Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

Results, including data from our preclinical and clinical studies, are not necessarily predictive of our other ongoing and future preclinical and clinical studies, and they do not guarantee or indicate the likelihood of approval of any potential product candidate by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or any other regulatory agency. If we cannot replicate the positive results from any of our preclinical or clinical activities and studies, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize any potential product candidate.

Current wording

Results, including data from our preclinical and clinical studies, are not necessarily predictive of our other ongoing and future preclinical and clinical studies, and they do not guarantee or indicate the likelihood of approval of any potential product candidate by the FDA or any other regulatory agency. If we cannot replicate the positive results from any of our preclinical or clinical activities and studies, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize any potential product candidate.

Previous wording

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our ability to complete clinical trials or our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

Current wording

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, including as a result of the clinical hold on the IND applications for the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials of nexiguran ziclumeran (“nex-z”, also referred to as NTLA-2001), our ability to complete clinical trials or our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

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-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.

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 (pending resolution of the clinical hold) and for lonvoguran ziclumeran, (“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

Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and similar applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin or be completed on schedule, if at all. In addition, the regulatory requirements for later phase clinical trials, such as pivotal trials, are generally more stringent than earlier phase clinical trials, such as Phase 1 trials. We may not meet the requirements of regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, for initiating later phase clinical trials for our product candidates, which could delay the development of our product candidates, including the submission of a BLA or comparable marketing application.

Current wording

Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA, and similar applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin or be completed on schedule, if at all. In addition, the regulatory requirements for later phase clinical trials, such as pivotal trials, are generally more stringent than earlier phase clinical trials, such as Phase 1 trials. We may not meet the requirements of regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, for initiating later phase clinical trials for our product candidates, which could delay the development of our product candidates, including the submission of a BLA or comparable marketing application.

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-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 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

regulatory agencies may require us to amend our INDs or equivalent regulatory filings, modify the design of our clinical trials or perform more extensive or lengthier preclinical or clinical testing compared to existing therapeutic modalities, any of which may delay the initiation or progression of any of our clinical trials;

Current wording

regulatory agencies may require us to amend our IND applications or equivalent regulatory filings, modify the design of our clinical trials or perform more extensive or lengthier preclinical or clinical testing compared to existing therapeutic modalities, any of which may delay the initiation or progression of any of our clinical trials;

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 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.

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 ATTR amyloidosis (pending resolution of the clinical hold) and for 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

In addition, if any product candidates encounter safety or efficacy problems, development delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business could be significantly harmed. For the reasons described above, among others, regulatory bodies, particularly the FDA, have requested, and may request in the future, additional preclinical studies for genome editing products, such as additional studies related to toxicology, biodistribution or reproductive health, and/or preclinical studies earlier in clinical development compared to other therapeutic modalities. Although the FDA cleared the INDs that we have submitted, it is possible that the FDA may impose requirements that result in a delay of any of our programs, including our submission of a BLA or comparable marketing application, or their regulatory approval. If we are unable to complete the required studies satisfactorily, the FDA or other regulatory bodies could require that we exclude certain patient populations from clinical studies, place our clinical studies on hold, or require us to cease further clinical studies or deny approval of such product candidates. Further, competitors that are developingin vivo orex vivo products with similar technology may experience problems with their product candidates or programs that could in turn cause us to identify problems with our product candidates and programs or cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to impose additional requirements, that could cause us to delay or pause development of our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to identify and develop product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Current wording

If we are unable to complete the required studies satisfactorily, the FDA or other regulatory bodies could require that we exclude certain patient populations from clinical studies, place our other clinical studies on hold, or require us to cease further clinical studies or deny approval of such product candidates. Further, competitors that are developingin vivo orex vivo products with similar technology may experience problems with their product candidates or programs that could in turn cause us to identify problems with our product candidates and programs or cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to impose additional requirements, that could cause us to delay or pause development of our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to identify and develop product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Previous 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.

