Oric Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
For the period ended Dec 31, 2025. Filed Feb 23, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's yearly report to the SEC, with audited financial statements. It is the fullest account a company gives of its business, its finances and the risks it sees.
FY2025 · Filed Feb 23, 2026
ORIC$8.82+3.9%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-K
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-02-18.
0000950170-25-022273
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-K
Period ended 2025-12-31; filed 2026-02-23.
0001193125-26-064005
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 491 previous paragraphs and 509 current paragraphs.
407 unchanged; 70 reworded; 29 added; 12 removed; 2 previous and 3 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (29)
Current report
Risks related to development and commercialization of our product candidates
Current report
limitations on our ability to use overseas vendors and service providers;
Current report
any potential incompliance with enhanced trade tariffs, import restrictions, export restrictions, Chinese regulations or other trade barriers.
Current report
our dependence on third-party suppliers and the loss of these third-party suppliers or their inability to supply us could harm our business;
Current report
Reports of side effects or safety concerns in other companies’ clinical trials of the same or similar class of products or of products sharing the same mechanism of action as our product candidates could delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates or negatively impact public perception and market acceptance of our product candidates.
Current report
There are a number of clinical trials being conducted by other pharmaceutical companies involving compounds similar to, or potentially competitive with, our product candidates, including compounds of the same or similar class of products or sharing the same mechanism of action as our product candidates. Adverse results reported by these other companies in their clinical trials could delay or prevent our receipt of regulatory approval or our ability to commercialize our product candidates or could negatively impact public perception and market acceptance of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Current report
In addition, the legal and regulatory framework governing AI remains evolving and uncertain, and it is unclear how existing or future laws may apply to content produced by AI systems. To the extent that we incorporate AI technologies into our business, we may be subject to new or enhanced governmental or regulatory scrutiny, litigation, or other legal liability, ethical concerns, or other complications that could adversely affect our business or reputation. Furthermore, the integration of third-party AI models with our operations relies on certain safeguards implemented by the third-party developers of the underlying AI models, including those related to security and the accuracy, bias, and other variables of the data, and these safeguards may be insufficient. The use of AI applications has resulted in, and may in the future result in, cybersecurity incidents that implicate the data analyzed within such applications and may lead to the inadvertent release of confidential information, which may impact our ability to realize the benefits of our intellectual property.
Current report
Further, under the new leadership at the HHS under the current administration, departures and retirements of high-profile regulators at the FDA, layoffs due to the reduction in force initiative, government shutdown, and a lapse in U.S. government appropriations may impact the normal operations at the FDA as well as other federal agencies, which can materially delay our timelines. FDA may lack adequate staff and resources to meet current review, approval, and inspection schedules, which could delay our anticipated timelines. Recent developments at the FDA include implementation of Elsa, a generative AI tool, across all centers at the agency, announcement of a plan to phase out animal testing for monoclonal antibodies and certain other drugs, and the announcement of a new Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program to companies supporting certain U.S. national health priorities and interests. FDA has also increased its scrutiny of foreign drug manufacturing facilities and other contractors based in China, especially with respect to the transfer of biological materials, genetic data, and other health data of American patients to parties located in China. Further, FDA’s “real-time” release of newly issued Complete Response Letters associated with withdrawn or abandoned applications, if applicable to any of our product candidates, can materially impact our competitive advantage and intellectual property. It is unclear how our industry and our clinical programs will be impacted by policies and regulations implemented under the current administration and the new FDA commissioner or other executive orders. There is significant uncertainty in the industry and how federal agencies like the FDA will change in the coming years under the current administration. To the extent changes lead to disruptions in FDA’s operations, including changes resulting from executive orders; freeze on hiring, federal funding for research, and external communications; layoffs; government shutdown; return-to-office policies, and changes in funding for certain programs at the FDA, correspondence and regulatory review processes with the FDA may be materially delayed.
Current report
Enhanced trade tariffs, import restrictions, export restrictions, Chinese regulations or other trade barriers may materially harm our business.
Current report
We are continuing to expand our international operations as part of our strategy. There is currently significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the United States and various other countries, most significantly China, with respect to trade policies, treaties, government regulations and tariffs. There is a possibility that the United States could continue to impose greater restrictions on international trade and significant increases in tariffs on goods imported into the United States. In September 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) enacted a tariff on the import of other Chinese products, with a combined import value of approximately $200 billion. Since that time USTR has modified these tariff rates and imposed tariffs on additional goods. In addition, since February 4, 2025, the U.S. government has imposed additional tariffs on the import of almost all Chinese origin goods which are now 30% and an additional baseline reciprocal 10% tariff on certain products of most other U.S. trading partners, with exemptions for certain pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and consumer electronics. Additional tariffs may in the future be implemented by the U.S. government (including on imports of pharmaceutical products into the United States currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce, among other potential tariffs), the implementation, scope, and duration of which remain uncertain. Tariffs on imports of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and starting materials used in our product candidates as well as product candidates themselves, or retaliatory trade measures taken by China or other countries, which could potentially include restricted access to APIs or starting materials used in our product candidates, could result in us needing to make changes to our product candidates, or materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, the continued threats of tariffs, trade restrictions, and trade barriers could have a generally disruptive impact on the global economy and, therefore, negatively impact our company.
Current report
Many of the other biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide higher compensation, more diverse opportunities and better prospects for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can develop and commercialize our product candidates will be limited and the potential for successfully growing our business will be harmed.
Current report
Our strategic pipeline prioritization and the associated workforce reduction announced in August 2025, may not result in anticipated cost savings and could disrupt our business.
Current report
On August 12, 2025, we announced a strategic pipeline prioritization to focus operational and financial resources on the continued advancement of our two lead clinical programs, rinzimetostat and enozertinib. This initiative has resulted in a substantial decrease in preclinical research, primarily from the elimination of our discovery research group. This resulted in an approximately 20% workforce reduction. We may not realize, in full or in part, the anticipated benefits, savings and improvements in our operating structure from our new strategic efforts due to unforeseen difficulties, delays or unexpected costs. If we are unable to realize the expected operational efficiencies and cost savings from the strategic pipeline prioritization, our results of operation and financial condition would be adversely affected. We also cannot guarantee that we will not have to undertake additional workforce reductions or related activities in the future. Such cost reduction efforts may in the future adversely affect our ability to attract and retain employees, and may adversely affect our culture and impact our ability to effectively pursue our business strategy. Furthermore, our strategic pipeline prioritization may be disruptive to our operations. For example, our workforce reduction could yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond planned staff reductions, increased difficulties in our day-to-day operations and reduced employee morale. If employees who were not affected by the reduction in force seek alternate employment, this could result in us seeking contract support which may result in unplanned additional expense or harm our productivity. Our workforce reduction could also harm our ability to attract and retain qualified management, scientific, and clinical personnel who are critical to our business. Any failure to attract or retain qualified personnel could prevent us from successfully developing our product candidates in the future.
