Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101, and in January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed chimeric CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes and noting that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Current wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it was investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101, and in January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed chimeric CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes and noting that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Previous wording

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company with a limited operating history. We were formed in 2018 and we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights, and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates, including KYV-101. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success, and viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing program candidates. Investment in biotechnology product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and we have incurred net losses since our inception through June 30, 2025. For the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, we reported a net loss of $86.7 million and $55.5 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $350.2 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of our product candidates, and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Current wording

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company with a limited operating history. We were formed in 2018 and we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights, and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates, including KYV-101. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success and viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing program candidates. Investment in biotechnology product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and we have incurred net losses since our inception through September 30, 2025. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, we reported a net loss of $123.6 million and $90.0 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $387.0 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of our product candidates, and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Previous wording

To become and remain profitable, we and any current or potential future collaborators must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approval for product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products if we obtain marketing approval, obtaining market acceptance for such products and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and the price or of common stock, and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Current wording

To become and remain profitable, we and any current or potential future collaborators must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approval for product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products if we obtain marketing approval, obtaining market acceptance for such products and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and the price of our common stock, and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Previous wording

We cannot be certain that our current or any future product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. The FDA may also consider its approvals of competing products, which may alter the treatment landscape concurrently with their review of our investigational new drug applications, or INDs, or other submissions, and which may lead to changes in the FDA’s review requirements that have been previously communicated to us and our interpretation thereof, including changes to requirements for clinical data or clinical trial design. Such changes could delay approval or necessitate withdrawal of our INDs or other submissions.

Current wording

We cannot be certain that our current or any future product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. The FDA may also consider its approvals of competing products, which may alter the treatment landscape concurrently with its review of our investigational new drug applications, or INDs, or other submissions, and which may lead to changes in the FDA’s review requirements that have been previously communicated to us and our interpretation thereof, including changes to requirements for clinical data or clinical trial design. Such changes could delay approval or necessitate withdrawal of our INDs or other submissions.

Previous wording

maintain compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance specific to commercialization including interactions with healthcare professionals, patient advocacy groups, and communication of healthcare economic information to payors and formularies;

Current wording

maintain compliance with applicable laws, regulations and guidance specific to commercialization, including interactions with healthcare professionals and patient advocacy groups, and communication of healthcare economic information to payors and formularies;

Previous wording

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, or Nasdaq, and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Complying with these rules and regulations has increased and will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control and procedures on a quarterly basis. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We plan to hire additional financial reporting, internal controls and other finance personnel or consultants in order to develop and implement appropriate internal controls and reporting procedures, which will increase our costs and expenses.

Current wording

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, or Nasdaq, and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Complying with these rules and regulations has increased and will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control and procedures on a quarterly basis. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We have hired and plan to continue to hire additional accounting, financial reporting, internal controls and other finance personnel or consultants, which has increased and will increase our costs and expenses.

Previous wording

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Refer to the section titled “Controls and Procedures” in Part II, Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Current wording

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Refer to the section titled “Controls and Procedures” in Part II, Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 for additional information regarding our internal control over financial reporting.

Previous wording

As we conduct clinical trials of our current or future product candidates and as our product candidates are used in named patient activities, we are exposed to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of new treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, or other investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our future product candidates, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our product candidates, termination of clinical trial sites or entire trial programs, withdrawal of clinical trial participants, injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention, significant costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources from our business operations, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients, loss of revenue, the inability to commercialize and products that we may develop, and a decline in our stock price. We believe we may face greater risks with respect to our product candidates than many other biotechnology candidates because our product candidates are being developed to address conditions for which many prior products and product technologies have been unsuccessful. In addition, the patient population that our product candidates are seeking to target are often heavily immunosuppressed and may be more likely to experience serious adverse events with potential treatments and have higher morbidity rates generally than other patient populations. We may need to obtain higher levels of product liability insurance for later stages of clinical development or marketing any of our product candidates. Any insurance we may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

