4D Molecular Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We are a clinical-stage genetic medicine company pioneering the development of product candidates using our targeted and evolved AAV vectors. We commenced operations in September 2013, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any product revenue. Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. If our product candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any product revenue. To date, we have not completed any clinical trials (including any pivotal clinical trial), obtained marketing approval for any product candidates, manufactured commercial scale quantities of any of our product candidates or arranged for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Our limited operating history as a company and stage of drug development make any assessment of our future success and viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome such risks and difficulties. If we do not address these risks and difficulties successfully, our business will be seriously harmed.

Current wording

We are a leading late-stage biotechnology advancing durable and disease-targeted therapeutics with potential to transform treatment paradigms and provide unprecedented benefits to patients. We commenced operations in September 2013, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any product revenue. Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. If our product candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any product revenue. To date, we have not completed any clinical trials (including any pivotal clinical trial), obtained marketing approval for any product candidates, manufactured commercial scale quantities of any of our product candidates or arranged for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Our limited operating history as a company and stage of drug development make any assessment of our future success and viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome such risks and difficulties. If we do not address these risks and difficulties successfully, our business will be seriously harmed.

Previous wording

We have incurred recurring net losses, including net losses of $48.0 million and $32.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $624.2 million.

Current wording

We have incurred recurring net losses, including net losses of $54.7 million and $35.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and $102.6 million and $67.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $678.8 million.

Previous wording

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Current wording

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our expenses may increase substantially if and as we:

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had $458.4 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

Current wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had $417.0 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

Previous wording

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted if global economic conditions continue to worsen as a result of volatility in credit and financial markets (including due to increased interest rates and high inflation rates) and to product supply chains. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to:

Current wording

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by global economic conditions affecting credit and financial markets (including due to increased interest rates and high inflation rates) and product supply chains. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to:

Previous wording

Certain Chinese biotechnology companies, CROs and contract development and manufacturing organizations may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, other regulatory requirements, or proposed legislation by the U.S. government, which could potentially impact services available for our research and development or our ability to secure the materials we need for our product candidates. For example, the BIOSECURE Act (H.R. 7085) implicates U.S. government contracts, grants, and loans to entities that use equipment and services from certain named Chinese biotech companies, and authorizes the U.S. government to name additional Chinese biotechnology companies “of concern.” The BIOSECURE Act was passed by the House of Representatives in September 2024 and a substantially similar bill is pending in the Senate (S.3558). If the BIOSECURE Act becomes law, or similar laws or restrictions are passed, they would have the potential to severely restrict the ability of U.S. biopharmaceutical companies like us to purchase services or products from, collaborate with, or otherwise work with certain Chinese biotechnology companies “of concern” without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. It is possible that some of our contractual counterparties could be impacted by the legislation described above. Such counterparties may be subject to U.S. legislation, sanctions, trade restrictions and other foreign regulatory requirements which could increase the cost or reduce the supply of material available to us, delay the procurement or supply of such material or have an adverse effect on our ability to secure significant commitments from governments to purchase our potential therapies. Such disruption could have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates.

Current wording

Certain Chinese biotechnology companies, CROs and contract development and manufacturing organizations may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, other regulatory requirements, or proposed legislation by the U.S. government, which could potentially impact services available for our research and development or our ability to secure the materials we need for our product candidates. For example, if such laws or restrictions are passed, they would have the potential to severely restrict the ability of U.S. biopharmaceutical companies like us to purchase services or products from, collaborate with, or otherwise work with certain Chinese biotechnology companies without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. It is possible that some of our contractual counterparties could be impacted by the legislation described above. Such counterparties may be subject to U.S. legislation, sanctions, trade restrictions and other foreign regulatory requirements which could increase the cost or reduce the supply of material available to us, delay the procurement or supply of such material or have an adverse effect on our ability to secure significant commitments from governments to purchase our potential therapies. Such disruption could have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates.

