4D Molecular Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous 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.

Current wording

We have incurred recurring net losses, including net losses of $56.9 million and $43.8 million for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and $159.5 million and $111.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $735.7 million.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, we had $372.2 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

Previous wording

the cost of manufacturing, as well as building out our supply chain, which may vary depending on the quantity of production, the cost of continuing to establish and scale up our internal manufacturing capabilities, and the terms of any agreements we enter into with third-party suppliers;

Current wording

the cost of manufacturing, as well as building out our supply chain, which may vary depending on the quantity of production, the cost of continuing to establish and scale up our manufacturing capabilities, and the terms of any agreements we enter into with third-party suppliers;

Previous wording

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming, and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be initiated or conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. We also cannot be sure that submission of an IND or a clinical trial application (“CTA”) will result in the FDA or other regulatory authority, as applicable, allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials begin, issues may arise that could delay, suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical trials may not be successful. For example, in 2025, we initiated our first Phase 3 study comparing a single dose of 4D-150 3E10 vg/eye to on-label aflibercept 2mg Q8 weeks and plan to initiate a second Phase 3 study later in the year. If we experience any delays in completing these trials, due to delays in enrollment or other factors, it could result in serious harm our business. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:

Current wording

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming, and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be initiated or conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. We also cannot be sure that submission of an IND or a clinical trial application (“CTA”) will result in the FDA or other regulatory authority, as applicable, allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials begin, issues may arise that could delay, suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical trials may not be successful. For example, in 2025, we initiated our wet AMD Phase 3 studies comparing a single dose of 4D-150 3E10 vg/eye to on-label aflibercept 2mg Q8 weeks. If we experience any delays in completing these trials, due to delays in enrollment or other factors, it could result in serious harm our business. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:

Previous wording

If any of our product candidates successfully completes clinical trials, we generally plan to seek regulatory approval to market our product candidates in the United States, the EU, and in additional foreign countries where we believe there is a viable commercial opportunity. We have never commenced, compiled or submitted an application seeking regulatory approval to market any product candidate. We may never receive regulatory approval to market any product candidates even if such product candidates successfully complete clinical trials, which would seriously harm our business. To obtain regulatory approval in countries outside the United States, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such other countries regarding safety, efficacy, purity, potency, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, clinical trials, commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates. We may also rely on our collaborators or collaboration partners to conduct the required activities to support an application for regulatory approval, and to seek approval, for one or more of our product candidates. We cannot be sure that our collaborators or collaboration partners will conduct these activities successfully or do so within the timeframe we desire. Even if we (or our collaborators or collaboration partners) are successful in obtaining approval in one jurisdiction, we cannot assure you that we will obtain approval in any other jurisdictions. Failure to obtain approval for our product candidates in multiple jurisdictions will seriously harm our business.

Current wording

If any of our product candidates successfully completes clinical trials, we generally plan to seek regulatory approval to market our product candidates in the United States, the EU, and in additional foreign countries where we believe there is a viable commercial opportunity. We have never commenced, compiled or submitted an application seeking regulatory approval to market any product candidate, which may impede our ability to secure approval and successfully launch our therapies. We may never receive regulatory approval to market any product candidates even if such product candidates successfully complete clinical trials, which would seriously harm our business. To obtain regulatory approval in countries outside the United States, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such other countries regarding safety, efficacy, purity, potency, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, clinical trials, commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates. We may also rely on our collaborators or collaboration partners to conduct the required activities to support an application for regulatory approval, and to seek approval, for one or more of our product candidates. We cannot be sure that our collaborators or collaboration partners will conduct these activities successfully or do so within the timeframe we desire. Even if we (or our collaborators or collaboration partners) are successful in obtaining approval in one jurisdiction, we cannot assure you that we will obtain approval in any other jurisdictions. Failure to obtain approval for our product candidates in multiple jurisdictions will seriously harm our business.

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,

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 and cystic fibrosis. 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,

Previous wording

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

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.

Previous wording

Although we are in process of expanding internal manufacturing capabilities, we currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of some of our planned clinical trial drugs and commercial drug materials and, therefore, we can control only certain aspects of their activities. The facilities used by us and our contract manufacturers to manufacture certain of our product candidates must be reviewed by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit a BLA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the cGMP or similar foreign requirements for manufacture of our products. If we or our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, we will not be able to obtain and/or maintain regulatory approval for our products as manufactured at their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Current wording

We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of some of our planned clinical trial drugs and commercial drug materials and, therefore, we can control only certain aspects of their activities. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture certain of our product candidates must be reviewed by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit a BLA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the cGMP or similar foreign requirements for manufacture of our products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, we will not be able to obtain and/or maintain regulatory approval for our products as manufactured at their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Previous wording

We have received orphan drug designation for 4D-710 for cystic fibrosis and for 4D-310 for the treatment of Fabry disease, and we may seek orphan drug designation for certain future product candidates. However, we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

Current wording

We have received orphan drug designation for 4D-710 for cystic fibrosis, and we may seek orphan drug designation for certain future product candidates. However, we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

Previous wording

We have received orphan drug designation in the United States for 4D-710 for the treatment of cystic fibrosis and for 4D-310 for the treatment of Fabry disease. In the EU, we have received orphan designation for 4D-310 for the treatment of Fabry disease. Although we may seek orphan product designation for some or all of our other product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or biologic product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. Orphan designation is granted by the European Commission (“EC”) based on a scientific opinion of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”). A medicinal product may be designated as orphan if its sponsor can establish that (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (ii) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization.

Current wording

We have received orphan drug designation in the United States for 4D-710 for the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Although we may seek orphan product designation for some or all of our other product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or biologic product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. Orphan designation is granted by the European Commission (“EC”) based on a scientific opinion of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”). A medicinal product may be designated as orphan if its sponsor can establish that (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (ii) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization.

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 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.

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 relate 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

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 abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, and partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction;

Previous 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.

Current 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.

Previous 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.

Current 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.

Previous wording

Additionally, on June 1, 2023, the European Union Patent Package (EU Patent Package) regulations were implemented with the goal of providing a single pan-European Unitary Patent and a new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) for litigation involving European patents. As a result, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the EU Patent Package, now by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC. During the first seven years of the UPC’s existence, the UPC legislation allows a patent owner to opt its European patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC. We may decide to opt out our future European patents from the UPC, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the

Current wording

Additionally, on June 1, 2023, the European Union Patent Package (EU Patent Package) regulations were implemented with the goal of providing a single pan-European Unitary Patent and a new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) for litigation involving European patents. As a result, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the EU Patent Package, now by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC. During the first seven years of the UPC’s existence, the UPC legislation allows a patent owner to opt its European patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC. We may decide to opt out our future European patents from the UPC, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the UPC. Moreover, if we do not meet all of the formalities and requirements for opt-out under the UPC, our future European patents could remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC will provide our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke our European patents, and allow for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunction. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates and, resultantly, on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

Previous wording

Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our employees, collaborators, licensors, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Because from time to time we have relied on, and in future expect to rely on third parties in the development, manufacture, and distribution of our product candidates and provision of our services, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

Current wording

Because from time to time we have relied on, and in future expect to rely on third parties in the development, manufacture, and distribution of our product candidates and provision of our services, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

Previous wording

The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyberattacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. We and our third party service providers and partners may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence. Our third party service providers and partners are also subject to these heightened risks. The costs to us to investigate and mitigate network security problems, bugs, viruses, worms, malicious software programs and security vulnerabilities could be significant, and while we have implemented security measures to protect our data security and information technology systems, our efforts to address these problems may not be successful, and these problems could result in unexpected interruptions, delays, cessation of service, negative publicity and other harm to our business and our competitive position. There can also be no assurance that our and our collaborators’, future CROs’ and other contractors’ and consultants’ cybersecurity risk management program and processes, including policies, controls or procedures, will be fully implemented, complied with or effective in protecting our systems, networks and Confidential Information.

Current wording

The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyberattacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. We and our third party service providers and partners may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques, including artificial intelligence, that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence. Our third party service providers and partners are also subject to these heightened risks. The costs to us to investigate and mitigate network security problems, bugs, viruses, worms, malicious software programs and security vulnerabilities could be significant, and while we have implemented security measures to protect our data security and information technology systems, our efforts to address these problems may not be successful, and these problems could result in unexpected interruptions, delays, cessation of service, negative publicity and other harm to our business and our competitive position. There can also be no assurance that our and our collaborators’, future CROs’ and other contractors’ and consultants’ cybersecurity risk management program and processes, including policies, controls or procedures, will be fully implemented, complied with or effective in protecting our systems, networks and Confidential Information.