As we conduct clinical trials of our current or future product candidates and as our product candidates are used in named patient activities, we are exposed to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of new treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, or other investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our future product candidates, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our product candidates, termination of clinical trial sites or entire trial programs, withdrawal of clinical trial participants, injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention, significant costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources from our business operations, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients, loss of revenue, the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop, and a decline in our stock price. We believe we may face greater risks with respect to our product candidates than many other biotechnology candidates because our product candidates are being developed to address conditions for which many prior products and product technologies have been unsuccessful. In addition, the patient population that our product candidates are seeking to target are often heavily immunosuppressed and may be more likely to experience serious adverse events with potential treatments and have higher morbidity rates generally than other patient populations. We may need to obtain higher levels of product liability insurance for later stages of clinical development or marketing any of our product candidates. Any insurance we may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had 129 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we transition into operating as a public company, we expect to expand our employee base for managerial, operational, financial and other resources. In addition, we have limited experience in manufacturing, marketing and commercialization. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and contract with other organizations to provide manufacturing and other capabilities for us. In the future, we expect to have to manage additional relationships with collaborators or partners, suppliers and other organizations. Our ability to manage our operations and future growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. Our inability to successfully manage our growth and expand our operations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, we had 129 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to continue to expand our employee base for managerial, operational, financial and other resources. In addition, we have limited experience in manufacturing, marketing and commercialization. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and contract with other organizations to provide manufacturing and other capabilities for us. In the future, we expect to have to manage additional relationships with collaborators or partners, suppliers and other organizations. Our ability to manage our operations and future growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. Our inability to successfully manage our growth and expand our operations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, contractors or partners. Misconduct by these parties could include failures to comply with FDA regulations or comparable foreign regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign authorities, to comply with federal, state or foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data timely, completely or accurately, or to disclose unauthorized activities to us, or failure to comply with comparable foreign requirements. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us resulting from this misconduct and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or comparable foreign equivalents, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Current wording

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, contractors or partners. Misconduct by these parties could include failures to comply with FDA regulations or comparable foreign regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign authorities, to comply with federal, state or foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data timely, completely or accurately, to disclose unauthorized activities to us, or to comply with comparable foreign requirements. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us resulting from this misconduct and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or comparable foreign equivalents, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Previous wording

We may be the target of securities litigation in the future, including based on volatility in the market price of our stock and, as described more fully below, are currently named as a defendant in a recently filed securities class action complaint. The stock market in general, and Nasdaq and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. The market price of our common stock is likely to be volatile. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. In addition, certain of our directors and officers are involved in ongoing securities or other lawsuits in the context of their roles with other public companies, and our directors or officers may in the future become involved in such litigation. Securities litigation (including the cost to defend against, and any potential adverse outcome resulting from any such proceeding) can be expensive, time-consuming, damage our reputation and divert our management’s and board of directors’ attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business. As noted above, in December 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against our company, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of our initial public offering. Per a stipulated schedule, an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2025, or the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with our initial public offering and the prospectus contained therein contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of federal securities laws. Pursuant to a stipulated order setting a response schedule, on June 26, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In addition, on May 14, 2025, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of our current and former officers and directors which was captioned Perez v. Seidenberg, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04163- PCP, or the Perez Action. On May 22, 2025, another stockholder derivative complaint was filed alleging the same claims against the same individual defendants captioned McDaniel v. Seidenberg, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04393-PCP, or the McDaniel Action, and together with the Perez Action, the Derivative Actions. The complaints filed in the Derivative Actions allege claims related to the allegations raised in the Amended Complaint. On June 2, 2025, the court entered a stipulation and order to stay the Perez Action pending the disposition of a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the related securities class action. On June 25, 2025, the court entered a s…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