Previous wording

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the indications for which we have product candidates, including wet AMD, DME, GA, cystic fibrosis, and Fabry disease. Certain of our competitors have commercially approved products for the treatment of the diseases that we are pursuing or may pursue in the future, including Apellis, Astellas, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and Vertex. These drugs are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors, which may make it difficult to convince these parties to switch to our product candidates. Companies that we are aware are developing therapeutics in the ophthalmology, cardiology and pulmonology disease areas include large companies with significant financial resources, such as Abbvie, Astellas, Novartis, Opthea, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and Vertex, and biopharmaceutical companies such as Adverum, Amicus, Apellis, Eyepoint, Kodiak, Krystal, Ocular, Opthea, Recode, REGENXBIO, and Spirovant. In addition to competition from other companies targeting ophthalmology, pulmonology, and cardiology any products we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as gene-editing therapies and drug delivery devices.

Current wording

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the indications for which we have product candidates, including wet AMD, DME, GA, cystic fibrosis, and Fabry disease. Certain of our competitors have commercially approved products for the treatment of the diseases that we are pursuing or may pursue in the future, including Apellis, Astellas, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and Vertex. These drugs are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors, which may make it difficult to convince these parties to switch to our product candidates. Companies that we are aware are developing therapeutics in the ophthalmology, cardiology and pulmonology disease areas include large companies with significant financial resources, such as Abbvie, Astellas, Novartis, Opthea, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and Vertex, and biopharmaceutical companies such as Adverum, Amicus,

Previous wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. If such confirmatory studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, or if the sponsor fails to conduct required confirmatory studies in a timely manner, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug on an expedited basis. In addition, in December 2022, President Biden signed an omnibus appropriations bill to fund the U.S. government through fiscal year 2023. Included in the omnibus bill is the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, which among other things, provided FDA new statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under these provisions, the FDA may require a sponsor of a product seeking accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to such approval being granted.

Current wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. If such confirmatory studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, or if the sponsor fails to conduct required confirmatory studies in a timely manner, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug on an expedited basis. In addition, in December 2022, the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 provided FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under these provisions, the FDA may require a sponsor of a product seeking accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to such approval being granted.

Previous wording

Enacted and future healthcare legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and to commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

Current wording

Enacted and future healthcare legislation or regulation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and to commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

Previous wording

In the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively the “ACA”) was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private payors. Among the provisions of the ACA, those of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries include the following:

Current wording

For example, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private payors. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our business, including, without limitation, our ability to commercialize and to obtain adequate prices for any product candidates approved for sale, are the following:

Previous wording

Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs. Most recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (which began in 2025). CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which will first be effective in 2026, and the list of the subsequent fifteen drugs that will be subject to negotiation, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. We also expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures and could seriously harm our business.

Current wording

Most significantly, in 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit (beginning in 2024); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new manufacturer discount program (beginning in 2025). CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which will first be effective in 2026, and has published the list of the subsequent 15 drugs that will be subject to negotiation. The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. The impact of the IRA on us and the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, but is likely to be significant.

Previous wording

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure, drug price reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could seriously harm our business. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. These reforms could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing and could seriously harm our business.

Current wording

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure, drug price reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states, while some states are also seeking to implement general, across the board price caps for pharmaceuticals, or are seeking to regulate drug distribution. Some measures are designed to encourage importation from other countries. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could seriously harm our business. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. These reforms could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing and could seriously harm our business.

Previous wording

Our ability to successfully commercialize any products that we may develop also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Government authorities currently impose mandatory discounts for certain patient groups, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs (“VA”) hospitals, and may seek to increase such discounts at any time. Future regulation may negatively impact the price of our products, if approved. Increasingly, other third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. For genetic medicine and other products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be sufficient.

Current wording

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Government authorities currently impose mandatory discounts for certain patient groups, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs (“VA”) hospitals, and may seek to increase such discounts at any time. Future regulation may negatively impact the price of our products, if approved. Increasingly, other third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. For genetic medicine and other products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be sufficient.

Previous wording

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to get reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Current wording

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Previous wording

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses as well as our ability to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses that are important to our business. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our patent applications or those of our licensors will result in additional patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around or invalidated by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. Further, our licensed patents and applications include four granted patents (U.S. patent nos. 12,180,254, 11,136,557, 11,634,691 and 10,988,519) and three pending patent applications (U.S. patent application nos. 18/167,598, 18/184,184 and 18/924,426), that were made with government support, that may be subject, under certain circumstances, to march-in-rights under 35 U.S.C. 203, which is a right that allows the government, in certain limited circumstances, to force a party with a license to intellectual property funded, at least in part, by the government, to grant a license to such property to another entity. U.S. patent nos. 11,136,557 and 11,634,691 were made with the support of U.C. Berkeley and relate to our A101 vector of our 4D-710 and 4D-725 product candidates. U.S. patent nos. 10,988,519 and 12,180,254 were made with the support of University of Pennsylvania and relates to our short-form human complement factor H (sCFH) payload of our 4D-175 product candidate. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology, competitors may be able to use our product candidates and proprietary technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could seriously harm our business.