Current wording

We may experience manufacturing delays or other issues that prevent us from executing the clinical trials for nex-z (pending resolution of the clinical hold) and for 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 IND applications or equivalent regulatory filings, including for nex-z and lonvo-z, or our other product candidates, on the timeline we expect.

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, 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.

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. In October 2025, we announced that the FDA placed a clinical hold on the IND applications for the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials for patients with ATTR-CM and ATTRv-PN, respectively, following a report of Grade 4 liver transaminase elevations and increased total bilirubin in a patient who was dosed with nex-z in the MAGNITUDE trial. This patient passed away on November 5, 2025, and an investigation is underway to evaluate the case. For more information, see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.”

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, 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.

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 (pending resolution of the clinical hold) and 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, 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.”

Current wording

We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of our product candidates, including nex-z (pending resolution of the clinical hold), 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

potential adverse events for any products developed, or negative interactions with regulatory agencies, by us or others in the gene therapy and genome editing fields; and

Current wording

potential adverse events for any products developed, or negative interactions with regulatory agencies, by us or others in the gene therapy and genome editing fields, including as a result of the clinical hold on the IND applications for the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials for patients with ATTR-CM and ATTRv-PN, respectively, following a report of Grade 4 liver transaminase elevations and increased total bilirubin in a patient who was dosed with nex-z in the MAGNITUDE trial. This patient passed away on November 5, 2025, and an investigation is underway to evaluate the case. For more information, see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.”; and

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 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.

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

Previous wording

We may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor or other claims challenging the inventorship of our patents or ownership of our intellectual property (including patents and intellectual property that we in-license). For example, the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family that is covered by our license agreement with Caribou is co-owned by UC/Vienna and Dr. Charpentier, and our sublicense rights are derived from the first two co-owners and not from Dr. Charpentier. Therefore, our rights to these patents are not exclusive and third parties, including competitors, may have access to intellectual property that is important to our business. In addition, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of collaborators, consultants or others who are involved in developing our technology and product candidates. Litigation or other legal proceedings may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Current wording

We may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor or other claims challenging the inventorship of our patents or ownership of our intellectual property (including patents and intellectual property that we in-license). For example, the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family that is covered by our license agreement with Caribou is co-owned by UC/Vienna and Dr. Charpentier, and our sublicense rights are derived from the first two co-owners and not from Dr. Charpentier. Therefore, our rights to these patents are not exclusive and third parties, including competitors, may have access to intellectual property that is important to our business. In addition, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of collaborators, consultants or others who are involved in developing our technology and product candidates. Litigation or other legal proceedings may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in

Previous 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.

Current 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.

Previous 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.

Current wording

We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. Our net loss was $316.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $2,494.3 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

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials and is affected by many factors, including willingness of physicians to use an experimental therapy, the availability of existing treatments, the trial’s geographic locations and the number of patients in each geographic location. In addition, our ability to enroll and dose patients may be delayed by the relevant regulatory authority, as well as the IRB or another ethics committee (whether local or national). For example, as set forth in the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (“NIH Guidelines”), gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical trial can begin at any institution, that institution’s IRB and its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the relevant IRBs or ethics committees of the trial, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or upon a recommendation of the trial’s DMC, due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of product candidates, the commercial prospects for such product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be impaired. In addition, any delays in completing any clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Current wording

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials and is affected by many factors, including willingness of physicians to use an experimental therapy, the availability of existing treatments, the trial’s geographic locations and the number of patients in each geographic location. In addition, our ability to enroll and dose patients may be delayed by the relevant regulatory authority, as well as the IRB or another ethics committee (whether local or national). For example, as set forth in the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (“NIH Guidelines”), gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical trial can begin at any institution, that institution’s IRB and its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the relevant IRBs or ethics committees of the trial, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or upon a recommendation of the trial’s DMC, due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. For example, in October 2025, the FDA placed a clinical hold on the IND applications for the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials for patients with ATTR-CM and ATTRv-PN, respectively. We cannot predict when we will resolve the clinical hold with the FDA and resume the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials for nex-z, and there is a risk that we may not be able to resume those trials. For more information, see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.”If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of product candidates, the commercial prospects for such product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be impaired. In addition, any delays in completing any clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our pr…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous 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.

Current wording

We are currently conducting our Phase 3 clinical trials of nex-z (pending resolution of the clinical hold) and for 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 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.

Current wording

We have received orphan drug designation from the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis, which is currently the subject of an FDA clinical hold as described above (see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.”), 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 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.

Current wording

We have received the RMAT designation from the FDA for nex-z for the treatment of ATTRv-PN, which is currently the subject of an FDA clinical hold as described above (see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.”), and for 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 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.

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, have begun to change in 2025. 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 products, and/or applying evolving standards for regulatory decisions. 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.

Previous wording

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. For example, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may also require a REMS or similar program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with their respective legal or regulatory requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

Current wording

For example, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may also require a REMS or similar program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with their respective legal or regulatory requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

Previous wording

The ability of the FDA and other similar regulatory agencies to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and authorization to accept the payment of user fees, reallocation of resources to address unique or new healthcare issues (or other future public health concerns), and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. For example, in the first several months of 2025, the U.S. government has, among other measures, issued executive orders and undertaken reductions in force that have adversely impacted FDA staffing and resources. In addition, government funding of other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities.

Current wording

The ability of the FDA and other similar regulatory agencies to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and authorization to accept the payment of user fees, reallocation of resources to address unique or new healthcare issues (or other future public health concerns), and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. For example, in the first several months of 2025, the U.S. government has, among other measures, issued executive orders and undertaken reductions in force that have adversely impacted FDA staffing and resources. In addition, government funding of other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. In addition, over the last several years, including as recent as October 2025, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities.

Previous wording

Specific to our nex-z program, we are aware of other companies that are currently commercializing or developing products and therapies used to treat ATTR amyloidosis, including Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BridgeBio Pharma Inc., Bayer AG, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Metagenomi Technologies, LLC, Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer, Inc. and YolTech Therapeutics.

Current wording

Specific to our nex-z program, we are aware of other companies that are currently commercializing or developing products and therapies used to treat ATTR amyloidosis, including Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BridgeBio Pharma Inc., Bayer AG, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Metagenomi, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer, Inc. and YolTech Therapeutics.

Previous wording

Our platform and product foci are on the development of therapies using CRISPR-based technologies. Genome editing companies focused on CRISPR-based technologies include: Arbor Biotechnologies, Inc., Beam Therapeutics Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, EdiGene, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., Emendo Biotherapeutics, Inc., Ensoma, Inc., Excision Biotherapeutics, Inc., Integra Therapeutics, S.L., Mammoth Biosciences, Inc., Metagenomi Technologies, LLC, Modalis Therapeutics Inc., nChroma Bio (formerly Chroma Medicine, Inc.), Prime Medicine, Inc., Scribe Therapeutics, Inc., Tessera Therapeutics, Inc., ToolGen, Inc., Tune Therapeutics, Inc., Verve Therapeutics, Inc. and YolTech Therapeutics.

Current wording

Our platform and product foci are on the development of therapies using CRISPR-based technologies. Genome editing companies focused on CRISPR-based technologies include: Arbor Biotechnologies, Inc., Beam Therapeutics Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, EdiGene, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., Emendo Biotherapeutics, Inc., Ensoma, Inc., Excision Biotherapeutics, Inc., Integra Therapeutics, S.L., Mammoth Biosciences, Inc., Metagenomi, Inc., Modalis Therapeutics Inc., nChroma Bio (formerly Chroma Medicine, Inc.), Prime Medicine, Inc., Scribe Therapeutics, Inc., Tessera Therapeutics, Inc., ToolGen, Inc., Tune Therapeutics, Inc., Verve Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Eli Lilly and Company) and YolTech Therapeutics.

Previous wording

There are also companies developing therapies using additional genome editing technologies, which include Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., bluebird bio, Inc., Cellectis S.A., Editas Medicine, Inc., Life Edit Therapeutics (an ElevateBio Company), Myeloid Therapeutics, Inc., Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Roche Holdings, Inc.), Precision Biosciences, Inc., Prime Medicine, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., Seamless Therapeutics, Inc., Stylus Medicine, Inc. and Tessera Therapeutics, Inc.

Current wording

There are also companies developing therapies using additional genome editing technologies, which include Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., Genetix Biotherapeutics, Inc., Cellectis S.A., Editas Medicine, Inc., Life Edit Therapeutics (an ElevateBio Company), Myeloid Therapeutics, Inc., Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Roche Holdings, Inc.), Precision Biosciences, Inc., Prime Medicine, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., Seamless Therapeutics, Inc., Stylus Medicine, Inc. and Tessera Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We are also aware of companies developing therapies in various areas related to our specific research and development programs. Forex vivo, these companies include Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., BRL Medicine, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., CARSgen Therapeutics Corporation, Cellectis S.A., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Legend Biotech USA, Inc., Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Roche Holdings, Inc.), Precision BioSciences, Inc., and Sana Biotechnology, Inc. Forin vivo, these companies include Beam Therapeutics Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., Ensoma, Inc., Metagenomi Technologies, LLC, Orna Therapeutics, Inc., Precision Biosciences, Inc., Prime Medicine, Inc., Tessera Therapeutics, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Verve Therapeutics, Inc.

Current wording

We are also aware of companies developing therapies in various areas related to our specific research and development programs. Forex vivo, these companies include Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., BRL Medicine, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., CARSgen Therapeutics Corporation, Cellectis S.A., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Legend Biotech USA, Inc., Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Roche Holdings, Inc.), Precision BioSciences, Inc., and Sana Biotechnology, Inc. Forin vivo, these companies include Beam Therapeutics Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., Ensoma, Inc., Metagenomi, Inc., Orna Therapeutics, Inc., Precision Biosciences, Inc., Prime Medicine, Inc., Tessera Therapeutics, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Verve Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, manufacturing, commercialization, legal, financial and business development expertise of John M. Leonard, M.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, Edward J. Dulac III, our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, James Basta, our Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Eliana Clark, our Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, Michael P. Dube, our Chief Accounting Officer, David Lebwohl, our Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer and Birgit Schultes, our Executive Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical teams. Although we have entered into employment arrangements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Current wording

Accounting Officer, David Lebwohl, our Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer and Birgit Schultes, our Executive Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical teams. Although we have entered into employment arrangements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Previous wording

Government authorities and other third party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. In the U.S., the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors often follow CMS’s coverage decisions. Other jurisdictions have agencies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the U.K., that evaluate the use and cost-effectiveness of therapies, which impact the utilization and price of the medicine in such jurisdiction.

Current wording

Government authorities and other third party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. In the U.S., the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors often follow CMS’s coverage decisions. Other jurisdictions have agencies, such as the National Institute for Health and

Previous wording

U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the framework) and the U.K. International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum) has been put in place and a transfer impact assessment has been carried out. Our compliance with international data transfer obligations under the GDPR, where applicable, may require significant effort and cost, and may limit our ability to transfer such personal data to other jurisdictions or to work with certain service providers that process personal data, and may require us to make strategic considerations around where such personal data is stored. Further, although the EC has acknowledged that the U.K. currently has adequate protections for international data transfers, there may be developments related to the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU (“Brexit”) in the future that result in additional costs and operational challenges in complying with the U.K. GDPR and any other developments regulating the transfer of personal data between the U.K. and EU. For example, the U.K. government has introduced a Data Use and Access Bill (the “U.K. Bill”) into the U.K. legislative process, which has passed. The aim of the U.K. Bill is to reform the U.K.’s data protection regime following Brexit. The U.K. Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the U.K. and EEA data protection regime and threaten the U.K. adequacy decision from the EC. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR may result in warning letters, mandatory audits, orders to cease/change the use of data, and financial penalties, including fines of up to 4% of global revenues, or 20.0 million Euros (17.5 million GBP in the U.K.), whichever is greater. Moreover, data subjects can seek damages for violations, and non-profit organizations can bring claims on behalf of data subjects.