Current report
unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers, price and exchange controls, export controls (including related to data), and other regulatory requirements;
Current report
the imposition of retaliatory trade measures by China or other countries in response to new or escalated tariffs, export controls, or other trade measures by the United States;
Current report
In particular, there is currently significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the United States and various other countries, such as China, with respect to trade policies, treaties, tariffs, taxes, and other limitations on cross-border operations, collaboration, and investment. The U.S. government has and continues to make significant additional changes in U.S. trade policy and may continue to take future actions that could negatively impact U.S. trade.
Current report
For example, the President recently signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2026, which includes Section 851 regarding “[p]rohibition on contracting with certain biotechnology providers” (the BIOSECURE Act), which restricts federal government contracts, grants, and loans from being issued to companies that use biotechnology equipment or services from any designated “biotechnology company of concern,” as part of such companies’ performance of those agreements with the U.S. government. Once fully implemented through issuance of regulations, the BIOSECURE Act may ultimately limit certain U.S. biotechnology companies (such as ours) from using equipment or services produced or provided by Chinese biotechnology companies that meet the designation criteria of the new law, or certain affiliated entities. In addition, even if we do not seek any covered federal government contracts, grants, or loans, commercial partners, government agencies, or other third parties may view our business less favorably if we contract with entities that ultimately become biotechnology companies of concern.
Current report
As another example, the U.S. Department of Justice's Data Security Program places limitations on U.S. companies’ ability to enter into (and in some cases prohibits) certain contracts involving transfers of sensitive personal data to business partners located in China, or with other specified links to China and other designated countries. The rule further requires U.S. persons to obtain from certain foreign counterparties contractual commitments to refrain from engaging in subsequent transfers of sensitive personal data to entities located in China or with other specified links to China and other designated countries. This new rule will impact our ability to contract not just with Chinese companies but also with foreign entities in general, potentially requiring us to extract promises related to compliance with this new rule.
Current report
Additionally, in September 2018, the USTR enacted a tariff on the import of other Chinese products, with a combined import value of approximately $200 billion. Since that time USTR has modified these tariff rates and imposed tariffs on additional goods. In addition, since February 4, 2025, the U.S. government has imposed additional tariffs on the import of almost all Chinese origin goods which are now 30% and an additional baseline reciprocal 10% tariff on certain products of most other U.S. trading partners, with exemptions for certain pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and consumer electronics. Additional tariffs may in the future be implemented by the U.S. government (including on imports of pharmaceutical products into the United States currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce, among other potential tariffs), the implementation, scope, and duration of which remain uncertain. Tariffs on imports of APIs and starting materials used in our product candidates as well as product candidates themselves, or retaliatory trade measures taken by China or other countries, which could potentially include restricted access to APIs or starting materials used in our product candidates, could result in us needing to make changes to our suppliers or our product candidates, or materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, the continued threats of tariffs, trade restrictions, and trade barriers could have a generally disruptive impact on the global economy and, therefore, negatively impact our company. We cannot predict what actions may ultimately be taken with respect to trade relations between the United States and China or other countries, what products and services may be subject to such actions or what actions may be taken by the other countries in retaliation. If we are unable to obtain or use services from existing service providers, are restricted from sharing relevant data with such service providers or with others, or become unable to export or sell our products to any of our customers or service providers, our business, liquidity, financial condition, and/or results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.
Current report
others, including ANDA applicants, may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
Current report
In the United States, drug products may obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA (described above) for innovator products, or an ANDA for generic products. Relevant to ANDAs, the Hatch-Waxman Act amended the FDCA to establish a statutory procedure for submission and FDA review and approval of ANDAs for generic versions of branded drugs previously approved by the FDA (such previously approved drugs are also referred to as reference listed drugs). Because the safety and efficacy of reference listed drugs have already been established by the brand company (sometimes referred to as the innovator), the FDA typically does not require new human clinical trials to establish safety and efficacy of generic products. Rather, a generic manufacturer is typically required to conduct bioequivalence studies of its test product against the reference listed drug. The bioequivalence studies for orally administered, systemically available drug products assess the rate and extent to which the active pharmaceutical ingredient is absorbed into the bloodstream from the drug product and becomes available at the site of action. Bioequivalence is established when there is an absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent for absorption of the generic product and the reference listed drug. In addition to the bioequivalence data, an ANDA must contain patent certifications and chemistry, manufacturing, labeling, and stability data.
Current report
Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book must make one of the following certifications to the FDA concerning patents: (1) the patent information concerning the reference listed drug product has not been submitted to the FDA; (2) any such patent that was filed has expired; (3) the date on which such patent will expire; or (4) such patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. There might also be no relevant patent certification. If the ANDA applicant does not challenge the listed patents or certify that the listed patents will not be infringed by the new product, the ANDA application will not be approved by FDA until all the patents listed in the Orange Book claiming the referenced product or its use have expired.
Current report
The last patent certification described above is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder of the approved NDA to which the ANDA refers. The applicant may also elect to submit a “section viii” statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain (or “carves out”) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. An application with a section viii statement or carve out may be approved if the removal of language from the label necessitated by the carve out does not make the generic drug less safe or effective. This section viii statement does not require notice to the patent holder or NDA owner.
Current report
If the reference NDA holder or patent owners assert a patent challenge directed to one of the Orange Book listed patents within 45 days of the receipt of the paragraph IV certification notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the paragraph IV certification, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the applicant. The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity has expired. Thus approval of an ANDA can be prevented until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product or use thereof have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.
Current report
The FDA may issue tentative approval of an ANDA application if the application meets all conditions for approval, but the applicant cannot receive effective approval because the listed patents, the 30-month stay or another period of regulatory exclusivity, as applicable, has not expired. If tentative approval is granted, then once such listed patents, 30-month stay or other regulatory exclusivity have expired or, in the case of patents that are subject to a patent infringement suit, been found to be invalid or not infringed, the applicant may seek final approval by submitting an amendment that, among other things, includes a safety update and any other changes, if any, in the conditions under which the product was tentatively approved. Prior to granting final approval, the FDA must review and approve any changes reflected in the amendment and may consider any other new information that has come to its attention.
Current report
As is common in the pharmaceutical industry, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these consultants, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, other pharmaceutical companies including our competitors or potential competitors. We may become subject to claims that we, our employees or a consultant inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients.
Current report
We depend on third-party suppliers, and the loss of these third-party suppliers or their inability to supply us could harm our business.