Current wording

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses as well as our ability to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses that are important to our business. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our patent applications or those of our licensors will result in additional patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around or invalidated by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. Further, our licensed patents and applications include five granted patents (U.S. patent nos. 12,310,997, 12,180,254, 11,136,557, 11,634,691 and 10,988,519) and two pending patent applications (U.S. patent application nos. 18/184,184 and 18/924,426), that were made with government support, that may be subject, under certain circumstances, to march-in-rights under 35 U.S.C. 203, which is a right that allows the government, in certain limited circumstances, to force a party with a license to intellectual property funded, at least in part, by the government, to grant a license to such property to another entity. U.S. patent nos. 11,136,557 and 11,634,691 were made with the support of U.C. Berkeley and relate to our A101 vector of our 4D-710 and 4D-725 product candidates. U.S. patent nos. 10,988,519 and 12,180,254 were made with the support of University of Pennsylvania and relates to our short-form human complement factor H (sCFH) payload of our 4D-175 product candidate. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology, competitors may be able to use our product candidates and proprietary technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could seriously harm our business.

Previous wording

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process, the noncompliance with which can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, and partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction;

Current wording

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process, the noncompliance with which can result in

Previous wording

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of any of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we may not be granted 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. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration of the applicable product, and our business may be seriously harmed.

Current wording

Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we may not be granted 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. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration of the applicable product, and our business may be seriously harmed.

Previous wording

Act includes a number of significant changes to the U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. This could have a negative impact on some of our intellectual property and could increase uncertainties surrounding obtaining and enforcement or defense of our issued patents. In addition, Congress may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us. The Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future. Similarly, statutory or judicial changes to the patent laws of other countries may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Complying with these laws and regulations could limit our ability to obtain new patents in the future that may be important for our business.

Current wording

There are a number of recent changes to the U.S. patent laws that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“Leahy-Smith Act”) was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to the U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. This could have a negative impact on some of our intellectual property and could increase uncertainties surrounding obtaining and enforcement or defense of our issued patents. In addition, Congress may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us. The Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future. Similarly, statutory or judicial changes to the patent laws of other countries may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Complying with these laws and regulations could limit our ability to obtain new patents in the future that may be important for our business.

Previous wording

University of Pennsylvania for certain rights with respect to the intellectual property covering certain compositions of matter and methods of use of the short-form human complement factor H (sCFH) payload related to our 4D-175 product candidate. These and other licenses we may enter into in the future may not provide adequate rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use or in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and product candidates in the future. As a result, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates in fields of use and territories for which we are not granted rights pursuant to such licenses.

Current wording

We currently are reliant upon licenses of certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our technology, including technology related to our product candidates. For example, we rely on our exclusive license agreements with (i) U.C. Berkeley for certain rights with respect to the intellectual property covering certain compositions of matter and methods of use of certain AAV variants related to our 4D-710 and 4D-725 product candidates, and (ii) University of Pennsylvania for certain rights with respect to the intellectual property covering certain compositions of matter and methods of use of the short-form human complement factor H (sCFH) payload related to our 4D-175 product candidate. These and other licenses we may enter into in the future may not provide adequate rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use or in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and product candidates in the future. As a result, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates in fields of use and territories for which we are not granted rights pursuant to such licenses.

Previous wording

Our directors, executive officers, holders of more than 5% of our outstanding stock and their respective affiliates beneficially own shares representing approximately 60% of our outstanding common stock as of March 31, 2025. As a result, these stockholders, if they act together, will be able to influence our management and affairs and all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company and might affect the market price of our common stock.

Current wording

Our directors, executive officers, holders of more than 5% of our outstanding stock and their respective affiliates beneficially own shares representing approximately 55% of our outstanding common stock as of June 30, 2025. As a result, these stockholders, if they act together, will be able to influence our management and affairs and all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company and might affect the market price of our common stock.