As noted above, in December 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against our company, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of our initial public offering. Per a stipulated schedule, an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2025, or the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with our initial public offering and the prospectus contained therein contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of federal securities laws. Pursuant to a stipulated order setting a response schedule, on June 26, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims on June 26, 2025, with plaintiff filing an opposition on August 18, 2025. Defendants filed their reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2025. In addition, on May 14, 2025, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of our current and former officers and directors which was captioned Perez v. Seidenberg, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04163- PCP, or the Perez Action. On May 22, 2025, another stockholder derivative complaint was filed alleging the same claims against the same individual defendants captioned McDaniel v. Seidenberg, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04393-PCP, or the McDaniel Action, and together with the Perez Action, the Derivative Actions. The complaints filed in the Derivative Actions allege claims related to the allegations raised in the Amended Complaint. On June 2, 2025, the court entered a stipulation and order to stay the Perez Action pending the disposition of a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the related securities class action. On June 25, 2025, the court entered a stipulation and order to consolidate the Derivative Actions as In re Kyverna Therapeutics Derivative Litigation, Case No. 5:25-cv-04163-PCP. On July 22, 2025, the court entered a stipulation and order staying the consolidated derivative action pending the disposition of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the related securities class action.

Previous wording

Additionally, we believe, through our interactions with the FDA under our Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation, that our phase 2 trial in SPS, which we refer to as a pivotal trial, will be sufficient for use as a registration-enabling study, However, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may conclude that the trial is not sufficient to be registration-enabling to support a Biologic License Application, or BLA, or similar submission in other jurisdictions. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Current wording

Additionally, we believe, through our interactions with the FDA under our Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation, that our phase 2 trial in stiff-person syndrome, or SPS, which we refer to as a pivotal trial, will be sufficient for use as a registration-enabling study. However, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may conclude that the trial is not sufficient to be registration-enabling to support a Biologic License Application, or BLA, or similar submission in other jurisdictions. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Previous wording

Results of any patient who receives our product candidate in an investigator-initiated trial or on a named patient basis should not be viewed as representative of how the product candidate will perform in our clinical trials and may not be able to be used to establish safety or efficacy for purposes of obtaining regulatory approval.

Current wording

Results of any patient who receives our product candidate in an investigator-initiated trial or on a named patient basis should not be viewed as representative of how the product candidate will perform in our clinical trials and may not be able to be used to establish safety or efficacy for regulatory approval.

Previous wording

We supply our investigational product candidate, KYV-101, in investigator-initiated trials and on a named patient basis to patients who have exhausted other treatment options and for whom there is a strong scientific rationale to support the use of an unapproved product candidate. The investigator-initiated trials we supply to are located in the United States and Germany, and the independent investigators of such trials file INDs for the treatment of multiple or individual patients with KYV-101. We also supplied KYV-101 for use in single named patients in Germany, through a European distributor. In Germany, these single-patient efforts are termed “Individueller Heilversuch,” or single-patient treatment healing attempts, and occur outside of a controlled clinical trial setting and are not part of a codified German regulatory path. “Individueller Heilversuch” is a form of compassionate use treatment for an individual patient in Germany, where a procedure or treatment that has not received marketing authorization may be used for the expected benefit of a patient who has exhausted all available treatment options, under the discretion of the treating physician. The provision of KYV-101 on a named patient basis and in investigator-initiated trials are not a substitute for, or intended to replace, our clinical trials. The primary goal of these compassionate use treatments is not to assess the effectiveness, but rather to provide a treatment option to patients who have exhausted all other options. We evaluate whether to grant such access or similar access in other foreign countries to KYV-101 outside of our sponsored clinical trials on a case-by-case basis.

Current wording

Heilversuch” is a form of compassionate use treatment for an individual patient in Germany, where a procedure or treatment that has not received marketing authorization may be used for the expected benefit of a patient who has exhausted all available treatment options, under the discretion of the treating physician. The provision of KYV-101 on a named patient basis and in investigator-initiated trials are not a substitute for, or intended to replace, our clinical trials. The primary goal of these compassionate use treatments is not to assess the effectiveness, but rather to provide a treatment option to patients who have exhausted all other options. We evaluate whether to grant such access or similar access in other foreign countries to KYV-101 outside of our sponsored clinical trials on a case-by-case basis.