Current report
We depend on third-party suppliers, including from certain manufacturers located in China that provide us with active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) required for the production of our product candidates, and we expect to continue to depend on third-party suppliers located in various jurisdictions around the world. Our dependence on these third-party suppliers and the challenges faced in obtaining adequate supplies involve several risks, including supply chain issues caused by the effects of worldwide economic conditions, including disruptions due to public health concerns, national security concerns, export or import restrictions, tariffs, or other geopolitical events, limited control over pricing, the availability of such materials, the quality of such materials, and delivery schedules. To the extent our business relies on suppliers, customers, or vendors in countries where the U.S. government has imposed any of these or other trade restrictions, our business may experience a material adverse effect. We may be unable to fully mitigate the effects of these disruptions or conditions. Any supply interruption could materially harm our ability to manufacture our product candidates, or to manufacture our product candidates on commercially reasonable terms, until a new source of supply, if any, can be identified and qualified. In such an event, we may be unable to find a sufficient alternative supply channel in a reasonable time or on commercially reasonable terms. Any performance failure on the part of the suppliers could delay the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates, including limiting supplies necessary for clinical trials and regulatory approvals, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.
Current report
In particular, there is currently significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the U.S. and various other countries, most significantly China, with respect to trade policies, including sanctions, treaties, tariffs, taxes, regulatory requirements, and other limitations on cross-border operations. The U.S. government has made and continues to make significant additional changes in U.S. trade policy and may continue to take future actions that could negatively impact our business. As an example, since April 2025 the U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on imports from most U.S. trading partners. In addition, the U.S. has imposed a 20% tariff on virtually all imports of Chinese origin since March 2025, and has also imposed a reciprocal tariff of 125% on most Chinese-origin products since April 2025. While some pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical products have been exempted from the reciprocal tariff of 125%, the U.S. government is currently undertaking an investigation to determine whether additional tariffs may be necessary on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical products in order to attain U.S. national security and foreign policy goals. We cannot predict what actions may ultimately be taken with respect to trade relations between the U.S. and China or other countries, what interactions, including products or services, may be subject to such actions, or what actions may be taken by the other countries in retaliation. We may also be subject to indirect supply chain risks caused by recent and new changes in these policies, including an increased risk of recession, inflation, or a general macroeconomic slowdown. If our interactions with third-party suppliers, including the manufacturers we work with in China that supply API required for the production of our product candidates, are affected by any such governmental actions, our business, liquidity, financial condition, or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Removed paragraphs (12)
Previous report
limitations related to our status as an emerging growth company and our transition after such status;
Previous report
ORIC-114 is a brain penetrant, orally bioavailable, irreversible inhibitor that selectively targets EGFR exon 20, HER2 exon 20 and EGFR atypical mutations. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we filed a CTA for ORIC-114 in South Korea, which was cleared in the first quarter of 2022. We also filed and cleared an IND with the FDA for ORIC-114 in the third quarter of 2022. We are enrolling a Phase 1b trial of ORIC-114 as a single-agent, in patients with advanced solid tumors with EGFR and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, EGFR atypical mutations or HER2 amplifications, which allows enrollment of patients with CNS metastases that are either treated or untreated but asymptomatic. In April 2024, we announced the selection of two provisional recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) levels of ORIC-114 at 80 mg and 120 mg QD, which are being further evaluated in three dose expansion cohorts for dose optimization and final RP2D selection. These expansion cohorts have now been initiated in patients with second-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations (EGFR exon 20 inhibitor-naïve), HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, or EGFR atypical mutations. We also initiated cohorts for the treatment of patients with first-line, treatment-naïve NSCLC EGFR exon20 insertion mutations and first-line, treatment-naïve NSCLC EGFR atypical mutations. In January 2025, we announced that we entered into a clinical trial and supply agreement with Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a Johnson and Johnson company, to evaluate ORIC-114 in combination with subcutaneous (SC) amivantamab for the first line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, and we initiated a Phase 1b trial in the first quarter of 2025.
Previous report
Establishing an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates will be expensive and time-consuming and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities could adversely impact the commercialization of any of our product candidates that we obtain approval to market, if we do not have arrangements in place with third parties to provide such services on our behalf. Alternatively, if we choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems, we will be required to negotiate and enter into arrangements with such third parties relating to the proposed collaboration and such arrangements may prove to be less profitable than commercializing the product on our own. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are unable to successfully commercialize our approved product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer, and we may incur significant additional losses.
Previous report
We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.
Previous report
We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:
Previous report
being permitted to provide only two years of audited financial statements, in addition to any required unaudited interim financial statements, with correspondingly reduced “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” disclosure in our periodic reports and other SEC filings;
Previous report
not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (Sarbanes-Oxley Act);
Previous report
reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports, proxy statements and other SEC filings; and
Previous report
Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. As a result, our financial statements may not be comparable to emerging growth companies that elect to avail themselves of the exemption from new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates.
Previous report
We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have more than $1.235 billion in annual revenue; (2) the date we qualify as a “large accelerated filer,” with at least $700.0 million of equity securities held by non-affiliates as of June 30 of the previous year; (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period; and (4) December 31, 2025.
Previous report
We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.
Previous report
These inherent limitations include the facts that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
Reworded paragraphs (70)
Previous wording
our challenges in discovering, developing and commercializing additional product candidates;
Current wording
our challenges in developing and commercializing additional product candidates;
Previous wording
any potential incompliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations; and
Current wording
any potential incompliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations;
Previous wording
any potential incompliance with anti-bribery, anti-corruption, export, trade sanctions and import laws or regulations.
Current wording
any potential incompliance with anti-bribery, anti-corruption, export (including data export), trade sanctions and import laws or regulations; and
Previous wording
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We commenced operations in 2014, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue. Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have initiated clinical trials for a limited number of our product candidates. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development activities, including with respect to the preclinical and clinical development of ORIC-114, ORIC-944 and our other product candidates, in-licensing of external programs, business planning, establishing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, hiring personnel, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations.
Current wording
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We commenced operations in 2014, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue. Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have initiated clinical trials for a limited number of our product candidates. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development activities, including with respect to the preclinical and clinical development of rinzimetostat (formerly ORIC-944), enozertinib (formerly ORIC-114) and our other product candidates, in-licensing of external programs, business planning, establishing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, hiring personnel, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations.
Previous wording
We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and have financed our operations principally through public offerings and private placements of our common stock, convertible preferred stock and other derivative securities. Our net loss was $127.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, and as of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $562.8 million. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we filed a CTA in South Korea for ORIC-114, which was cleared in the first quarter of 2022. We filed and cleared an IND with the FDA for ORIC-944 in the fourth quarter of 2021 and an IND with the FDA for ORIC-114 in the third quarter of 2022. Our other programs are in preclinical discovery and research stages. As a result, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses in order to discover, develop and market additional potential products.
Current wording
We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and have financed our operations principally through public offerings and private placements of our common stock, convertible preferred stock and other derivative securities. Our net loss was $129.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2025, and as of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $692.2 million. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses in order to develop and market additional potential products.
Previous wording
Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends significantly on our ability to achieve several objectives relating to the discovery, development and commercialization of our product candidates.