Current wording

around the world, many countries have enacted laws that regulate data protection. In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), the collection and use of personal data is regulated by the GDPR and the member states’ related data protection and privacy laws. As the GDPR applies not only to businesses that are established within the EEA or the U.K. but also to any business that offers goods or services to individuals in those territories, it could apply to us. The GDPR imposes strict requirements, including requirements to ensure an appropriate legal basis or condition applies to the processing of personal data, special protections for “sensitive” personal data which includes health and genetic information of individuals in the EEA or the U.K.; disclosures about the personal data use; information retention limitations; mandatory data breach notification requirements; and additional oversight obligations relating to third parties retained to process the personal data. The GDPR grants or enhances the rights of individuals with respect to their personal data, including the rights to object to the processing of the data and request deletion of the same. In addition, the GDPR includes strict requirements on, and prohibits, the transfer of personal data subject to GDPR to jurisdictions that have not been deemed by competent authorities to offer “adequate” privacy protections (“third countries”), unless a derogation exists or a valid GDPR transfer mechanism (for example, the EC approved Standard Contractual Clauses, certification to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which allows for transfers for relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the framework) and the U.K. International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum) has been put in place and a transfer impact assessment has been carried out. Our compliance with international data transfer obligations under the GDPR, where applicable, may require significant effort and cost, and may limit our ability to transfer such personal data to other jurisdictions or to work with certain service providers that process personal data, and may require us to make strategic considerations around where such personal data is stored. Further, although the EC has acknowledged that the U.K. currently has adequate protections for international data transfers, there may be developments related to the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU (“Brexit”) in the future that result in additional costs and operational challenges in complying with the U.K. GDPR and any other developments regulating the transfer of personal data between the U.K. and EU. For example, the U.K. government has introduced a Data Use and Access Bill (the “U.K. Bill”) into the U.K. legislative process, which has passed. The aim of the U.K. Bill is to reform the U.K.’s data protection regime following Brexit. The U.K. Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the U.K. and EEA data protection regime and threaten the…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Companies trading in the stock market in general, and in The Nasdaq Global Market in particular, have also experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against companies. Even if the allegations against us are unfounded or we ultimately are not held liable, we may experience related negative publicity resulting in damage to our reputation. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Current wording

Companies trading in the stock market in general, and in The Nasdaq Global Market in particular, have also experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against companies. See, for example, Part II, Item 1 “Legal Proceedings,” for a description of the Gonzalez class action alleging that we and certain of our officers made false and misleading statements regarding our NTLA-3001 program. Other purported stockholders may file similar lawsuits challenging our disclosures. Even if the allegations against us are unfounded or we ultimately are not held liable, we may experience related negative publicity resulting in damage to our reputation. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Previous wording

Forum Provision does not apply to claims arising under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act. Our by-laws further provide that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act (the “Federal Forum Provision”). We have chosen the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts as the exclusive forum for such Securities Act causes of action because our principal executive offices are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our by-laws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision.

Current wording

Our certificate of incorporation and by-laws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for any state law claims for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf alleging state law claims, any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law, our certificate of incorporation or our by-laws, any action to interpret, apply, enforce, or determine the validity of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws, or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine (the “Delaware Forum Provision”). The Delaware Forum Provision does not apply to claims arising under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act. Our by-laws further provide that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act (the “Federal Forum Provision”). We have chosen the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts as the exclusive forum for such Securities Act causes of action because our principal executive offices are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our by-laws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision.