Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology has only recently been clinically validated for human therapeutic use.

Current wording

CRISPR genome editing technology has only recently been clinically validated for human therapeutic use.

Previous wording

The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics using CRISPR/Cas9 systems are unproven and may never lead to marketable products.

Current wording

The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics using CRISPR systems are unproven and may never lead to marketable products.

Previous wording

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of CRISPR/Cas9 use, genome editing or gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

Current wording

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of CRISPR use, genome editing or gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

Previous wording

In vivo genome editing products andex vivo engineered cell therapies based on CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture.

Current wording

In vivo genome editing products andex vivo engineered cell therapies based on CRISPR genome editing technology are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture.

Previous wording

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology has only recently been clinically validated for human therapeutic use.

Current wording

CRISPR genome editing technology has only recently been clinically validated for human therapeutic use.

Previous wording

We are focused on developing novel therapeutics utilizing CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology, includingin vivo therapies andex vivo engineered cell therapies. Although there have been significant advances in recent years in the fields of gene therapy and genome editing, in vivo CRISPR-based genome editing technologies are relatively new and their therapeutic utility is largely unproven. Our approach to developing therapies centers on using CRISPR/Cas9 technology to alter, introduce or remove genetic informationin vivoto treat various disorders, or to engineer human cellsex vivo to create therapeutic cells that can be introduced into the human body to address the underlying disease.

Current wording

We are focused on developing novel therapeutics utilizing CRISPR genome editing technology, includingin vivo therapies andex vivo engineered cell therapies. Although there have been significant advances in recent years in the fields of gene therapy and genome editing, in vivo CRISPR-based genome editing technologies are relatively new and their therapeutic utility is largely unproven. Our approach to developing therapies centers on using CRISPR technology to alter, introduce or remove genetic informationin vivoto treat various disorders, or to engineer human cellsex vivo to create therapeutic cells that can be introduced into the human body to address the underlying disease.

Previous wording

The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics using CRISPR/Cas9 systems are unproven and may never lead to marketable products.

Current wording

The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics using CRISPR systems are unproven and may never lead to marketable products.

Previous wording

Successful development of products by us will require solving a number of issues, including developing or obtaining technologies to safely deliver a therapeutic agent into target cells within the human body or engineer human cells while outside of the body such that the modified cells can have a therapeutic effect when delivered to the patient, optimizing the efficacy and specificity of such products, and demonstrating the therapeutic selectivity, efficacy, potency, purity and safety of such products. There can be no assurance we will be successful in solving any or all of these issues. With regards to CRISPR/Cas9-based therapies specifically, we are in clinical-stage development for nex-z and NTLA-2002 and advancing towards clinical testing for our otherin vivo andex vivo product candidates. Although one CRISPR/Cas9-editedex vivo therapy has been approved in the United States (“U.S.”) and European Union (“EU”), no genome editingin vivo therapy has been approved in the U.S., EU countries or other key jurisdictions, and the potential to successfully obtain approval for any of our CRISPR/Cas9 product candidates remains uncertain.

Current wording

Successful development of products by us will require solving a number of issues, including developing or obtaining technologies to safely deliver a therapeutic agent into target cells within the human body or engineer human cells while outside of the body such that the modified cells can have a therapeutic effect when delivered to the patient, optimizing the efficacy and specificity of such products, and demonstrating the therapeutic selectivity, efficacy, potency, purity and safety of such products. There can be no assurance we will be successful in solving any or all of these issues. With regards to CRISPR-based therapies specifically, we are in clinical-stage development for nex-z and lonvoguran-z, (“lonvo-z”, also known as NTLA-2002) and advancing towards clinical testing for our otherin vivo andex vivo product candidates. Although one CRISPR-editedex vivo therapy has been approved in the United States (“U.S.”) and European Union (“EU”), no genome editingin vivo therapy has been approved in the U.S., EU countries or other key jurisdictions, and the potential to successfully obtain approval for any of our CRISPR product candidates remains uncertain.

Previous wording

Our future success also is highly dependent on the successful development of CRISPR-based genome editing technologies, cellular delivery methods and therapeutic applications for the indications on which we have focused our ongoing research and development efforts. We may decide to alter or abandon these programs as new data become available and we gain experience in developing CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics. We cannot be sure that our CRISPR/Cas9 efforts and technologies will yield satisfactory products that are safe and effective, sufficiently pure or potent, manufacturable, scalable or profitable in our selected indications or any other indication we pursue. We cannot guarantee that progress or success in developing any particular CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutic product will translate to other CRISPR/Cas9-based products.