Current wording
Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends significantly on our ability to achieve several objectives relating to the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
Previous wording
Our business depends entirely on the successful discovery, development and commercialization of product candidates. We have no products approved for commercial sale and do not anticipate generating any revenue from product sales for the next several years, if ever. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends significantly on our ability, or any current or future collaborator’s ability, to achieve several objectives, including:
Current wording
Our business depends entirely on the successful development and commercialization of product candidates. We have no products approved for commercial sale and do not anticipate generating any revenue from product sales for the next several years, if ever. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends significantly on our ability, or any current or future collaborator’s ability, to achieve several objectives, including:
Previous wording
successful and timely completion of preclinical and clinical development of ORIC-114, ORIC-944 and our other future product candidates;
Current wording
successful and timely completion of preclinical and clinical development of rinzimetostat, enozertinib and our other future product candidates;
Previous wording
establishing and maintaining relationships with contract research organizations (CROs) and clinical sites for the clinical development of ORIC-114, ORIC-944 and our other future product candidates;
Current wording
establishing and maintaining relationships with contract research organizations (CROs) and clinical sites for the clinical development of rinzimetostat, enozertinib and our other future product candidates;
Previous wording
As of December 31, 2024, we had $256.0 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient to fund our operations into late 2026. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash, cash equivalents, and investments, to be able to continue to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.
Current wording
As of December 31, 2025, we had $392.3 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient to fund our operations into the second half of 2028. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash, cash equivalents, and investments, to be able to continue to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.
Previous wording
Risks related to discovery, development and commercialization of our product candidates
Current wording
Risks related to the development and commercialization of our product candidates
Previous wording
We are substantially dependent on the success of our product candidates, ORIC-114 and ORIC-944. If we are unable to complete development of, obtain approval for and commercialize our product candidates for one or more indications in a timely manner, our business will be harmed.
Current wording
We are substantially dependent on the success of our product candidates, rinzimetostat and enozertinib. If we are unable to complete development of, obtain approval for and commercialize our product candidates for one or more indications in a timely manner, our business will be harmed.
Previous wording
We allocate the majority of our efforts and financial resources to the development of ORIC-114 and ORIC-944. Our future success is dependent on our ability to timely and successfully complete clinical trials, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize ORIC-114 and ORIC-944.
Current wording
We allocate the majority of our efforts and financial resources to the development of rinzimetostat and enozertinib. Our future success is dependent on our ability to timely and successfully complete clinical trials, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize rinzimetostat and enozertinib.
Previous wording
ORIC-944 is a potent and selective allosteric inhibitor of PRC2 via the EED subunit that was designed to have superior drug properties compared to EZH2 inhibitors and is efficacious in androgen-insensitive and enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer models in preclinical studies. We filed and cleared an IND with the FDA for ORIC-944 in the fourth quarter of 2021, and we completed a Phase 1b trial of ORIC-944 as a single-agent, in patients with advanced prostate cancer. In the first half of 2024, we initiated dosing of ORIC-944 in combination with apalutamide as well as in combination with darolutamide, as part of the ongoing Phase 1b trial in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We also announced that we entered into clinical trial collaboration and supply agreements with Johnson & Johnson and Bayer to evaluate ORIC-944 in combination with Erleada® (apalutamide), Johnson & Johnson’s AR inhibitor, and Nubeqa® (darolutamide), Bayer’s AR inhibitor. These product candidates will require additional clinical development, expansion of manufacturing capabilities, marketing approval from government regulators, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenues from product sales. We are not permitted to market or promote ORIC-114, ORIC-944 or any other product candidate, before we receive marketing approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such marketing approvals.
Current wording
These product candidates will require additional clinical development, expansion of manufacturing capabilities, marketing approval from government regulators, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenues from product sales. We are not permitted to market or promote rinzimetostat, enozertinib or any other product candidate, before we receive marketing approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such marketing approvals.
Previous wording
In addition to ORIC-114 and ORIC-944, our prospects depend in part upon discovering, developing and commercializing additional product candidates, which may fail in development or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability.
Current wording
In addition to rinzimetostat and enozertinib, our prospects depend in part upon developing and commercializing additional product candidates, which may fail in development or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability.
Previous wording
Our future operating results are dependent on our ability to successfully discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize product candidates. All of our current programs other than ORIC-114 and ORIC-944, are in research or preclinical development. A product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical and/or clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates is high due to risks relating to safety, efficacy, clinical execution, changing standards of medical care and other unpredictable variables. The results from preclinical testing or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not be predictive of the results that will be obtained in later stage clinical trials of the product candidate.
Current wording
Our future operating results are dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize product candidates. All of our current programs other than rinzimetostat and enozertinib, are in research or preclinical development. A product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical and/or clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates is high due to risks relating to safety, efficacy, clinical execution, changing standards of medical care and other unpredictable variables. The results from preclinical testing or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not be predictive of the results that will be obtained in later stage clinical trials of the product candidate.
Previous wording
Even if we successfully advance product candidates into clinical development, their success will be subject to all of the clinical, regulatory and commercial risks described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will ever be able to discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval of, commercialize or generate significant revenue from any product candidates.
Current wording
Even if we successfully advance product candidates into clinical development, their success will be subject to all of the clinical, regulatory and commercial risks described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will ever be able to develop, obtain regulatory approval of, commercialize or generate significant revenue from any product candidates.
Previous wording
We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek marketing approvals for their commercial sale. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials will be successful. For instance, we do not know whether ORIC-114 or ORIC-944 will perform in current or future preclinical studies or future clinical trials as they have in prior preclinical studies. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials. Regulatory authorities may also limit the scope of later-stage trials until we have demonstrated satisfactory safety, which could delay regulatory approval, limit the size of the patient population to which we may market our product candidates, or prevent regulatory approval.
Current wording
We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek marketing approvals for their commercial sale. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials will be successful. For instance, we do not know whether rinzimetostat or enozertinib will perform in current or future preclinical studies or future clinical trials as they have in prior preclinical studies or clinical trials. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials. Regulatory authorities may also limit the scope of later-stage trials until we have demonstrated satisfactory safety, which could delay regulatory approval, limit the size of the patient population to which we may market our product candidates, or prevent regulatory approval.
Previous wording
Lack of efficacy, adverse events, undesirable side effects or other adverse results may emerge in clinical trials conducted by third parties investigating the same class of product candidates as us in different territories or indications. For example, pursuant to the Voronoi License Agreement, Voronoi retains the right to develop and commercialize the same compounds licensed to us, after a certain period, as specified in the Voronoi License Agreement, including the compound we refer to as ORIC-114, in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan and, subject to certain restrictions, to collaborate with others for such development and commercialization. We do not have control over Voronoi’s clinical trials or development program, and adverse findings from Voronoi’s conduct of clinical trials could adversely affect our development of ORIC-114 or even the viability of ORIC-114 as a product candidate. We may be required to report Voronoi’s adverse events or unexpected side effects to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which could, among other things, order us to cease further development of ORIC-114.