Previous wording

In Europe, the GDPR went into effect in May 2018 and imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the European Economic Area (“EEA”). Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenue of the noncompliant undertaking, whichever is greater. In addition to fines, a breach of the GDPR may result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease or change our data processing activities, enforcement notices, assessment notices (for a compulsory audit) and/or civil claims (including class actions). Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States, and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EEA and the United States remains uncertain. Case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) states that reliance on the standard contractual clauses - a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism - alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances and that transfers must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its Adequacy Decision in relation to the Data Privacy Framework ("DPF"), rendering the DPF effective as a GDPR transfer mechanism to U.S. entities self-certified under the DPF. We expect the existing legal complexity and uncertainty regarding international personal data transfers to continue. In particular, we expect the DPF Adequacy Decision to be challenged and international transfers to the United States and to other jurisdictions more generally to continue to be subject to enhanced scrutiny by regulators. As a result, we may have to make certain operational changes and we will have to implement revised standard contractual clauses and other relevant documentation for existing data transfers within required time frames. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the SCCs cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results.

Current wording

In Europe, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (the “EU GDPR”) and the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018 (collectively, the “UK GDPR”) (the EU GDPR and UK GDPR together referred to as the “GDPR”) impose strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the European Economic Area (“EEA”) and in the United Kingdom, respectively. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million / £17.5 million or 4% of the annual global revenue of the noncompliant undertaking, whichever is greater. Since we are subject to the supervision of relevant data protection authorities under multiple legal regimes (including under both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR), we could be fined under each of those regimes independently in respect of the same breach. In addition to fines, a breach of the GDPR may result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease or change our data processing activities, enforcement notices, assessment notices (for a compulsory audit) and/or civil claims (including class actions). Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States, and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EEA and the United States remains uncertain. Case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) states that reliance on the standard contractual clauses - a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism - alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances and that transfers must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its Adequacy Decision in relation to the Data Privacy Framework ("DPF"), rendering the DPF effective as a GDPR transfer mechanism to U.S. entities self-certified under the DPF. On October 12, 2023, the UK Extension to the DPF came into effect (as approved by the UK Government), as a data transfer mechanism from the UK to U.S. entities self-certified under the DPF. We expect the existing legal complexity and uncertainty regarding international personal data transfers to continue. As a result, we may have to make certain operational changes and we will have to implement revised standard contractual clauses and other relevant documentation for existing data transfers within required time frames. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the SCCs cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the United Kingdom GDPR, or the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. On October 12, 2023, the UK Extension to the DPF came into effect (as approved by the UK Government), as a data transfer mechanism from the UK to U.S. entities self-certified under the DPF. As we continue to expand into other foreign countries and jurisdictions, we may be subject to additional laws and regulations that may affect how we conduct business.

Current wording

As we continue to expand into other foreign countries and jurisdictions, we may be subject to additional laws and regulations that may affect how we conduct business.

Previous 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.

Current wording

Our directors, executive officers, holders of more than 5% of our outstanding stock and their respective affiliates beneficially own shares representing approximately 47% of our outstanding common stock as of September 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.

Previous wording

We incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management devotes substantial time to public company compliance initiatives. We may fail to comply with the rules that apply to public companies, including Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which could result in sanctions or other penalties that would seriously harm our business.

Current wording

We incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management devotes substantial time to public company compliance initiatives. We may fail to comply with the rules that apply to public companies, including Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley

Previous wording

Institutional, individual, and other investors, proxy advisory services, regulatory authorities, consumers and other stakeholders are increasingly focused on environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices of companies. As we look to respond to evolving standards for identifying, measuring, and reporting ESG metrics, our efforts may result in a significant increase in costs and may nevertheless not meet investor or other stakeholder expectations and evolving standards or regulatory requirements, which may negatively impact our financial results, our reputation, our ability to attract or retain employees, our attractiveness as an investment or business partner, or expose us to government enforcement actions, private litigation, and actions by stockholders or stakeholders.

Current wording

Institutional, individual, and other investors, proxy advisory services, regulatory authorities, consumers and other stakeholders have increasingly focused on environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices of companies. As we look to respond to evolving standards for identifying, measuring, and reporting ESG metrics, our efforts may result in a significant increase in costs and may nevertheless not meet investor or other stakeholder expectations and evolving standards or regulatory requirements, which may negatively impact our financial results, our reputation, our ability to attract or retain employees, our attractiveness as an investment or business partner, or expose us to government enforcement actions, private litigation, and actions by stockholders or stakeholders.