Current wording

Our future success also is highly dependent on the successful development of CRISPR-based genome editing technologies, cellular delivery methods and therapeutic applications for the indications on which we have focused our ongoing research and development efforts. We may decide to alter or abandon these programs as new data become available and we gain experience in developing CRISPR-based therapeutics. We cannot be sure that our CRISPR efforts and technologies will yield satisfactory products that are safe and effective, sufficiently pure or potent, manufacturable, scalable or profitable in our selected indications or any other indication we pursue. We cannot guarantee that progress or success in developing any particular CRISPR-based therapeutic product will translate to other CRISPR-based products.

Previous wording

challenges in obtaining regulatory authorization or approval to conduct clinical trials in the U.S. from the FDA through an investigational new drug (“IND”) application or from other regulatory agencies outside the U.S., such as the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) or the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), through corresponding applications, such as a clinical trial application, a clinical trial notification or a clinical trial exemption, because these agencies have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics, which may require additional significant testing or data compared to more traditional therapies or otherwise delay the development of our product candidates;

Current wording

challenges in obtaining regulatory authorization or approval to conduct clinical trials in the U.S. from the FDA through an investigational new drug (“IND”) application or from other regulatory agencies outside the U.S., such as the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) or the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), through corresponding applications, such as a clinical trial application, a clinical trial notification or a clinical trial exemption, because these agencies have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics, which may require additional significant testing or data compared to more traditional therapies or otherwise delay the development of our product candidates;

Previous wording

we may not ultimately obtain regulatory approval for a BLA, or corresponding applications outside the U.S., such as a marketing authorization application in the U.K. and other similar regulatory authorities, which may have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics.

Current wording

we may not ultimately obtain regulatory approval for a BLA, or corresponding applications outside the U.S., such as a marketing authorization application in the U.K. and other similar regulatory authorities, which may have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics.

Previous wording

regulatory guidance for gene and genome editing therapy products has changed and may continue to change in the future, including, e.g., the finalized guidance document titled “Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human

Current wording

regulatory guidance for gene and genome editing therapy products has changed and may continue to change in the future, including, e.g., the finalized guidance document titled “Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Genome Editing” that the FDA issued in January 2024 and the draft guidance document titled “Frequently Asked Questions — Developing Potential Cellular and Gene Therapy Products” published in November 2024;

Previous wording

To date, most human clinical trials utilizing eitherin vivo orex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutics are still at a clinical stage, with only oneex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutic product approved in the U.S. and EU. We have ongoing clinical trials in various countries for nex-z for transthyretin (“ATTR”) amyloidosis and NTLA-2002 for hereditary angioedema (“HAE”). There is no certainty that the FDA or other similar agencies will continue to apply to all our CRISPR/Cas9 product candidates the same regulatory pathway and requirements it is applying to otherin vivo therapies orex vivo engineered therapeutics.

Current wording

To date, most human clinical trials utilizing eitherin vivo orex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutics are still at a clinical stage, with only oneex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutic product approved in the U.S. and EU. We have ongoing clinical trials in various countries for nex-z for transthyretin (“ATTR”) amyloidosis and lonvo-z for hereditary angioedema (“HAE”). There is no certainty that the FDA or other similar agencies will continue to apply to all our CRISPR product candidates the same regulatory pathway and requirements it is applying to otherin vivo therapies orex vivo engineered therapeutics.

Previous wording

We may experience manufacturing delays or other issues that prevent us from executing the clinical trials for nex-z and NTLA-2002 or our other product candidates on the timeline we expect. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that the FDA, MHRA, the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority, or other regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future or that they will approve amendments to our INDs or equivalent regulatory filings, including for nex-z and NTLA-2002, or our other product candidates, on the timeline we expect.

Current wording

We may experience manufacturing delays or other issues that prevent us from executing the clinical trials for nex-z and lonvo-z or our other product candidates on the timeline we expect. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that the FDA, MHRA, EMA, or other regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future or that they will approve amendments to our INDs or equivalent regulatory filings, including for nex-z and lonvo-z, or our other product candidates, on the timeline we expect.

Previous wording

From time to time, we may disclose interim data from our clinical trials, such as the interim results of our ongoing Phase 1 study of nex-z or Phase 1/2 study of NTLA-2002. Interim data from clinical trials that have not been completed are subject to the risk that the later results may be materially different as patient enrollment continues. 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. As a result, results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Consequently, interim data should be viewed with caution until we make the final data and analysis available.

Current wording

From time to time, we may disclose interim data from our clinical trials, such as the interim results of our ongoing Phase 1 study of nex-z or Phase 1/2 study of lonvo-z. Interim data from clinical trials that have not been completed are subject to the risk that the later results may be materially different as patient enrollment continues. 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. As a result, results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Consequently, interim data should be viewed with caution until we make the final data and analysis available.

Previous wording

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of CRISPR/Cas9 use, genome editing or gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

Current wording

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of CRISPR use, genome editing or gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

Previous wording

Gene therapy in general, and genome editing in particular, remain novel technologies, with only a limited number of gene therapy products, and only oneex vivo genome editing product, approved to date in the U.S. and EU. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy or genome editing, including the use of CRISPR/Cas9, is unsafe or unethical, or carries an undue risk of side effects, such as improper modification of a gene sequence in a patient’s chromosome that could lead to disease such as cancer, and gene therapy or genome editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing 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. In addition, responses by the U.S., state or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and prospects, and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. For example, certain gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia and death. Serious adverse events, such as these, in our clinical trials, or other clinical trials involving gene therapy or genome editing products or our competitors’ products, even if not ultimately attributable to the relevant product candidates, and the resulting publicity could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidate. In addition, the use of genome editing technology by third parties in areas that are not being pursued by us, such as for targeting and editing of embryonic cells, could adversely impact public and governmental perceptions regarding the ethics and risks of CRISPR/Cas9 technology and lead to social or legal changes that could limit our ability to apply the technology to develop human therapies addressing disease. For example, reports of the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in China and Russia to edit embryosin utero have generated, and may continue to generate, negative public perception about the use of the technology in humans. Negative public and governmental perception of the technology, or additional governmental regulation of our techn…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Gene therapy in general, and genome editing in particular, remain novel technologies, with only a limited number of gene therapy products, and only oneex vivo genome editing product, approved to date in the U.S. and EU. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy or genome editing, including the use of CRISPR, is unsafe or unethical, or carries an undue risk of side effects, such as improper modification of a gene sequence in a patient’s chromosome that could lead to disease such as cancer, and gene therapy or genome editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing 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. In addition, responses by the U.S., state or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and prospects, and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. For example, certain gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia and death. Serious adverse events, such as these, in our clinical trials, or other clinical trials involving gene therapy or genome editing products or our competitors’ products, even if not ultimately attributable to the relevant product candidates, and the resulting publicity could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidate. In addition, the use of genome editing technology by third parties in areas that are not being pursued by us, such as for targeting and editing of embryonic cells, could adversely impact public and governmental perceptions regarding the ethics and risks of CRISPR technology and lead to social or legal changes that could limit our ability to apply the technology to develop human therapies addressing disease. For example, reports of the use of CRISPR in China and Russia to edit embryosin utero have generated, and may continue to generate, negative public perception about the use of the technology in humans. Negative public and governmental perception of the technology, or additional governmental regulation of our technologies, could …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Therapeutic applications of genome editing technologies, and CRISPR/Cas9 in particular, for bothin vivo products andex vivo products, are uncertain and must undergo rigorous clinical trials and regulatory review before receiving marketing authorization. If the results of our clinical studies or those of any other third parties, including with respect to genome editing technology or engineered cell therapies, are inconclusive or fail to show efficacy or if such clinical trials give rise to safety concerns or adverse events, we may:

Current wording

Therapeutic applications of genome editing technologies, and CRISPR in particular, for bothin vivo products andex vivo products, are uncertain and must undergo rigorous clinical trials and regulatory review before receiving marketing authorization. If the results of our clinical studies or those of any other third parties, including with respect to genome editing technology or engineered cell therapies, are inconclusive or fail to show efficacy or if such clinical trials give rise to safety concerns or adverse events, we may:

Previous wording

Additionally, our product candidates could potentially cause other adverse events that have not yet been predicted and the potentially permanent nature of genome editing effects, including CRISPR/Cas9’s effects, on genes or novel cell therapies in the organs of the human body may make these adverse events irreversible. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical studies or those of our competitors may result in deaths or other adverse medical events, including those due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining regulatory approval or market acceptance of our product candidates and impair our ability to achieve profitability.

Current wording

Additionally, our product candidates could potentially cause other adverse events that have not yet been predicted and the potentially permanent nature of genome editing effects, including CRISPR’s effects, on genes or novel cell therapies in the organs of the human body may make these adverse events irreversible. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical studies or those of our competitors may result in deaths or other adverse medical events, including those due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining regulatory approval or market acceptance of our product candidates and impair our ability to achieve profitability.

Previous wording

We are at a clinical stage of development and our technology and approach has not yet led, and may never lead, to the approval or commercialization of any of our product candidates, including nex-z for ATTR amyloidosis, NTLA-2002 for HAE, or to our other preclinical stage product candidates being deemed appropriate for clinical development and ultimately approval by a regulatory agency. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline of product candidates, completing clinical development, establishing the necessary manufacturing processes and capabilities, obtaining regulatory approvals and commercializing product candidates will require substantial additional funding and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in therapeutic product development. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development involves significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy profiles, gain regulatory approval, or become commercially viable.

Current wording

We are at a clinical stage of development and our technology and approach has not yet led, and may never lead, to the approval or commercialization of any of our product candidates, including nex-z for ATTR amyloidosis, lonvo-z for HAE, or to our other preclinical stage product candidates being deemed appropriate for clinical development and ultimately approval by a regulatory agency. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline of product candidates, completing clinical development, establishing the necessary manufacturing processes and capabilities, obtaining regulatory approvals and commercializing product candidates will require substantial additional funding and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in therapeutic product development. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development involves significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy profiles, gain regulatory approval, or become commercially viable.

Previous wording

We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of our product candidates, including nex-z, NTLA-2002 or product candidates developed through our collaborations, through the entire research and development process. Any of our other programs may show promise yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development or commercialization for many reasons. For more information regarding these risks, see the above risk factor section entitled “Risks Related to Preclinical and Clinical Development.”

Current wording

We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of our product candidates, including nex-z, lonvo-z, or product candidates developed through our collaborations, through the entire research and development process. Any of our other programs may show promise yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development or commercialization for many reasons. For more information regarding these risks, see the above risk factor section entitled “Risks Related to Preclinical and Clinical Development.”

Previous wording

The use of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to create genome editing-based therapies is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by patients, healthcare providers, third party payors and other stakeholders. A variety of factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including, for example:

Current wording

The use of the CRISPR system to create genome editing-based therapies is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by patients, healthcare providers, third party payors and other stakeholders. A variety of factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including, for example:

Previous wording

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete. In addition, adverse publicity due to the ethical and social controversies surrounding the therapeuticin vivouse of CRISPR/Cas9, genome edited modified cells, or other therapeutics mediums, such as viral vectors that we may use in our clinical trials may limit market acceptance of our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, third party payors or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Our efforts to educate the healthcare providers, patients and third party payors about our products may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Current wording

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete. In addition, adverse publicity due to the ethical and social controversies surrounding the therapeuticin vivouse of CRISPR, genome edited modified cells, or other therapeutics mediums, such as viral vectors that we may use in our clinical trials may limit market acceptance of our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, third party payors or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Our efforts to educate the healthcare providers, patients and third party payors about our products may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Previous wording

For example, through a license agreement between Caribou Biosciences, Inc. and us (the “Caribou License”), we sublicense the rights of the Regents of the University of California and the University of Vienna (collectively, “UC/Vienna”) to a worldwide patent portfolio that covers methods of use and compositions relating to engineered CRISPR/Cas9 systems for, among other things, cleaving or editing DNA and altering gene product expression in various organisms, including eukaryotic cells. We sublicense the UC/Vienna rights to this patent portfolio for human therapeutic, prophylactic and palliative uses, including companion diagnostics, except for anti-fungal and anti-microbial uses. Because UC/Vienna co-own this portfolio with Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier (who has separately licensed her rights to other parties), we refer to this co-owned worldwide patent portfolio as the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family.” In addition, we have granted further sublicenses to this portfolio to our collaborators in certain fields of use. The UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent portfolio to-date includes, for example, multiple granted, allowed, and/or allowable patent applications in the U.S., as well as granted patents from the European Patent Office, the United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Australia’s Intellectual Property agency and China’s Intellectual Property Office, among others.

Current wording

For example, through a license agreement between Caribou Biosciences, Inc. and us (the “Caribou License”), we sublicense the rights of the Regents of the University of California and the University of Vienna (collectively, “UC/Vienna”) to a worldwide patent portfolio that covers methods of use and compositions relating to engineered CRISPR systems for, among other things, cleaving or editing DNA and altering gene product expression in various organisms, including eukaryotic cells. We sublicense the UC/Vienna rights to this patent portfolio for human therapeutic, prophylactic and palliative uses, including companion diagnostics, except for anti-fungal and anti-microbial uses. Because UC/Vienna co-own this portfolio with Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier (who has separately licensed her rights to other parties), we refer to this co-owned worldwide patent portfolio as the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family.” In addition, we have granted further sublicenses to this portfolio to our collaborators in certain fields of use. The UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent portfolio to-date includes, for example, multiple granted, allowed, and/or allowable patent applications in the U.S., as well as granted patents from the European Patent Office, the United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Australia’s Intellectual Property agency and China’s Intellectual Property Office, among others.

Previous wording

Third parties could assert, and have in the past asserted, that our licensors do not have rights to the licensed patents and/or patent applications (such as, in the case of the Caribou License, the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family), including inventorship and ownership rights to currently issued or allowable patents. In addition, third parties could assert, and have asserted, that our licensors, or any rights owned by our licensors, such as UC/Vienna/Charpentier, are limited. If such third parties were found to have rights to patents or patent applications covering our licensed technology (such as CRISPR/Cas9 technology), they could assert that we infringe such patents and, as discussed above, we may be required to obtain rights from such parties (e.g., by obtaining a license) or cease our development and commercialization efforts. Even if such third parties are not ultimately successful in their claims, such assertions could result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Current wording

Third parties could assert, and have in the past asserted, that our licensors do not have rights to the licensed patents and/or patent applications (such as, in the case of the Caribou License, the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family), including inventorship and ownership rights to currently issued or allowable patents. In addition, third parties could assert, and have asserted, that our licensors, or any rights owned by our licensors, such as UC/Vienna/Charpentier, are limited. If such third parties were found to have rights to patents or patent applications covering our licensed technology (such as CRISPR technology), they could assert that we infringe such patents and, as discussed above, we may be required to obtain rights from such parties (e.g., by obtaining a license) or cease our development and commercialization efforts. Even if such third parties are not ultimately successful in their claims, such assertions could result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Previous wording

For example, various patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and the Broad Institute patent family have been involved in patent interferences and other patent challenges in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, in which the respective owners have alleged, and are alleging, that they invented and/or own intellectual property claiming overlapping aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 systems. Specifically, certain patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, licensed to us under the Caribou License, covering certain aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells, including human cells (collectively, the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family”) have been the subject of patent interferences involving patents and patent applications co-owned by the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Rockefeller University (collectively, the “Broad Institute”) that also claim CRISPR/Cas9 systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells (collectively, the “Broad Institute patent family”). For example, on June 25, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) declared an interference between the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and the Broad Institute patent family to determine which research group first invented the use of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells and, therefore, is entitled to the U.S. patents covering that invention. The interference involved 14 allowable patent applications from the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and 13 patents and one patent application from the Broad Institute patent family. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a Decision of Priority and Judgment in the interference finding that the Broad Institute patent family has priority over the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family with respect to the subject matter of the interference. An appeal and cross-appeal from the interference are pending at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Case Nos. 22-1594 and 22-1653 (the “Interference Appeal”), and the oral argument occurred on May 7, 2024.

Current wording

For example, various patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and the Broad Institute patent family have been involved in patent interferences and other patent challenges in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, in which the respective owners have alleged, and are alleging, that they invented and/or own intellectual property claiming overlapping aspects of CRISPR systems. Specifically, certain patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, licensed to us under the Caribou License, covering certain aspects of CRISPR systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells, including human cells (collectively, the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family”) have been the subject of patent interferences involving patents and patent applications co-owned by the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Rockefeller University (collectively, the “Broad Institute”) that also claim CRISPR systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells (collectively, the “Broad Institute patent family”). For example, on June 25, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) declared an interference between the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and the Broad Institute patent family to determine which research group first invented the use of the CRISPR technology in eukaryotic cells and, therefore, is entitled to the U.S. patents covering that invention. The interference involved 14 allowable patent applications from the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and 13 patents and one patent application from the Broad Institute patent family. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a Decision of Priority and Judgment in the interference finding that the Broad Institute patent family has priority over the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family with respect to the subject matter of the interference. Both parties filed appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Case Nos. 22-1594 and 22-1653 (the “Interference Appeal”), and the oral argument occurred on May 7, 2024. On May 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit panel issued its decision in the Interference Appeal. The Federal Circuit (a) vacated the PTAB’s finding that the Broad Institute was the first to invent the use of CRISPR technology in eukaryotic cells, (b) returned the case to the PTAB to determine which research group was the first to invent the use of CRISPR technology in eukaryotic cells under the correct legal standard, (c) affirmed the PTAB’s finding that the first application filed by UC/Vienna/Charpentier lacked written description support, and (d) dismissed the Broad Institute’s cross-appeal. After neither party requested rehearing of the Federal Circuit panel’s decision, the mandate issued and the interference was returned to the PTAB for further proceedings.

Previous wording

In addition, on December 14, 2020, the PTAB declared an interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family, and one patent application owned by ToolGen, Inc. And, on June 21, 2021, the PTAB declared another interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and one patent application owned by Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA). Because the patent applications involved in these interferences also purport to cover the use of CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing in eukaryotic cells, the PTAB seeks to determine between the various groups which one invented first and is entitled to the resulting U.S. patents. A decision on motions issued in the ToolGen interference on September 28, 2022, and the priority phase of that interference was suspended until a mandate concludes the Interference Appeal. The Sigma-Aldrich interference is in its motions phase, and an order scheduling oral argument issued on October 24, 2022. In addition, other third parties, such as Vilnius University (whose patents we have sublicensed under our Caribou Agreement) and Harvard University, filed patent applications claiming CRISPR/Cas9-related inventions around or within a year after the first patent application filed in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and allege (or may allege) that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed by UC/Vienna/Charpentier before UC/Vienna/Charpentier. If the USPTO deems the scope of any of such third party’s claims sufficiently overlap with the allowable claims from the applicable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, the USPTO could declare other interference proceedings to determine the actual inventor of such claims.

Current wording

In addition, on December 14, 2020, the PTAB declared an interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family, and one patent application owned by ToolGen, Inc. And, on June 21, 2021, the PTAB declared another interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and one patent application owned by Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA). Because the patent applications involved in these interferences also purport to cover the use of CRISPR for gene editing in eukaryotic cells, the PTAB seeks to determine between the various groups which one invented first and is entitled to the resulting U.S. patents. A decision on motions issued in the ToolGen interference on September 28, 2022, and the priority phase of that interference was suspended until a mandate concludes the Interference Appeal. The Sigma-Aldrich interference is in its motions phase, and an order scheduling oral argument issued on October 24, 2022. In addition, other third parties, such as Vilnius University (whose patents we have sublicensed under our Caribou Agreement) and Harvard University, filed patent applications claiming CRISPR-related inventions around or within a year after the first patent application filed in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and allege (or may allege) that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed by UC/Vienna/Charpentier before UC/Vienna/Charpentier. If the USPTO deems the scope of any of such third party’s claims sufficiently overlap with the allowable claims from the applicable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, the USPTO could declare other interference proceedings to determine the actual inventor of such claims.

Previous wording

If either the Broad Institute, ToolGen or Sigma-Aldrich were to succeed in any of their respective interferences, or if other third parties, such as Vilnius University or Harvard University, pursue claims and succeed in such claims, the prevailing party or parties could assert its issued patents against us based on our CRISPR/Cas9-based activities, including research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates or resulting products. In addition, such claims could result in the loss of rights to certain patents and patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and, thus, we (and our sublicensees) could lose the benefits that we obtained under our Caribou License to the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family. The prevailing party may also assert similar infringement claims against our existing or potential collaborators, clinical investigators, CMOs, CROs, consultants or vendors, and we may be obligated to defend and/or indemnify those parties against such infringement claims. As discussed above, such allegations or litigation may affect our ability to market and sell CRISPR/Cas9-based human therapeutics and may result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Current wording

If either the Broad Institute, ToolGen or Sigma-Aldrich were to succeed in any of their respective interferences, or if other third parties, such as Vilnius University or Harvard University, pursue claims and succeed in such claims, the prevailing party or parties could assert its issued patents against us based on our CRISPR-based activities, including research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates or resulting products. In addition, such claims could result in the loss of rights to certain patents and patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and, thus, we (and our sublicensees) could lose the benefits that we obtained under our Caribou License to the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family. The prevailing party may also assert similar infringement claims against our existing or potential collaborators, clinical investigators, CMOs, CROs, consultants or vendors, and we may be obligated to defend and/or indemnify those parties against such infringement claims. As discussed above, such allegations or litigation may affect our ability to market and sell CRISPR-based human therapeutics and may result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Previous wording

Further, many third parties, including the third parties described above, have also filed patent applications and obtained patents covering aspects of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology in other key jurisdictions, including the EU members, the U.K., China and Japan. If these patents are deemed valid and cover our product candidates or related activities, we could be prevented from developing and/or commercializing all or some of our product candidates, or the resulting products, unless we license the relevant intellectual property or avoid it.

Current wording

Further, many third parties, including the third parties described above, have also filed patent applications and obtained patents covering aspects of the CRISPR technology in other key jurisdictions, including the EU members, the U.K., China and Japan. If these patents are deemed valid and cover our product candidates or related activities, we could be prevented from developing and/or commercializing all or some of our product candidates, or the resulting products, unless we license the relevant intellectual property or avoid it.

Previous wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. There is a substantial amount of litigation as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, reexamination, and other post-grant proceedings before the USPTO and oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we expect this to be true for the CRISPR/Cas9 space as well. As discussed above, a number of third parties have filed oppositions challenging the validity, and seeking the revocation, of several CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing patents granted to UC/Vienna/Charpentier by the European Patent Office (“EPO”). U.S. law also provides for other procedures to challenge patents, including inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews and, in certain circumstances, interference or derivation proceedings, which add uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our developed or licensed patents and patent applications in the future. See the above risk factor entitled“Third party claims of intellectual property infringement against us, our licensors or our collaborators may prevent or delay our product discovery, research, development and/or commercialization efforts.”

Current wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. There is a substantial amount of litigation as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, reexamination, and other post-grant proceedings before the USPTO and oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we expect this to be true for the CRISPR space as well. As discussed above, a number of third parties have filed oppositions challenging the validity, and seeking the revocation, of several CRISPR genome editing patents granted to UC/Vienna/Charpentier by the European Patent Office (“EPO”). U.S. law also provides for other procedures to challenge patents, including inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews and, in certain circumstances, interference or derivation proceedings, which add uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our developed or licensed patents and patent applications in the future. See the above risk factor entitled“Third party claims of intellectual property infringement against us, our licensors or our collaborators may prevent or delay our product discovery, research, development and/or commercialization efforts.”

Previous wording

If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or other jurisdictions, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition or derivation proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity, unpatentability and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. For example, as highlighted in the above risk factor entitled “We could be unsuccessful in obtaining or maintaining adequate patent protection for one or more of our products or product candidates, or asserting and defending our intellectual property rights that protect our products and technologies,” various third parties have filed, and may file in the future, challenges to the validity of patents we own or license (e.g., patents or patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family). If we or the owners of patents we license (e.g., UC/Vienna/Charpentier) fail in defending the validity of these patents, we (and our sublicensees) may lose the benefit of patents and patent applications we own or license (e.g., patents and patent applications licensed under the Caribou License), as discussed above. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business in Europe.

Current wording

In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or other jurisdictions, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition or derivation proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity, unpatentability and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. For example, as highlighted in the above risk factor entitled “We could be unsuccessful in obtaining or maintaining adequate patent protection for one or more of our products or product candidates, or asserting and defending our intellectual property rights that protect our products and technologies,” various third parties have filed, and may file in the future, challenges to the validity of patents we own or license (e.g., patents or patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family). If we or the owners of patents we license (e.g., UC/Vienna/Charpentier) fail in defending the validity of these patents, we (and our sublicensees) may lose the benefit of patents and patent applications we own or license (e.g., patents and patent applications licensed under the Caribou License), as discussed above. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business in Europe.

Previous wording

We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. Our net loss was $114.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $2,291.7 million. We expect these losses to increase as we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations, seek regulatory approvals for our future product candidates, scale-up manufacturing capabilities, maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio and hire additional personnel to support the development of our product candidates and to enhance our operational, financial and information management systems. We expect to finance our operations through a combination of collaboration revenue, equity or debt financings or other sources, which may include collaborations with third parties.

Current wording

We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. Our net loss was $215.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2025. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $2,393.0 million. We expect these losses to increase as we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations, seek regulatory approvals for our future product candidates, scale-up manufacturing capabilities, maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio and hire additional personnel to support the development of our product candidates and to enhance our operational, financial and information management systems. We expect to finance our operations through a combination of collaboration revenue, equity or debt financings or other sources, which may include collaborations with third parties.

Previous wording

In vivo genome editing products andex vivo engineered cell therapies based on CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture.

Current wording

In vivo genome editing products andex vivo engineered cell therapies based on CRISPR genome editing technology are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture.

Previous wording

The manufacturing processes used to produce CRISPR/Cas9-basedin vivo genome editing product candidates and ex vivo engineered cell therapy product candidates are novel and complex. In addition, our manufacturing processes may require components that are difficult to obtain or manufacture at the necessary quantities and in accordance with regulatory requirements. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions; facility unavailability or contamination; raw material cost, shortages or contamination; natural disasters, such as pandemics or other outbreaks or similar public health crises; disruption in utility services; human error; insufficient personnel; inability to meet legal or regulatory requirements; or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

Current wording

The manufacturing processes used to produce CRISPR-basedin vivo genome editing product candidates and ex vivo engineered cell therapy product candidates are novel and complex. In addition, our manufacturing processes may require components that are difficult to obtain or manufacture at the necessary quantities and in accordance with regulatory requirements. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions; facility unavailability or contamination; raw material cost, shortages or contamination; natural disasters, such as pandemics or other outbreaks or similar public health crises; disruption in utility services; human error; insufficient personnel; inability to meet legal or regulatory requirements; or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

Previous wording

We are currently conducting our Phase 3 clinical trials of nex-z and NTLA-2002, and may in the future conduct clinical trials for our other product candidates outside the U.S. The acceptance of data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. The FDA will generally not consider the data from a foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND unless (i) the trial was well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements, including requirements for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials in a way that provides assurance that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, safety, and well-being of trial subjects are protected, and (ii) the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection, if necessary. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Current wording

We are currently conducting our Phase 3 clinical trials of nex-z and lonvo-z, and may in the future conduct clinical trials for our other product candidates, outside the U.S. The acceptance of data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. The FDA will generally not consider the data from a foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND unless (i) the trial was well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements, including requirements for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials in a way that provides assurance that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, safety, and well-being of trial subjects are protected, and (ii) the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection, if necessary. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Previous wording

We have received orphan drug designation for nex-z and NTLA-2002 and may in the future seek orphan drug designation for some of our other product candidates, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

Current wording

We have received orphan drug designation for nex-z and lonvo-z and may in the future seek orphan drug designation for some of our other product candidates, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

Previous wording

We have received orphan drug designation from the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis and from the FDA and EC for NTLA-2002 for the treatment of HAE. We may seek orphan drug designation for some of our other product candidates in orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these product candidates. Even where we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In addition, although we intend to seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Current wording

We have received orphan drug designation from the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis and from the FDA and EC for lonvo-z for the treatment of HAE. We may seek orphan drug designation for some of our other product candidates in orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these product candidates. Even where we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In addition, although we intend to seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Previous wording

We have received regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation by the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTRv-PN and for NTLA-2002 for the treatment of HAE, and may in the future seek such designation for some of our other product candidates, but such designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and we may be unable to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with such designation.

Current wording

We have received regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation by the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTRv-PN and for lonvo-z for the treatment of HAE, and may in the future seek such designation for some of our other product candidates, but such designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and we may be unable to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with such designation.

Previous wording

We have received the RMAT designation from the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTRv-PN and NTLA-2002 for the treatment of HAE. A product candidate is eligible for RMAT designation if: (1) it is a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell or tissue product, or a combination product using any such therapies or products; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) there is preliminary clinical evidence that indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of RMATs. A BLA for a product candidate with RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with the FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A product candidate that has RMAT designation and is subsequently granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records, the collection of larger confirmatory data sets, or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. RMAT designation is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for RMAT designation, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to grant such designation. In any event, the receipt of RMAT designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies for RMAT designation, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification.

Current wording

We have received the RMAT designation from the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTRv-PN and lonvo-z for the treatment of HAE. A product candidate is eligible for RMAT designation if: (1) it is a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell or tissue product, or a combination product using any such therapies or products; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) there is preliminary clinical evidence that indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of RMATs. A BLA for a product candidate with RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with the FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A product candidate that has RMAT designation and is subsequently granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records, the collection of larger confirmatory data sets, or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. RMAT designation is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for RMAT designation, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to grant such designation. In any event, the receipt of RMAT designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies for RMAT designation, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification.

Previous wording

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which gave deference to regulatory agencies’ statutory interpretations in litigation against federal government agencies, such as the FDA and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), where the law is ambiguous. This decision may result in more lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies of the FDA, which could undermine the FDA’s authority, lead to uncertainties in the industry, and disrupt the FDA’s normal operations, any of which could delay the FDA’s review of our regulatory submissions. We cannot predict the full impact of this decision, future judicial challenges brought against the FDA, or the nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. In addition, the leadership, personnel, policies, and/or priorities of government departments and agencies responsible for establishing and operating programs and regulations related to pharmaceutical products, such as HHS, FDA and CMS, may change. New leadership, personnel, policies, priorities, and/or regulations may affect our industry and/or products. For example, FDA or CMS policies and practices concerning gene and cell therapies may change in a way that disparately impacts our product candidates, such as reducing the staff of these agencies or not retaining experienced staff at these agencies who have expertise relevant to our industry and/or products. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing

Current wording

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which gave deference to regulatory agencies’ statutory interpretations in litigation against federal government agencies, such as the FDA and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), where the law is ambiguous. This decision may result in more lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies of the FDA, which could undermine the FDA’s authority, lead to uncertainties in the industry, and disrupt the FDA’s normal operations, any of which could delay the FDA’s review of our regulatory submissions. We cannot predict the full impact of this decision, future judicial challenges brought against the FDA, or the nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. In addition, the leadership, personnel, policies, and/or priorities of government departments and agencies responsible for establishing and operating programs and regulations related to pharmaceutical products, such as HHS, FDA and CMS, may change. New leadership, personnel, policies, priorities, and/or regulations may affect our industry and/or products. For example, FDA or CMS policies and practices concerning gene and cell therapies may change in a way that disparately impacts our product candidates, such as reducing the staff of these agencies or not retaining experienced staff at these agencies who have expertise relevant to our industry and/or products. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.