Current wording
Lack of efficacy, adverse events, undesirable side effects or other adverse results may emerge in clinical trials conducted by third parties investigating the same class of product candidates as us in different territories or indications. For example, pursuant to the Voronoi License Agreement, Voronoi retains the right to develop and commercialize the same compounds licensed to us, after a certain period, as specified in the Voronoi License Agreement, including the compound we refer to as enozertinib, in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan and, subject to certain restrictions, to collaborate with others for such development and commercialization. We do not have control over Voronoi’s clinical trials or development program, and adverse findings from Voronoi’s conduct of clinical trials could adversely affect our development of enozertinib or even the viability of enozertinib as a product candidate. We may be required to report Voronoi’s adverse events or unexpected side effects to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which could, among other things, order us to cease further development of enozertinib.
Previous wording
interruption of key research and discovery or other activities related to any impact of disease contraction by or transmission among our employees, including those that are essential workers and work within our laboratory;
Current wording
interruption of key research and development or other activities related to any impact of disease contraction by or transmission among our employees, including those that are essential workers and work within our laboratory;
Previous wording
We are exploring predictive biomarkers to determine patient selection for certain of our clinical trials and to evaluate whether a companion diagnostic test will be required for any of our product candidates. In general, the FDA expects to review and approve simultaneously NDA and pre-market approval submissions for a therapeutic and its companion diagnostic, respectively, so any delay in diagnostic approval could delay drug approval. On April 13, 2020, the FDA issued new guidance on developing and labeling companion diagnostics for a specific group of oncology therapeutic products, including recommendations to support a broader labeling claim rather than individual therapeutic products. In June 2023, the FDA announced a new voluntary pilot program through which drug manufacturers can provide to the FDA the diagnostic test performance information used to enroll patients into clinical trials for drug approval. Based on assessment of the performance information, the FDA will publish the minimum performance characteristics recommended for similar tests that may be used to select patients for treatment with the approved drug to help laboratories identify specific biomarkers for their development of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and to ensure more consistent performance of these tests for drug selection and improved cancer patient care. In May 2024, the FDA published a final rule that phases out its enforcement discretion for LDTs, unless exempt, and amends the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that in vitro diagnostics are medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including when the manufacturer of the diagnostic product is a laboratory. The American Clinical Laboratory Association and a private laboratory have initiated litigation against the agency to challenge the implementation of this final rule. We will continue to evaluate the impact of this final rule, this litigation, as well as any future lawsuits brought against the FDA, and future legislative and administration actions on our companion diagnostic development and strategy. Future guidance documents from the FDA and other regulatory authorities, including changes in the FDA’s regulation of diagnostic tests and LTDs, may impact our development of a companion diagnostic for our product candidates and result in delays in regulatory approval. We may be required to conduct additional studies to support a broader claim. Also, to the extent other approved diagnostics are able to broaden their labeling claims to include our approved drug products, we may be forced to abandon any of our companion diagnostic development plans or we may not be able to compete effectively upon approval, which could adversely impact our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our approved products and our business operations.
Current wording
We are exploring predictive biomarkers to determine patient selection for certain of our clinical trials and to evaluate whether a companion diagnostic test will be required for any of our product candidates. In general, the FDA expects to review and approve simultaneously NDA and pre-market approval submissions for a therapeutic and its companion diagnostic, respectively, so any delay in diagnostic approval could delay drug approval. On April 13, 2020, the FDA issued new guidance on developing and labeling companion diagnostics for a specific group of oncology therapeutic products, including recommendations to support a broader labeling claim rather than individual therapeutic products. In June 2023, the FDA announced a new voluntary pilot program through which drug manufacturers can provide to the FDA the diagnostic test performance information used to enroll patients into clinical trials for drug approval. Based on assessment of the performance information, the FDA will publish the minimum performance characteristics recommended for similar tests that may be used to select patients for treatment with the approved drug to help laboratories identify specific biomarkers for their development of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and to ensure more consistent performance of these tests for drug selection and improved cancer patient care. In May 2024, the FDA published a final rule that phases out its enforcement discretion for LDTs, unless exempt, and amends the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that in vitro diagnostics are medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including when the manufacturer of the diagnostic product is a laboratory. The American Clinical Laboratory Association and a private laboratory have initiated litigation against the agency to challenge the implementation of this final rule. On March 31, 2025, U.S. District Court in Texas ruled that FDA exceeded its authority and vacated and set aside this LDT final rule in its entirety. We will continue to evaluate the impact of this litigation, as well as any future lawsuits brought against the FDA, and future legislative and administration actions on our companion diagnostic development and strategy. Future guidance documents from the FDA and other regulatory authorities may impact our development of a companion diagnostic for our product candidates and result in delays in regulatory approval. To the extent other approved diagnostics are able to broaden their labeling claims to include our approved drug products, we may be forced to abandon any of our companion diagnostic development plans or we may not be able to compete effectively upon approval, which could adversely impact our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our approved products and our business operations.
Previous wording
We have limited resources and are focusing our efforts on developing ORIC-114 and ORIC-944, and advancing our preclinical programs. As a result, we may fail to capitalize on other indications or product candidates that may ultimately have proven to be more profitable.
Current wording
We have limited resources and are focusing our efforts on developing rinzimetostat and enozertinib. As a result, we may fail to capitalize on other indications or product candidates that may ultimately have proven to be more profitable.
Previous wording
We are focusing our resources and efforts on developing ORIC-114 and ORIC-944, and advancing our preclinical programs. As a result, because we have limited resources, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities for other indications or with other product candidates that may have greater commercial potential. For example, we completed a Phase 1b trial of ORIC-533 as a single-agent, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and intend to evaluate strategic partnerships to develop ORIC-533 in combination with other immune-based antimyeloma therapies. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development activities may not yield any commercially viable drugs. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target markets for ORIC-114, ORIC-944 or any of our other programs, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate or program through collaboration, licensing or other strategic arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate or program.
Current wording
We are focusing our resources and efforts on developing rinzimetostat and enozertinib. As a result, because we have limited resources, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities for other indications or with other product candidates that may have greater commercial potential. For example, we completed a Phase 1b trial of ORIC-533 as a single-agent, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and intend to evaluate strategic partnerships to develop ORIC-533 in combination with other immune-based antimyeloma therapies. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development activities may not yield any commercially viable drugs. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target markets for rinzimetostat, enozertinib or any of our other future programs, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate or program through collaboration, licensing or other strategic arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate or program.
Previous wording
For ORIC-944, we are aware of several companies developing inhibitors against PRC2 via EZH2 inhibition that are currently in clinical trials, including Ipsen, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Shanghai HaiHe Pharmaceutical, Treeline Biosciences, Evopoint Biosciences and Hanmi Pharmaceutical. To our knowledge, Ascentage Pharma has an allosteric PRC2 inhibitor in clinical trials for patients with cancer.
Current wording
For rinzimetostat, we are aware of several companies developing inhibitors against PRC2 via EZH2 inhibition that are currently in clinical trials, including Ipsen, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Shanghai HaiHe Pharmaceutical, Treeline Biosciences in collaboration with Jiangsu HengRui Medicine Co., Evopoint Biosciences and Hanmi Pharmaceutical. To our knowledge, Ascentage Pharma has an allosteric PRC2 inhibitor in clinical trials for patients with cancer.
Previous wording
For ORIC-114, we are aware that Johnson & Johnson has an FDA-approved product for patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, and Daiichi Sankyo in collaboration with AstraZeneca has an FDA-approved product for patients with HER2 mutations, including HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations. We are also aware of several companies developing inhibitors against EGFR or HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations and EGFR atypical mutations that are currently in clinical trials, including Dizal Pharmaceuticals, Cullinan Oncology in collaboration with Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bayer, ArriVent BioPharma in collaboration with Allist Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enliven Therapeutics, Merus N.V., Black Diamond Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics in collaboration with Pierre Fabre, Nuvalent and BlossomHill Therapeutics. Additionally, Pfizer has an FDA-approved product for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases. We are also aware that Dizal Pharmaceuticals, Enliven Therapeutics and Zion Pharma in collaboration with Roche are developing brain penetrant inhibitors currently in clinical trials for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.
Current wording
For enozertinib, we are aware that Johnson & Johnson and Dizal Pharmaceuticals have FDA-approved products for patients with EGFR exon 20 mutations. We are also aware of several companies developing small molecule inhibitors against EGFR exon 20 mutations and EGFR atypical mutations that are currently in clinical trials, including Cullinan Therapeutics in collaboration with Taiho Pharmaceutical, ArriVent BioPharma in collaboration with Allist Pharmaceuticals, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics in collaboration with Pierre Fabre, BlossomHill Therapeutics, Avistone Biotechnology, BeBetter Med, Suzhou Puhe Pharmaceutical Technology Co. and Yuhan Corporation.
Previous wording
Many of these current and potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources, and commercial expertise than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may obtain approval from the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or discover, develop or commercialize products in our field before we do. In addition, we may face increasing competition from companies utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), and other computational approaches for drug discovery or other processes. Some of these competitors are involved in drug discovery themselves and/or with partners, and others develop software or other tools utilizing AI which can be used, directly or indirectly, in drug discovery. To the extent these or other AI uses prove to be successful, or more successful than our approaches, the development of our product candidates could be adversely affected, reduce the demand for us as a collaborator in drug discovery or negatively impact our operations in other ways.
Current wording
Many of these current and potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources, and commercial expertise than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may obtain approval from the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or develop or commercialize products in our field before we do. In addition, we are facing increasing competition from companies utilizing artificial intelligence, or AI, in their research and development efforts or other business processes, which could create a competitive advantage that we would find difficult to match. While our current use of AI-based platforms or tools in our business is relatively minimal, many of our competitors have begun utilizing AI tools to aid in the development of pharmaceutical products. Our cautious approach to adopting AI platforms and tools may put us at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to competitors who currently use them in the development of pharmaceutical products or other business processes, which could impair our ability to compete effectively and adversely affect our results of operations. Should we proceed with further AI adoption, we may be subject to significant risks related to developing and deploying AI platforms or tools, and there can be no assurance that the use of AI will enhance the development of our product candidates or be beneficial to our business. Any use of, or reliance on, AI technologies, including generative AI, may also expose us to a range of risks, including the generation or dissemination of inaccurate, misleading, biased, or otherwise harmful content, potential discrimination, intellectual property infringement or misappropriation, defamation, violations of data privacy or cybersecurity requirements, and compliance risks under applicable sanctions and export control laws, among others.
Previous wording
restrictions on the use of product candidates in the labeling approved by regulatory authorities, such as boxed warnings or contraindications in labeling, or a REMS, if any, which may not be required of alternative treatments and competitor products;
Current wording
restrictions on the use of product candidates in the labeling approved by regulatory authorities, such as boxed warnings or contraindications in labeling, or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), if any, which may not be required of alternative treatments and competitor products;
Previous wording
The number of patients who have the cancers we are targeting may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for the product candidates we develop may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Regulatory approval may limit the market of a product candidate to target patient populations when biomarker-driven identification and/or highly specific criteria related to the stage of disease progression are utilized.
Current wording
The number of patients who have the cancers we are targeting may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for the product candidates we develop may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Regulatory approval may limit the market of a product candidate to target patient populations when biomarker-driven identification and/or highly specific criteria related to the stage of disease progression, or progression on or after certain therapies, are utilized.
Previous wording
Most significantly, in August 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap (with resulting prices for the initial ten drugs first effective in 2026); imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit (beginning in 2024); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. HHS has issued and will continue to issue and update guidance implementing the IRA, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. While the impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, it is likely to be significant.
Current wording
Most significantly, in August 2022, then-President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap (with resulting prices for the initial ten drugs first effective in 2026); imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit (beginning in 2024); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. HHS has issued and will continue to issue and update guidance implementing the IRA, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. While the impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, it is likely to be significant.
Previous wording
Further, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which gives deference to regulatory agencies’ statutory interpretations in litigation against federal government agencies, such as the FDA, where the law is ambiguous. This landmark Supreme Court decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA and other federal agencies to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, which could lead to uncertainty in the industry and disrupt federal agencies’ normal operations. Changes to the leadership of federal agencies like HHS, CMS and FDA under the new Trump administration can lead to new policies and regulations that can have a material impact on our industry and business operations.
Current wording
Further, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which gives deference to regulatory agencies’ statutory interpretations in litigation against federal government agencies, such as the FDA, where the law is ambiguous. This landmark Supreme Court decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA and other federal agencies to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, which could lead to uncertainty in the industry and disrupt federal agencies’ normal operations. Changes to the leadership of federal agencies like HHS, CMS and FDA under the current administration can lead to new policies and regulations that can have a material impact on our industry and business operations.
Previous wording
Any delay or failure in seeking or obtaining required approvals would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from any particular product candidates we are developing and for which we are seeking approval. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a drug may be subject to significant limitations on the approved uses or indications for which we may market, promote and advertise the drug or the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) plan as part of approving an NDA, or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug. These requirements or restrictions might include limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may significantly limit the size of the market for the drug and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.
Current wording
Any delay or failure in seeking or obtaining required approvals would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from any particular product candidates we are developing and for which we are seeking approval. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a drug may be subject to significant limitations on the approved uses or indications for which we may market, promote and advertise the drug or the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a REMS plan as part of approving an NDA, or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug. These requirements or restrictions might include limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may significantly limit the size of the market for the drug and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.
Previous wording
We have conducted and still conduct clinical trials in the United States. We may choose to conduct additional clinical trials internationally, including a Phase 1b trial for ORIC-114 in South Korea, Australia and Europe. The acceptance of study data by the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from United States clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the foreign countries outside the United States, the standards for clinical trials and approval may be different. There can be no assurance that any United States or foreign regulatory authority would accept data from trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.
Current wording
We have conducted and still conduct clinical trials in the United States. We may choose to conduct additional clinical trials internationally, including our current Phase 1b trials in Asia, Australia and Europe. The acceptance of study data by the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from United States clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the foreign countries outside the United States, the standards for clinical trials and approval may be different. There can be no assurance that any United States or foreign regulatory authority would accept data from trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.
Previous wording
The approval of a companion diagnostic as part of the therapeutic product’s labeling limits the use of the therapeutic product to only those patients who express certain biomarkers or the specific genetic alteration that the companion diagnostic was developed to detect. If the FDA, EMA or a comparable regulatory authority requires approval of a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, whether before or concurrently with approval of the product candidate, we, and/or future collaborators, may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval or continued marketing of our related product candidates. Further, in April 2020, the FDA issued new guidance on developing and labeling companion diagnostics for a specific group of oncology therapeutic products, including recommendations to support a broader labeling claim rather than individual therapeutic products. In May 2024, the FDA published a final rule that phases out its enforcement discretion for LDTs, unless exempt, and amends the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that in vitro diagnostics are medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including when the manufacturer of the diagnostic product is a laboratory. The American Clinical Laboratory Association and a private laboratory have initiated litigation against the agency to challenge the implementation of this final rule. The full impact of this final rule, this litigation, as well as any future lawsuits brought against the FDA, and future legislative and administration actions on our companion diagnostic development and strategy is unclear. This final rule and future guidance from the FDA and other regulatory authorities may impact our development of a companion diagnostic for our product candidates and result in delays in regulatory approval. We may be required to conduct additional studies to support a broader claim. Also, to the extent other approved diagnostics are able to broaden their labeling claims to include our approved drug products, we may be forced to abandon our companion diagnostic development plans or we may not be able to compete effectively upon approval, which could adversely impact our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our approved products and our business operations. Additionally, we may rely on third parties for the design, development and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our product candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. It may be necessary to resolve issues such as selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
The approval of a companion diagnostic as part of the therapeutic product’s labeling limits the use of the therapeutic product to only those patients who express certain biomarkers or the specific genetic alteration that the companion diagnostic was developed to detect. If the FDA, EMA or a comparable regulatory authority requires approval of a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, whether before or concurrently with approval of the product candidate, we, and/or future collaborators, may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval or continued marketing of our related product candidates. Further, in April 2020, the FDA issued new guidance on developing and labeling companion diagnostics for a specific group of oncology therapeutic products, including recommendations to support a broader labeling claim rather than individual therapeutic products. In May 2024, the FDA published a final rule that phases out its enforcement discretion for LDTs, unless exempt, and amends the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that in vitro diagnostics are medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including when the manufacturer of the diagnostic product is a laboratory. On March 31, 2025, U.S. District Court in Texas ruled that FDA exceeded its authority and vacated and set aside this LDT final rule in its entirety. The full impact of this litigation as well as any future lawsuits brought against the FDA, and future legislative and administration actions on our companion diagnostic development and strategy is unclear. To the extent other approved diagnostics are able to broaden their labeling claims to include our approved drug products, we may be forced to abandon our companion diagnostic development plans or we may not be able to compete effectively upon approval, which could adversely impact our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our approved products and our business operations. Additionally, we may rely on third parties for the design, development and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our product candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. It may be necessary to resolve issues such as selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics during the development and regulatory approval processes. Moreover, even if data from preclinical studies and early clinical trials appear to support development of a companion diagnostic for a product candidate, data generated in later clinical trials may fail to support the analytical and clinical validation o…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. We may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of any product candidate for which we have obtained orphan drug designation for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to ensure that we will be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care or the manufacturer of the product with orphan exclusivity is unable to maintain sufficient product quantity. In response to the court decision in Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021), in January 2023, the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register to clarify that while the agency complies with the court’s order in Catalyst, the FDA intends to continue to apply its longstanding interpretation of the regulations to matters outside of the scope of the Catalyst order – that is, the agency will continue tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, which permits other sponsors to obtain approval of a drug for new uses or indications within the same orphan designated disease or condition that have not yet been approved. It is unclear how future litigation, including the overturn of the Chevron doctrine, legislation, agency decisions, and administrative actions, including changes under the new Trump administration, will impact the scope of the orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process or entitles the product candidate to priority review.
Current wording
Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. We may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of any product candidate for which we have obtained orphan drug designation for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to ensure that we will be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care or the manufacturer of the product with orphan exclusivity is unable to maintain sufficient product quantity. In response to the court decision in Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021), in January 2023, the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register to clarify that while the agency complies with the court’s order in Catalyst, the FDA intends to continue to apply its longstanding interpretation of the regulations to matters outside of the scope of the Catalyst order – that is, the agency will continue tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, which permits other sponsors to obtain approval of a drug for new uses or indications within the same orphan designated disease or condition that have not yet been approved. It is unclear how future litigation, including the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, legislation, agency decisions, and administrative actions, including changes under the current administration, will impact the scope of the orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process or entitles the product candidate to priority review.
Previous wording
For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the ACA), was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers and continues to significantly impact the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Since its enactment, there have been legislative and judicial efforts to repeal, replace, or change some or all of the ACA. In June 2021, the United States Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. It is unclear how future litigation and healthcare measures promulgated by the new Trump administration will impact the implementation of the ACA, our business, financial condition and results of operations. Complying with any new legislation or reversing changes implemented under the ACA could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.
Current wording
For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the ACA), was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers and continues to significantly impact the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Since its enactment, there have been legislative and judicial efforts to repeal, replace, or change some or all of the ACA. In June 2021, the United States Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. It is unclear how future litigation and healthcare measures promulgated by the current administration will impact the implementation of the ACA, our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Previous wording
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In August 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single-source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Infusion Center Association, the Global Colon Cancer Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the IRA are unconstitutional. The impact of these judicial challenges as well as other judicial challenges in view of the Supreme Court’s overturn of the Chevron doctrine, future legislative, executive, and administrative actions and agency rules implemented by the government on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear. Further, uncertainties created by the IRA, including its long-term impact on drug pricing, may negatively impact investments, company valuation, royalty-based earnings, mergers, and acquisitions in the industry. The impact of these and future legislative, executive, and administrative actions and any future healthcare measures and agency rules implemented by the new Trump administration on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates if approved. Complying with any new legislation and regulatory changes could be time-intensive and expensiv…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In August 2022, Congress passed the IRA, which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single-source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the IRA are unconstitutional. Further, the current administration has issued executive orders focused on decreasing prescription drug prices, including directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy drugs directly from manufacturers who sell at a most-favored-nation price (MFN) and directing the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the United States. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which was signed into law in July 2025, includes provisions that will impact the U.S. healthcare system in various ways, including by cuts to Medicaid and introducing new participant work and eligibility requirements for Medicaid coverage, which are expected to significantly change the administration and applicability of Medicaid coverage. In November 2025, CMS announced a voluntary initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model) to introduce the option of most-favored-nation pricing to the Medicaid program, whereby a drug manufacturer may voluntarily …
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
Additionally, the collection, use, and other processing of health data relating to individuals in the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which extends the geographical scope of EU data protection law to non-EU entities under certain conditions and imposes substantial obligations upon companies and new rights for individuals. Failure to comply with the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of EU Member States may result in fines up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties and liabilities. The GDPR has increased our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we may process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms in an effort to comply with the GDPR or other laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity. This may be onerous and if our efforts to comply with GDPR or other applicable laws and regulations are not successful, it could adversely affect our business. Further, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2020 invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and imposed additional requirements for companies making use of standard contractual clauses issued by the European Commission (SCCs), including requirements to make use of updated SCCs. The UK also has issued updated standard contractual clauses that are required to be implemented. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice recently issued a final rule that takes effect in April 2025, which places limitations, and in some cases prohibitions, on certain transfers of sensitive personal data to business partners located in China or with other specified links to China and other designated countries. These and other developments with respect to cross-border data transfer may impose additional obligations with respect to cross-border data transfer and may require us to modify our policies and practices and engage in additional contractual negotiations, each of which could increase our costs and obligations and impose limitations upon our ability to efficiently transfer personal data across borders.
Current wording
Additionally, the collection, use and other processing of health data relating to individuals in the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which extends the geographical scope of EU data protection law to non-EU entities under certain conditions and imposes substantial obligations upon companies and new rights for individuals. Failure to comply with the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of EU Member States may result in fines up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties and liabilities. The GDPR has increased our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we may process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms in an effort to comply with the GDPR or other laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity. This may be onerous and if our efforts to comply with GDPR or other applicable laws and regulations are not successful, it could adversely affect our business. Further, the European Court of Justice in 2020 invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and imposed additional requirements for companies making use of standard contractual clauses issued by the European Commission (SCCs), including requirements to make use of updated SCCs. The UK also has issued updated standard contractual clauses that are required to be implemented. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued in January 2025 a final rule, effective April 8, 2025, which places limitations, and in some cases prohibitions, on certain transfers of sensitive personal data to business partners located in China or with other specified links to China and other designated countries. These and other developments with respect to cross-border data transfer may impose additional obligations with respect to cross-border data transfer and may require us to modify our policies and practices and engage in additional contractual negotiations, each of which could increase our costs and obligations and impose limitations upon our ability to efficiently transfer personal data across borders.
Previous wording
Further, the UK has implemented legislation that implements and complements the GDPR, with penalties for noncompliance of up to the greater of £17.5 million or four percent of worldwide revenues. Aspects of data protection regulation in the UK, however, including with respect to cross-border data transfers, remain unclear in the medium to longer term following the exit of the UK from the EU. We may be required to incur significant costs and expenses in an effort to comply with distinct privacy and data protection requirements in the EU and UK. More generally, we may incur liabilities, expenses, costs, and other operational losses under the GDPR and the privacy and data protection laws of applicable EU Member States and the UK in connection with any measures we take to comply with them.
Current wording
Further, the UK has implemented legislation that substantially implements and complements the GDPR, with penalties for noncompliance of up to the greater of £17.5 million or four percent of worldwide revenues. The UK enacted the UK Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA) on June 19, 2025, which made targeted amendments to the UK’s data protection regime that cause it to deviate further from the GDPR. This has introduced additional compliance complexity to the UK’s data protection regime. We may be required to incur significant costs and expenses in an effort to comply with distinct privacy and data protection requirements in the EU and UK. More generally, we may incur liabilities, expenses, costs, and other operational losses under the GDPR and the privacy and data protection laws of applicable EU Member States and the UK in connection with any measures we take to comply with them.
Previous wording
Finally, state and foreign laws may apply generally to the privacy and security of information we maintain, and may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which took effect on January 1, 2020, gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. In addition, the CCPA (a) allows enforcement by the California Attorney General or the California Privacy Protection Agency, with fines set at $2,500 per violation (i.e., per person) or $7,500 per intentional violation and (b) authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. While it exempts some data regulated by HIPAA and certain clinical trials data, the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. Additionally, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) became operative in most respects on January 1, 2023. The CPRA significantly modified the CCPA, which may require us to modify our practices and policies and may further increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Numerous other states’ legislatures are considering or have enacted similar laws that will require ongoing compliance efforts and investment, and which may increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. For example, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia have enacted legislation similar to the CCPA and CPRA that took effect in 2023; Florida, Montana, Oregon and Texas have enacted similar legislation that became effective in 2024; Tennessee, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New Jersey have enacted similar legislation that has or will become effective in 2025; and Indiana, Rhode Island and Kentucky have enacted similar legislation that will become effective in 2026. Further, other states have enacted laws that cover certain aspects of the collection, use, disclosure, and/or other processing of health information, such as Washington’s My Health, My Data Act, which, among other things, provides for a private right of action.
Current wording
Finally, state and foreign laws may apply generally to the privacy and security of information we maintain, and may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which took effect on January 1, 2020, gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. In addition, the CCPA (a) allows enforcement by the California Attorney General or the California Privacy Protection Agency, with fines set at $2,500 per violation (i.e., per person) or $7,500 per intentional violation and (b) authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. While it exempts some data regulated by HIPAA and certain clinical trials data, the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. Additionally, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) became operative in most respects on January 1, 2023. The CPRA significantly modified the CCPA, which may require us to modify our practices and policies and may further increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Numerous other states’ legislatures are considering or have enacted similar laws that will require ongoing compliance efforts and investment, and which may increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. For example, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia have enacted legislation similar to the CCPA and CPRA that took effect in 2023; Florida, Montana, Oregon and Texas have enacted similar legislation that became effective in 2024; Tennessee, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New Jersey have enacted similar legislation that became effective in 2025; and Indiana, Rhode Island and Kentucky have enacted similar legislation that has become effective in 2026. Further, other states have enacted laws that cover certain aspects of the collection, use, disclosure, and/or other processing of health information, such as Washington’s My Health, My Data Act, which, among other things, provides for a private right of action.
Previous wording
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, in recent years, including in 2018 and 2019, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Separately, in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA temporarily postponed inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities and routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. If a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, including due to travel restrictions, foreign COVID-19-related policies, staffing shortages or public health reasons, or if global health or other concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities in a timely manner, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Current wording
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, in recent years, including in 2018 and 2019, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Separately, in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA temporarily postponed inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities and routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. If a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, or if global health or other concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities in a timely manner, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Showing the first 40 of 70 pairs. Open the source sections for the rest.
Rearranged current paragraphs (3)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Complying with any new legislation or reversing changes implemented under the ACA could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team and other employees.
Rearranged previous paragraphs (2)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
As of June 1, 2023, European patent applications have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent, which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). The option of a Unitary Patent will be a significant change in European patent practice, and our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is limited precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation in the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries that are subject to its jurisdiction. The UPC may, as a single court system, invalidate or centrally revoke our future European patents that are subject to its jurisdiction, and such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates due to increased competition and, resultantly, on our financial condition, prospects and results of operations.