IASO Agreement with IASO, a China-based company, if IASO declared bankruptcy, and could have a material adverse effect on the development of rese-cel.

Previous wording

We cannot predict whether the patent applications we in-license currently being pursued will issue as patents, whether the claims of any patent that has or may issue will provide us with a competitive advantage or prevent competitors from designing around the claims to develop competing technologies in a non-infringing manner, or whether we or our licensors will be able to successfully pursue patent applications in the future relating to our current product candidates or future products and product candidates. Moreover, the patent application and approval process is expensive and time-consuming. We or our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Furthermore, we, or any future partners, collaborators, or licensees, may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities to seek additional patent protection.

Current wording

We cannot predict whether the patent applications that we own or in-license will issue as patents, whether the claims of any patent that has or may issue will provide us with a competitive advantage or prevent competitors from designing around the claims to develop competing technologies in a non-infringing manner, or whether we or our licensors will be able to successfully pursue patent applications in the future relating to our current product candidates or future products and product candidates. Moreover, the patent application and approval process is expensive and time-consuming. We or our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Furthermore, we, or any future partners, collaborators, or licensees, may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities to seek additional patent protection.

Previous wording

Even if the patent applications we in-license issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patent rights by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our product candidates. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting abbreviated BLAs to the FDA during which process they may claim that patents licensed by us are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our intellectual property rights, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find the patents we in-license invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have in-licensed valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Current wording

Even if the patent applications we own or in-license issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patent rights by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our product candidates. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting abbreviated BLAs to the FDA during which process they may claim that our owned or in-licensed patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our intellectual property rights, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find the patents we own or in-license invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we own or in-license valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Previous wording

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of the patents we in-license or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put the patents we in-license at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and the patent applications we in-license at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Current wording

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of the patents we in-license or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put the patents we in-license at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and the patent applications we own or in-license at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Previous wording

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in the patents and intellectual property that we in-license or that we may own or in-license in the future. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own or such assignments may not be self-executing or may be breached. Our licensors may face similar obstacles. We or our licensors could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against any claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, we may have to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Current wording

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in the patents and intellectual property that we own or in-license or that we may own or in-license in the future. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own or such assignments may not be self-executing or may be breached. Our licensors may face similar obstacles. We or our licensors could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against any claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, we may have to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Previous wording

Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property that we own or in-license. To counter infringement, misappropriation or other unauthorized use, we may be required to file claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived violators could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property, in addition to counterclaims asserting that the patents we in-license are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent we in-license 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. In the U.S., grounds for a validity challenge in a court proceeding could be an alleged failure to meet one or more statutory requirements for patentability, including, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description or non-enablement. 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. Additionally, third parties are able to challenge the validity of issued patents through administrative proceedings in the patent offices of certain countries, including the USPTO and the European Patent Office.

Current wording

Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property that we own or in-license. To counter infringement, misappropriation or other unauthorized use, we may be required to file claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived violators could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property, in addition to counterclaims asserting that the patents we in-license are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent we own or in-license 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.

Previous wording

Even if the validity of a patent is upheld during a court proceeding, there is a risk that 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 the patent claims do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving the patents we in-license could limit our ability to assert the patent we in-license against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

Current wording

Even if the validity of a patent is upheld during a court proceeding, there is a risk that 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 the patent claims do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving the patents we own or in-license could limit our ability to assert the patent against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

Previous wording

The patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of biologics are particularly uncertain. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., or Myriad, a case involving patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad held that an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent-eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA, which is an artificial construct that may be created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent-eligible. Thereafter, the USPTO issued a guidance memorandum instructing USPTO examiners on the ramifications of the Prometheus and Myriad rulings and apply the Myriad ruling to natural products and principles including all naturally occurring nucleic acids. Certain claims of our in-licensed patent applications contain, and any future patents we may obtain may contain, claims that relate to specific recombinant DNA sequences that are naturally occurring at least in part and, therefore, could be the subject of future challenges made by third parties.

Current wording

The patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of biologics are particularly uncertain. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., or Myriad, a case involving patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad held that an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent-eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA, which is an artificial construct that may be created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent-eligible. Thereafter, the USPTO issued a guidance memorandum instructing USPTO examiners on the ramifications of the Prometheus and Myriad rulings and apply the Myriad ruling to natural products and principles including all naturally occurring nucleic acids. Certain claims of our owned and in-licensed patent applications contain, and any future patents we may obtain may contain, claims that relate to specific recombinant DNA sequences that are naturally occurring at least in part and, therefore, could be the subject of future challenges made by third parties.

Previous wording

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent, which is limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications approved during the period of extension). However, a patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of the product’s approval by the FDA, only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we plan to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those product candidates in any jurisdiction where these are available. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to the patents we in-license, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. Moreover, we may not receive an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

Current wording

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent, which is limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications approved during the period of extension). However, a patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of the product’s approval by the FDA, only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we plan to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those product candidates in any jurisdiction where these are available. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to the patents we own or in-license, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. Moreover, we may not receive an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

Previous wording

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, 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 or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. Our licensors may face similar risks, which could have an adverse impact on intellectual property that is licensed to us.

Current wording

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, 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 or personnel.