Previous wording

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that we will be able to continue to receive or publicize observational data through investigator-initiated trials or named patient activities using our product candidates. Our supply capabilities may limit the number of patients who are able to enroll in these trials or the number of named patients that can be treated, and we may in the future need to restructure or pause without advance notice such supply in order to enroll sufficient numbers of patients in our sponsored clinical trials, which could prompt adverse publicity or other disruptions. In addition, there is no clear regulatory framework under which we may supply our unapproved investigational product candidate in named patient settings, particularly for multiple named patients, outside of a clinical trial or a compassionate use program that is registered with applicable regulatory authorities. Our single-patient healing attempts are not part of a clinical trial or a compassionate use program that is registered with German regulatory authorities. As a result, if such supply of, or publication or other use of the observational data from named patient activities, is found to contravene regulatory requirements, we could potentially be subjected to liability, fines or other consequences, which could be further exacerbated if such patients experience adverse safety events. Furthermore, if we supply our unapproved investigational product candidate to a named patient who would have qualified for enrollment in our company-sponsored clinical trials in Germany, we may be subject to additional penalties. We also rely on each investigator and physician to ensure their own compliance with clinical and regulatory requirements in using our product candidate for investigator-initiated trials and named patient activities, and could be subject to liability if they are out of compliance.

Current wording

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that we will be able to continue to receive or publicize observational data through investigator-initiated trials or named patient activities using our product candidates. Our supply capabilities may limit the number of patients who are able to enroll in these trials or the number of named patients that can be treated, and we may in the future need to restructure or pause without advance notice such supply in order to enroll sufficient numbers of patients in our sponsored clinical trials, which could prompt adverse publicity or other disruptions. In addition, there is no clear regulatory framework under which we may supply our unapproved investigational product candidate in named patient settings, particularly for multiple named patients, outside of a clinical trial or a compassionate use program that is registered with applicable regulatory authorities. Our single-patient healing attempts are not part of a clinical trial or a compassionate use program that is registered with German regulatory authorities. As a result, if such supply of, or publication or other use of the observational data from named patient activities, is found to contravene regulatory requirements, we could potentially be subjected to liability, fines or other consequences, which could be further exacerbated if such patients experience adverse safety events. Furthermore, if we supply our unapproved investigational product candidate to a named patient who would have qualified for enrollment in our company-sponsored clinical trials in Germany, we may be subject to additional penalties.

Previous wording

the cost of clinical trials may be greater than we anticipate, or we may have insufficient funds for a clinical trial or to pay the substantial user fees required by the FDA upon the submission of a Biologic License Application, or BLA, or new drug application, or NDA;

Current wording

the cost of clinical trials may be greater than we anticipate, or we may have insufficient funds for a clinical trial or to pay the substantial user fees required by the FDA upon the submission of a BLA or new drug application, or NDA;

Previous wording

We may also conduct preclinical and clinical research in collaboration with academic, pharmaceutical and biotechnology entities in which we combine our development efforts with those of our collaborators. Such collaborations may be subject to additional delays because of the management of the trials, contract negotiations, the need to obtain agreement from multiple parties and may increase our future costs and expenses.

Current wording

We may also conduct preclinical and clinical research in collaboration with academic, pharmaceutical and biotechnology entities in which we combine our development efforts with those of our collaborators. Such collaborations may be subject to additional delays because of the management of the trials, contract negotiations and the need to obtain agreement from multiple parties, and may increase our future costs and expenses.

Previous wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our products, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our current product candidates, including our lead product candidates, and any future product candidate are both safe, pure and potent, or effective for use in such product candidate’s target indication. Clinical testing is expensive, can take many years to complete and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In addition, some of the product candidates and technologies we are developing are novel and unproven, which makes it impossible to predict whether our clinical trials will continue. The patient population that our product candidates are seeking to target also are often heavily immunosuppressed and may be more likely to experience serious adverse events with potential treatments and have higher morbidity rates generally than other patient populations. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to generate desired safety and efficacy data despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved and there can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of our current product candidates or any of our future product candidates or ultimately their approval. We do not expect to be able to use the results from any investigator initiated trials or named patient activities conducted with our product candidates in any regulatory submission for marketing approval.

Current wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our products, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our current product candidates, including our lead product candidates, and any future product candidate are both safe, pure and potent, or effective for use in such product candidate’s target indication. Clinical testing is expensive, can take many years to complete and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In addition, some of the product candidates and technologies we are developing are novel and unproven, which make it impossible to predict whether our clinical trials will continue. The patient population that our product candidates are seeking to target also are often heavily immunosuppressed and may be more likely to experience serious adverse events with potential treatments and have higher morbidity rates generally than other patient populations. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to generate desired safety and efficacy data despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved and there can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of our current product candidates or any of our future product candidates or ultimately their approval. We do not expect to be able to use the results from any investigator-initiated trials or named patient activities conducted with our product candidates in any regulatory submission for marketing approval.

Previous wording

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. Such delayed side effects might be observed during the long-term follow-up FDA has insisted upon for certain gene therapy products. For example, in 2024 the FDA initiated class safety labeling changes for BCMA- or CD19-directed genetically modified autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies after it concluded that changes to the boxed warning were warranted to highlight the serious risk of T cell malignancies. In addition to labeling changes, if we were to identify delayed side effects with any of our product candidates, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to healthcare practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. Other potentially significant negative consequences include that:

Current wording

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. Such delayed side effects might be observed during the long-term follow-up FDA has insisted upon for certain gene therapy products. For example, in 2024, the FDA initiated class safety labeling changes for BCMA- or CD19-directed genetically modified autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies after it concluded that changes to the boxed warning were warranted to highlight the serious risk of T cell malignancies. In addition to labeling changes, if we were to identify delayed side effects with any of our product candidates, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to healthcare practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. Other potentially significant negative consequences include that:

Previous wording

Significant political, trade, or regulatory developments in the jurisdictions in which we may sell our products, if approved, such as those stemming from the change in U.S. federal administration, are difficult to predict and may have a material adverse effect on us. Similarly, changes in U.S. federal policy that affect the geopolitical landscape could give rise to circumstances outside our control that could have negative impacts on our business operations. The U.S. has recently imposed blanket 10% tariffs on virtually all imports to the U.S. and significantly higher so-called reciprocal tariffs applicable to imports from many countries. The current U.S. administration has threatened to continue to broadly impose tariffs, which could lead to corresponding punitive actions by the countries with which the U.S. trades. Historically, tariffs have led to increased trade and political tensions, between not only the U.S. and China, but also between the U.S. and other countries in the international community. In response to tariffs, other countries have implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Political tensions as a result of trade policies could reduce trade volume, investment, technological exchange and other economic activities between major international economies, resulting in a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets. Any changes in political, trade, regulatory, and economic conditions, including U.S. trade policies, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Until we know what policy changes are made, whether those policy changes are challenged and subsequently upheld by the court system and how those changes impact our business and the business of our competitors over the long term, we will not know if, overall, we will benefit from them or be negatively affected by them.

Current wording

Significant political, trade, or regulatory developments in the jurisdictions in which we may sell our products, if approved, such as those stemming from the change in U.S. federal administration, are difficult to predict and may have a material adverse effect on us. Similarly, changes in U.S. federal policy that affect the geopolitical landscape could give rise to circumstances outside our control that could have negative impacts on our business operations. The U.S. has recently imposed tariffs on virtually all imports to the U.S. and significantly higher so-called reciprocal tariffs applicable to imports from many countries. The current U.S. administration has threatened to continue to broadly impose tariffs, which could lead to corresponding punitive actions by the countries with which the U.S. trades. Historically, tariffs have led to increased trade and political tensions, between not only the U.S. and China, but also between the U.S. and other countries in the international community. In response to tariffs, other countries have implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Political tensions as a result of trade policies could reduce trade volume, investment, technological exchange and other economic activities between major international economies, resulting in a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets. Any changes in political, trade, regulatory, and economic conditions, including U.S. trade policies, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Until we know what policy changes are made, whether those policy changes are challenged and subsequently upheld by the court system and how those changes impact our business and the business of our competitors over the long term, we will not know if, overall, we will benefit from them or be negatively affected by them.

Previous wording

We rely on third party CMOs to manufacture and supply cell therapy products for our research and development purposes and for our clinical trials. Under our Master Services Agreement with Minaris Advanced Therapies Inc., or MAT, dated March 2022, or the MAT Agreement, MAT provides us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate. Under our Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the Elevate Agreement, with ElevateBio Base Camp, Inc., or Elevate, we engaged Elevate in November 2024 to provide us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate. Pursuant to our License and Supply Agreement with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Limited, or Oxford, dated September 2023, or the Oxford Agreement, we engaged Oxford to undertake lentiviral vector process development services, with the intention for Oxford to ultimately manufacture and supply to us lentiviral vectors for research and development purposes and for use in connection with our clinical trials. Although we believe we currently have sufficient clinical-grade vector in inventory to move forward with our anticipated clinical trials, there is no guarantee that sufficient clinical-grade vector will be available in the quantities we require in the future or on terms that are acceptable to us.

Current wording

We rely on third party CMOs to manufacture and supply cell therapy products for our research and development purposes and for our clinical trials. Under our Master Services Agreement with Minaris Advanced Therapies Inc., or MAT, dated March 2022, or the MAT Agreement, MAT is expected to provide us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate through March 2026. Under our Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the Elevate Agreement, with ElevateBio Base Camp, Inc., or Elevate, we engaged Elevate in November 2024 to provide us with cell manufacturing, release and testing services for our KYV-101 product candidate. Pursuant to our License and Supply Agreement with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Limited, or Oxford, dated September 2023, or the Oxford Agreement, we engaged Oxford to undertake lentiviral vector process development services, with the intention for Oxford to ultimately manufacture and supply to us lentiviral vectors for research and development purposes and for use in connection with our clinical trials. Although we believe we currently have sufficient clinical-grade vector in inventory to move forward with our anticipated clinical trials, there is no guarantee that sufficient clinical-grade vector will be available in the quantities we require in the future or on terms that are acceptable to us.

Previous wording

We are also dependent on our licensors to take necessary action to comply with patent protection requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

We are dependent on our outside counsel or our licensors to take necessary action to comply with patent protection requirements with respect to our owned or in-licensed intellectual property. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. Non-compliant events could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and our or our licensors’ pending patent applications may be challenged in patent offices in the United States and abroad. 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. For example, our or our licensors’ pending patent applications may be subject to third-party pre-issuance submissions of prior art to the USPTO or our issued patents may be subject to post-grant review, or PGR, proceedings, oppositions, derivations, reexaminations, interferences, inter partes review, or IPR, proceedings or other similar proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our or our licensors’ patent rights or the patent rights of others. Such submissions may also be made prior to a patent’s issuance, precluding the granting of a patent based on one or more of our owned or licensed pending patent applications. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Such challenges also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and our or our licensors’ pending patent applications may be challenged in patent offices in the United States and abroad. 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. For example, our or our licensors’ pending patent applications may be subject to third-party pre-issuance submissions of prior art to the USPTO or our issued patents may be subject to post-grant review, or PGR, proceedings, oppositions, derivations, reexaminations, interferences, inter partes review, or IPR, proceedings or other similar proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere. Certain submissions may also be made prior to a patent’s issuance, precluding the granting of a patent based on one or more of our owned or licensed pending patent applications. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Such challenges also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. We have pending and issued U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications in our portfolio; however, we cannot predict:

Current wording

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our potential future licensors will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. We have pending and issued U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications in our portfolio; however, we cannot predict:

Previous wording

Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Further, in cases where a particular compound of interest is in the public domain, third parties may be able to obtain patents on improvements or other inventions relating to such compound if they were to discover the same patentable inventions relating to such compounds after us but manage to file a patent application before we do. In addition, we may enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, including any polymorphs and variants, such as our employees, collaborators, consultants, advisors and other third parties; however, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to obtain patent protection. Furthermore, if third parties have filed patent applications related to our product candidates or technology, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by the USPTO or a third party to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Current wording

Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Further, with respect to particular compositions of interest known to the public, third parties may be able to obtain patents on improvements or other inventions relating to such compositions if they were to discover the same patentable inventions relating to such compositions after us but manage to file a patent application before we do. In addition, we may enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, collaborators, consultants, advisors and other third parties; however, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to obtain patent protection.

Previous wording

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, our patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical ours. Our competitors and other third parties may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors or other third parties may seek to market generic or biosimilar versions of any approved products and in so doing, claim that patents owned by us are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable, or may find that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

Current wording

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, our patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Our competitors and other third parties may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors or other third parties may seek to market generic or biosimilar versions of any approved products and in so doing, claim that patents owned by us are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable, or may find that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

Previous wording

We may have limited control over the maintenance and prosecution of these in-licensed patents and patent applications, activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, such activities by these licensors may not have been or may not be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. Our licensors may not successfully prosecute the patent applications to which we are licensed in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

Current wording

We may have limited control over the maintenance and prosecution of these in-licensed patents and patent applications, activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, such activities by these licensors may not have been or may not be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. Our licensors may not successfully prosecute the patent applications that are licensed to us in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We may need the cooperation of our licensors in order to enforce any licensed patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. In addition, we have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

Previous wording

rights. Our product candidates also may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and expenses and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology.

Current wording

Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and expenses and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology.

Previous wording

Additionally, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions and governmental authorities to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Current wording

Additionally, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions and governmental authorities to accelerate our research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, including our competitors. If such intellectual property is solely owned by the institution, we may have to abandon development of such program, and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected. If such intellectual property is jointly owned by us and the institution, our loss of exclusivity may permit others to market competing products and technology.

Previous wording

In addition, the United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, or the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself. We may at times choose to collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development.

Current wording

In addition, we may at times choose to collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our research or development. If the co-developed intellectual property is subject to the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, or the Bayh-Dole Act, the United States federal government retains a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself.

Previous wording

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. We are aware of third-party U.S. and European patents related to CAR T cells for use in treating autoimmune diseases, which may be relevant to our product candidates. If these patent rights were enforced against us, we believe that we have defenses against any such action, including that these patents are not valid. There could be additional issued patents of which we are not aware that our current or potential future product candidates infringe. There also could be patents that we believe we do not infringe, but that we may ultimately be found to infringe. Competitors may file continuing patent applications claiming priority to already issued patents in the form of continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part applications, in order to maintain the pendency of a patent family and attempt to cover our product candidates.

Current wording

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. We are aware of third-party U.S. and European patents related to CAR T cells for use in treating autoimmune diseases, which may be relevant to our product candidates. If these patent rights were enforced against us, we believe that we have defenses against any such action, including that these patents are not valid. There could be additional issued patents of which we are not aware that our current or potential future product candidates infringe. There also could be patents that we believe we do not infringe, but that we may ultimately be found to infringe.

Previous wording

In the future, we may be involved in similar proceedings challenging the patent rights of others, and the outcome of such proceedings is highly uncertain. An adverse determination in any such proceeding may result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. The costs of these opposition or similar proceedings could be substantial, and may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. Even if we ultimately prevail in any such claims or proceedings, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the claims or proceedings.

Current wording

Third-party patents can be challenged in administrative proceedings, such asinter partes review, ex parte re-exam or post-grant review proceedings at the USPTO or patent opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office, but the outcome of such proceedings is highly uncertain. An adverse determination in any such proceeding may result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. The costs of these opposition or similar proceedings could be substantial, and may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. Even if we ultimately prevail in any such claims or proceedings, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the claims or proceedings. In addition, competitors may file continuing patent applications claiming priority to already issued patents in the form of continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part applications, in order to maintain the pendency of a patent family and attempt to cover our product candidates by new patents.

Previous wording

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us for patent or other intellectual property infringement. These lawsuits are costly and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and scientific personnel. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, potential products or methods either do not infringe the claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. If a court holds that any third-party patents are valid, enforceable and cover our products or their use, the holders of any of these patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize our products unless we acquire or obtain a license under the applicable patents or until the patents expire.

Current wording

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us for patent or other intellectual property infringement. These lawsuits are costly and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and scientific personnel. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, potential products or methods either do not infringe the claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. If a court holds that any third-party patents are valid, enforceable and cover our products or their use, the holders of any of these patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize our products unless we acquire or obtain a license under the applicable patents or delay commercialization of our products in the corresponding jurisdiction until the patents expire.

Previous wording

Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we or one of our licensing partners may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our or our licensors’ pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent is issued from such applications. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents or our licensors’ patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, insufficient written description or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our or our licensors’ patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed some legal principles that affect patent applications, granted patents and assessment of the eligibility or validity of these patents. As a consequence, issued patents may be found to contain invalid claims according to the newly revised eligibility and validity standards. Some of our owned or in-licensed patents may be subject to challenge and subsequent invalidation or significant narrowing of claim scope in proceedings before the USPTO, or during litigation, under the revised criteria, which also could make it more difficult to obtain patents. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our or our licensors’ patents could limit our ability to assert our or our licensors’ patent…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we or one of our licensing partners may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our or our licensors’ pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent is issued from such applications. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents or our licensors’ patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, insufficient written description or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our or our licensors’ patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed some legal principles that affect patent applications, granted patents and assessment of the eligibility or validity of these patents. As a consequence, issued patents may be found to contain invalid claims according to the newly revised eligibility and validity standards. Some of our owned or in-licensed patents may be subject to challenge and subsequent invalidation or significant narrowing of claim scope in proceedings before the USPTO, or during litigation, under the revised criteria, which also could make it more difficult to obtain or defend patents. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our or our licensors’ patents could limit our ability to assert our or our licenso…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

If another party questions the patentability of any of our claims in our owned or in-licensed U.S. patents, the third party can request that the USPTO review the patent claims such as in an inter partes review, ex parte re-exam or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. In addition to potential USPTO review proceedings, we may become a party to patent opposition proceedings at the EPO or similar proceedings in other foreign patent offices, where either our owned or in-licensed foreign patents are challenged.

Current wording

If another party questions the patentability of any of our claims in our owned or in-licensed U.S. patents, the third party can request that the USPTO review the patent claims such as in an inter partes review, ex parte re-exam or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. In addition to potential USPTO review proceedings, we may become a party to patent opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office or similar proceedings in other foreign patent offices, where either our owned or in-licensed foreign patents are challenged.

Previous wording

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any of our product candidates, one or more of our or our licensors’ issued U.S. patents or issued U.S. patents that we may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term, or PTE, of up to five years as compensation for 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, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar patent term restoration provisions to compensate for commercialization delay caused by regulatory review are also available in certain foreign jurisdictions, such as in Europe under Supplemental Protection Certificate, or SPC. However, we may not be granted any extensions for which we apply because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. In addition, to the extent we wish to pursue patent term extension based on a patent that we in-license from a third party, we would need the cooperation of that third party. 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 the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Current wording

Similar patent term restoration provisions to compensate for commercialization delay caused by regulatory review are also available in certain foreign jurisdictions, such as in Europe under Supplemental Protection Certificate. However, we may not be granted any extensions for which we apply because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. In addition, to the extent we wish to pursue patent term extension based on a patent that we in-license from a third party, we would need the cooperation of that third party. 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 the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Previous wording

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, in June 2023, a new unitary patent system was introduced, which significantly impacts European patents, including those granted before the introduction of the system. Under the unitary patent system, after a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor can request unitary effect, thereby getting a European patent with unitary Effect, or a Unitary Patent. Each Unitary Patent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court, or UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC may be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of the new unitary patent system.

Current wording

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, in June 2023, a new unitary patent system was introduced, which significantly impacts European patents, including those granted before the introduction of the system. Under the unitary patent system, after a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor can request unitary effect, thereby getting a European patent with unitary Effect, or a Unitary Patent. Each Unitary Patent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court, or UPC. As the UPC is a relatively new court system, there is little precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC may be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of the unitary patent system.

Previous wording

If the FDA or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark.

Current wording

If the FDA or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

Previous wording

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our proprietary rights generally. The initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Proceedings to enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, certain countries outside of the United States have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government authorities or government contractors. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Current wording

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our proprietary rights generally. The initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patents or patent applications in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost of defending our patent rights, put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Proceedings to enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, certain countries outside of the United States have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government authorities or government contractors. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Previous wording

We have conducted, are currently conducting, and may in the future conduct one or more clinical trials of our current or future product candidates outside the United States. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such as inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical power, 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 United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, we would need to conduct additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming.

Current wording

We have conducted, are currently conducting, and may in the future conduct one or more clinical trials of our current or future product candidates outside of the United States. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical power, 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 United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, we would need to conduct additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming.