Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. In evaluating us and our business, careful consideration should be given to the following risk factors, in addition to the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and in other documents that we file with the SEC. If any of the following risks and uncertainties actually occurs, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks described below are not intended to be exhaustive and are not the only risks facing us. New risk factors can emerge from time to time, and we cannot predict the impact that any factor or combination of factors may have on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. In evaluating us and our business, careful consideration should be given to the following risk factors, in addition to the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025 and in other documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). If any of the following risks and uncertainties actually occurs, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks described below are not intended to be exhaustive and are not the only risks facing us. New risk factors can emerge from time to time, and we cannot predict the impact that any factor or combination of factors may have on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology has only recently been clinically validated for human therapeutic use.

Current wording

CRISPR genome editing technology has only recently been clinically validated for human therapeutic use.

Previous wording

We are focused on developing novel therapeutics utilizing CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology, includingin vivo therapies andex vivo engineered cell therapies. Although there have been significant advances in recent years in the fields of gene therapy and genome editing, in vivo CRISPR-based genome editing technologies are relatively new and their therapeutic utility is largely unproven. Our approach to developing therapies centers on using CRISPR/Cas9 technology to alter, introduce or remove genetic informationin vivoto treat various disorders, or to engineer human cellsex vivo to create therapeutic cells that can be introduced into the human body to address the underlying disease.

Current wording

We are focused on developing novel therapeutics utilizing CRISPR genome editing technology, includingin vivo therapies andex vivo engineered cell therapies. Although there have been significant advances in recent years in the fields of gene therapy and genome editing, in vivo CRISPR-based genome editing technologies are relatively new and their therapeutic utility is largely unproven. Our approach to developing therapies centers on using CRISPR technology to alter, introduce or remove genetic informationin vivoto treat various disorders, or to engineer human cellsex vivo to create therapeutic cells that can be introduced into the human body to address the underlying disease.

Previous wording

The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics using CRISPR/Cas9 systems are unproven and may never lead to marketable products.

Current wording

The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics using CRISPR systems are unproven and may never lead to marketable products.

Previous wording

Successful development of products by us will require solving a number of issues, including developing or obtaining technologies to safely deliver a therapeutic agent into target cells within the human body or engineer human cells while outside of the body such that the modified cells can have a therapeutic effect when delivered to the patient, optimizing the efficacy and specificity of such products, and demonstrating the therapeutic selectivity, efficacy, potency, purity and safety of such products. There can be no assurance we will be successful in solving any or all of these issues. With regards to CRISPR/Cas9-based therapies specifically, we are in clinical-stage development for nex-z and NTLA-2002 and advancing towards clinical testing for our otherin vivo andex vivo product candidates. Although one CRISPR/Cas9-editedex vivo therapy has been approved in the United States (“U.S.”) and European Union (“EU”), no genome editingin vivo therapy has been approved in the U.S., EU countries or other key jurisdictions, and the potential to successfully obtain approval for any of our CRISPR/Cas9 product candidates remains uncertain.

Current wording

Successful development of products by us will require solving a number of issues, including developing or obtaining technologies to safely deliver a therapeutic agent into target cells within the human body or engineer human cells while outside of the body such that the modified cells can have a therapeutic effect when delivered to the patient, optimizing the efficacy and specificity of such products, and demonstrating the therapeutic selectivity, efficacy, potency, purity and safety of such products. There can be no assurance we will be successful in solving any or all of these issues. With regards to CRISPR-based therapies specifically, we are in clinical-stage development for nexiguran ziclumeran (“nex-z,” also referred to as NTLA-2001) (pending resolution of the clinical hold on the IND for the MAGNITUDE trial) and for lonvoguran ziclumeran, (“lonvo-z,” also known as NTLA-2002) and advancing towards clinical testing for our otherin vivo andex vivo product candidates. Although one CRISPR-editedex vivo therapy has been approved in the United States (“U.S.”) and European Union (“EU”), no genome editingin vivo therapy has been approved in the U.S., EU countries or other key jurisdictions, and the potential to successfully obtain approval for any of our CRISPR product candidates remains uncertain.

Previous wording

Our future success also is highly dependent on the successful development of CRISPR-based genome editing technologies, cellular delivery methods and therapeutic applications for the indications on which we have focused our ongoing research and development efforts. We may decide to alter or abandon these programs as new data become available and we gain experience in developing CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics. We cannot be sure that our CRISPR/Cas9 efforts and technologies will yield satisfactory products that are safe and effective, sufficiently pure or potent, manufacturable, scalable or profitable in our selected indications or any other indication we pursue. We cannot guarantee that progress or success in developing any particular CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutic product will translate to other CRISPR/Cas9-based products.

Current wording

Our future success also is highly dependent on the successful development of CRISPR-based genome editing technologies, cellular delivery methods and therapeutic applications for the indications on which we have focused our ongoing research and development efforts. We may decide to alter or abandon these programs as new data become available and we gain experience in developing CRISPR-based therapeutics. We cannot be sure that our CRISPR efforts and technologies will yield satisfactory products that are safe and effective, sufficiently pure or potent, manufacturable, scalable or profitable in our selected indications or any other indication we pursue. We cannot guarantee that progress or success in developing any particular CRISPR-based therapeutic product will translate to other CRISPR-based products.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

challenges in obtaining regulatory authorization or approval to conduct clinical trials in the U.S. from the FDA through an investigational new drug (“IND”) application or from other regulatory agencies outside the U.S., such as the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) or the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), through corresponding applications, such as a clinical trial application, a clinical trial notification or a clinical trial exemption, because these agencies have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics, which may require additional significant testing or data compared to more traditional therapies or otherwise delay the development of our product candidates;

Current wording

challenges in obtaining regulatory authorization or approval to conduct clinical trials in the U.S. from the FDA through an investigational new drug (“IND”) application or from other regulatory agencies outside the U.S., such as the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) or the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), through corresponding applications, such as a clinical trial application, a clinical trial notification or a clinical trial exemption, because these agencies have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics, which may require additional significant testing or data compared to more traditional therapies or otherwise delay the development of our product candidates;

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require us to submit additional data, such as long-term toxicology studies, or impose other requirements, including submitting preclinical data earlier in clinical development compared to existing therapeutic modalities or requiring amendments to our regulatory filings, before permitting us to initiate or rely on a clinical trial;

Current wording

the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require us to submit additional data, such as long-term toxicology studies, or impose other requirements, including submitting preclinical data earlier in clinical development compared to existing therapeutic modalities or requiring amendments to our regulatory filings, before permitting us to initiate, continue or rely on a clinical trial;

Previous wording

we may not ultimately obtain regulatory approval for a BLA, or corresponding applications outside the U.S., such as a marketing authorization application in the U.K. and other similar regulatory authorities, which may have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR/Cas9-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics.

Current wording

we may not ultimately obtain regulatory approval for a BLA, or corresponding applications outside the U.S., such as a marketing authorization application in the U.K. and other similar regulatory authorities, which may have very limited or no experience with the clinical development of CRISPR-based therapeutics, particularlyin vivo therapeutics.

Previous wording

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the relevant ethics committee or the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities, or if the Data Monitoring Committee (“DMC”) for such trial recommends such suspension or termination. Such authorities may impose or recommend such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our study protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, manufacturing or quality control issues, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product or treatment, failure to establish or achieve clinically meaningful trial endpoints, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also lead to a delay in submitting a BLA or comparable marketing application or ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Further, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data from clinical trials or may change the requirements for approval even after they have reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials.

Current wording

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the relevant ethics committee or the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities, or if the Data Monitoring Committee (“DMC”) for such trial recommends such suspension or termination. Such authorities may impose or recommend such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our study protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, manufacturing or quality control issues, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product or treatment, failure to establish or achieve clinically meaningful trial endpoints, or changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions. For example, on October 29, 2025, the FDA placed a clinical hold on the IND applications for the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials for patients with transthyretin (“ATTR”) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (“ATTR-CM”) and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis with polyneuropathy (“ATTRv-PN”), respectively. This action followed a report of Grade 4 liver transaminase elevations and increased total bilirubin in a patient who was dosed with nex-z in the MAGNITUDE trial, who has since passed away. In January 2026, the FDA removed the clinical hold on the IND application for the MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trial, but we cannot predict when we will resume the MAGNITUDE Phase 3 clinical trial for nex-z, and there is a risk that we may not be able to resume the trial. If regulatory authorities determine that the case may be indicative of concerns that apply to our other product candidates, it is possible that the FDA or other regulatory authorities may request additional information, place additional restrictions or requirements, or impose a clinical hold on our other clinical trials or development programs, or that our licensing partners may cease clinical development of their licensed assets, until we are able to resolve the clinical hold.

Previous wording

To date, most human clinical trials utilizing eitherin vivo orex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutics are still at a clinical stage, with only oneex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutic product approved in the U.S. and EU. We have ongoing clinical trials in various countries for nex-z for transthyretin (“ATTR”) amyloidosis and NTLA-2002 for hereditary angioedema (“HAE”). There is no certainty that the FDA or other similar agencies will continue to apply to all our CRISPR/Cas9 product candidates the same regulatory pathway and requirements it is applying to otherin vivo therapies orex vivo engineered therapeutics.

Current wording

To date, most human clinical trials utilizing eitherin vivo orex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutics are still at a clinical stage, with only oneex vivo CRISPR-based therapeutic product approved in the U.S. and EU. We have ongoing clinical trials in various countries for nex-z for ATTR amyloidosis (pending resolution of the clinical hold on the IND for the MAGNITUDE clinical trial) and for lonvo-z for hereditary angioedema (“HAE”). There is no certainty that the FDA or other similar agencies will continue to apply to all our CRISPR product candidates the same regulatory pathway and requirements it is applying to otherin vivo therapies orex vivo engineered therapeutics.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

We may experience manufacturing delays or other issues that prevent us from executing the clinical trials for nex-z and NTLA-2002 or our other product candidates on the timeline we expect. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that the FDA, MHRA, the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority, or other regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future or that they will approve amendments to our INDs or equivalent regulatory filings, including for nex-z and NTLA-2002, or our other product candidates, on the timeline we expect.

Current wording

We may experience manufacturing delays or other issues that prevent us from executing the clinical trials for nex-z (pending resolution of the clinical hold on the IND for the MAGNITUDE clinical trial) and for lonvo-z or our other product candidates on the timeline we expect. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that the FDA, MHRA, EMA, or other regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future or that they will approve amendments to our IND applications or equivalent regulatory filings, including for nex-z and lonvo-z, or our other product candidates, on the timeline we expect.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

From time to time, we may disclose interim data from our clinical trials, such as the interim results of our ongoing Phase 1 study of nex-z or Phase 1/2 study of NTLA-2002. Interim data from clinical trials that have not been completed are subject to the risk that the later results may be materially different as patient enrollment continues. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Consequently, interim data should be viewed with caution until we make the final data and analysis available.

Current wording

From time to time, we may disclose interim data from our clinical trials, such as the interim results of our ongoing Phase 1 study of nex-z or Phase 1/2 study of lonvo-z. Interim data from clinical trials that have not been completed are subject to the risk that the later results may be materially different as patient enrollment continues. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Consequently, interim data should be viewed with caution until we make the final data and analysis available.

Previous wording

In addition, there is a high failure rate, as well as potential substantial and unanticipated delays, for product candidates progressing through preclinical and clinical studies. Even if we are able to successfully complete our ongoing and future preclinical and clinical activities and studies for any potential product candidate, we may not be able to replicate, or may have to engage in significant efforts and resource and time investments to replicate, any positive results from these or any other studies in any of our future preclinical and clinical trials, and they do not guarantee approval of any potential product candidate by the FDA or any other necessary regulatory authorities in a timely manner or at all. For more information regarding these risks, see also the remainder of this risk factor section.

Current wording

In addition, there is a high failure rate, as well as potential substantial and unanticipated delays, for product candidates progressing through preclinical and clinical studies. Even if we are able to successfully complete our ongoing and future preclinical and clinical activities and studies for any potential product candidate, we may not be able to replicate, or may have to engage in significant efforts and resource and time investments to replicate, any positive results from these or any other studies in any of our future preclinical and clinical trials, and they do not guarantee approval of any potential product candidate by the FDA or any other necessary regulatory authorities in a timely manner or at all. For more information regarding these risks, see the remainder of this risk factor section.

Previous wording

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of CRISPR/Cas9 use, genome editing or gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

Current wording

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of CRISPR use, genome editing or gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

Previous wording

Gene therapy in general, and genome editing in particular, remain novel technologies, with only a limited number of gene therapy products, and only oneex vivo genome editing product, approved to date in the U.S. and EU. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy or genome editing, including the use of CRISPR/Cas9, is unsafe or unethical, or carries an undue risk of side effects, such as improper modification of a gene sequence in a patient’s chromosome that could lead to disease such as cancer, and gene therapy or genome editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. In addition, responses by the U.S., state or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and prospects, and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. For example, certain gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia and death. Serious adverse events, such as these, in our clinical trials, or other clinical trials involving gene therapy or genome editing products or our competitors’ products, even if not ultimately attributable to the relevant product candidates, and the resulting publicity could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidate. In addition, the use of genome editing technology by third parties in areas that are not being pursued by us, such as for targeting and editing of embryonic cells, could adversely impact public and governmental perceptions regarding the ethics and risks of CRISPR/Cas9 technology and lead to social or legal changes that could limit our ability to apply the technology to develop human therapies addressing disease. For example, reports of the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in China and Russia to edit embryosin utero have generated, and may continue to generate, negative public perception about the use of the technology in humans. Negative public and governmental perception of the technology, or additional governmental regulation of our techn…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Gene therapy in general, and genome editing in particular, remain novel technologies, with only a limited number of gene therapy products, and only oneex vivo genome editing product, approved to date in the U.S. and EU. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy or genome editing, including the use of CRISPR, is unsafe or unethical, or carries an undue risk of side effects, such as improper modification of a gene sequence in a patient’s chromosome that could lead to disease such as cancer, and gene therapy or genome editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. In addition, responses by the U.S., state or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and prospects, and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. For example, certain gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia and death, and serious adverse events also have occurred in connection with commercial use of approved gene therapies. In October 2025, the FDA placed a clinical hold on the IND applications for the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials for patients with ATTR-CM and ATTRv-PN, respectively, following a report of Grade 4 liver transaminase elevations and increased total bilirubin in a patient who was dosed with nex-z in the MAGNITUDE trial. This patient passed away on November 5, 2025. It was reported by the principal investigator that the patient died due to septic shock secondary to a perforated duodenal ulcer. The patient’s complicated clinical course also included acute liver injury and its treatment with corticosteroids. An autopsy report supported the clinical diagnoses. The FDA removed the clinical hold on the IND for the MAGNITUDE-2 clinical trial in January 2026. For more information, see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.”

Previous wording

Therapeutic applications of genome editing technologies, and CRISPR/Cas9 in particular, for bothin vivo products andex vivo products, are uncertain and must undergo rigorous clinical trials and regulatory review before receiving marketing authorization. If the results of our clinical studies or those of any other third parties, including with respect to genome editing technology or engineered cell therapies, are inconclusive or fail to show efficacy or if such clinical trials give rise to safety concerns or adverse events, we may:

Current wording

Therapeutic applications of genome editing technologies, and CRISPR in particular, for bothin vivo products andex vivo products, are uncertain and must undergo rigorous clinical trials and regulatory review before receiving marketing authorization. If the results of our clinical studies or those of any other third parties, including with respect to genome editing technology or engineered cell therapies, are inconclusive or fail to show efficacy or if such clinical trials give rise to safety concerns or adverse events, we may:

Previous wording

Additionally, our product candidates could potentially cause other adverse events that have not yet been predicted and the potentially permanent nature of genome editing effects, including CRISPR/Cas9’s effects, on genes or novel cell therapies in the organs of the human body may make these adverse events irreversible. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical studies or those of our competitors may result in deaths or other adverse medical events, including those due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining regulatory approval or market acceptance of our product candidates and impair our ability to achieve profitability.

Current wording

Additionally, our product candidates could potentially cause other adverse events that have not yet been predicted and the potentially permanent nature of genome editing effects, including CRISPR’s effects, on genes or novel cell therapies in the organs of the human body may make these adverse events irreversible. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical studies or those of our competitors may result in deaths or other adverse medical events, including those due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining regulatory approval or market acceptance of our product candidates and impair our ability to achieve profitability.

Previous wording

We are at a clinical stage of development and our technology and approach has not yet led, and may never lead, to the approval or commercialization of any of our product candidates, including nex-z for ATTR amyloidosis, NTLA-2002 for HAE, or to our other preclinical stage product candidates being deemed appropriate for clinical development and ultimately approval by a regulatory agency. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline of product candidates, completing clinical development, establishing the necessary manufacturing processes and capabilities, obtaining regulatory approvals and commercializing product candidates will require substantial additional funding and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in therapeutic product development. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development involves significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy profiles, gain regulatory approval, or become commercially viable.

Current wording

We are at a clinical stage of development and our technology and approach has not yet led, and may never lead, to the approval or commercialization of any of our product candidates, including nex-z for ATTR amyloidosis (pending resolution of the clinical hold on the IND for the MAGNITUDE clinical trial) and lonvo-z for HAE, or to our other preclinical stage product candidates being deemed appropriate for clinical development and ultimately approval by a regulatory agency. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline of product candidates, completing clinical development, establishing the necessary manufacturing processes and capabilities, obtaining regulatory approvals and commercializing product candidates will require substantial additional funding and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in therapeutic product development. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development involves significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy profiles, gain regulatory approval, or become commercially viable.

Previous wording

We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of our product candidates, including nex-z, NTLA-2002 or product candidates developed through our collaborations, through the entire research and development process. Any of our other programs may show promise yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development or commercialization for many reasons. For more information regarding these risks, see the above risk factor section entitled “Risks Related to Preclinical and Clinical Development.”

Current wording

We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of our product candidates, including nex-z (pending resolution of the clinical hold on the IND for the MAGNITUDE clinical trial), lonvo-z, or product candidates developed through our collaborations, through the entire research and development process. Any of our other programs may show promise yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development or commercialization for many reasons. For more information regarding these risks, see the above risk factor section entitled “Risks Related to Preclinical and Clinical Development.”

Previous wording

The use of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to create genome editing-based therapies is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by patients, healthcare providers, third party payors and other stakeholders. A variety of factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including, for example:

Current wording

The use of the CRISPR system to create genome editing-based therapies is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by patients, healthcare providers, third party payors and other stakeholders. A variety of factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including, for example:

Previous wording

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

Current wording

potential adverse events for any products developed, or negative interactions with regulatory agencies, by us or others in the gene therapy and genome editing fields, including as a result of the clinical hold on the IND application for the MAGNITUDE clinical trial for patients with ATTR-CM, following a report of Grade 4 liver transaminase elevations and increased total bilirubin in a patient who was dosed with nex-z in the MAGNITUDE trial. This patient passed away on November 5, 2025. It was reported by the principal investigator that the patient died due to septic shock secondary to a perforated duodenal ulcer. The patient’s complicated clinical course also included acute liver injury and its treatment with corticosteroids. An autopsy report supported the clinical diagnoses. For more information, see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.;” and

Previous wording

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete. In addition, adverse publicity due to the ethical and social controversies surrounding the therapeuticin vivouse of CRISPR/Cas9, genome edited modified cells, or other therapeutics mediums, such as viral vectors that we may use in our clinical trials may limit market acceptance of our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, third party payors or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Our efforts to educate the healthcare providers, patients and third party payors about our products may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Current wording

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete. In addition, adverse publicity due to the ethical and social controversies surrounding the therapeuticin vivouse of CRISPR, genome edited modified cells, or other therapeutics mediums, such as viral vectors that we may use in our clinical trials may limit market acceptance of our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, third party payors or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Our efforts to educate the healthcare providers, patients and third party payors about our products may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Previous wording

For example, through a license agreement between Caribou Biosciences, Inc. and us (the “Caribou License”), we sublicense the rights of the Regents of the University of California and the University of Vienna (collectively, “UC/Vienna”) to a worldwide patent portfolio that covers methods of use and compositions relating to engineered CRISPR/Cas9 systems for, among other things, cleaving or editing DNA and altering gene product expression in various organisms, including eukaryotic cells. We sublicense the UC/Vienna rights to this patent portfolio for human therapeutic, prophylactic and palliative uses, including companion diagnostics, except for anti-fungal and anti-microbial uses. Because UC/Vienna co-own this portfolio with Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier (who has separately licensed her rights to other parties), we refer to this co-owned worldwide patent portfolio as the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family.” In addition, we have granted further sublicenses to this portfolio to our collaborators in certain fields of use. The UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent portfolio to-date includes, for example, multiple granted, allowed, and/or allowable patent applications in the U.S., as well as granted patents from the European Patent Office, the United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Australia’s Intellectual Property agency and China’s Intellectual Property Office, among others.

Current wording

For example, through a license agreement between Caribou Biosciences, Inc. and us (the “Caribou License”), we sublicense the rights of the Regents of the University of California and the University of Vienna (collectively, “UC/Vienna”) to a worldwide patent portfolio that covers methods of use and compositions relating to engineered CRISPR systems for, among other things, cleaving or editing DNA and altering gene product expression in various organisms, including eukaryotic cells. We sublicense the UC/Vienna rights to this patent portfolio for human therapeutic, prophylactic and palliative uses, including companion diagnostics, except for anti-fungal and anti-microbial uses. Because UC/Vienna co-own this portfolio with Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier (who has separately licensed her rights to other parties), we refer to this co-owned worldwide patent portfolio as the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family.” In addition, we have granted further sublicenses to this portfolio to our collaborators in certain fields of use. The UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent portfolio to-date includes, for example, multiple granted, allowed, and/or allowable patent applications in the U.S., as well as granted patents from the European Patent Office, the United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Australia’s Intellectual Property agency and China’s Intellectual Property Office, among others.

Previous wording

Third parties could assert, and have in the past asserted, that our licensors do not have rights to the licensed patents and/or patent applications (such as, in the case of the Caribou License, the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family), including inventorship and ownership rights to currently issued or allowable patents. In addition, third parties could assert, and have asserted, that our licensors, or any rights owned by our licensors, such as UC/Vienna/Charpentier, are limited. If such third parties were found to have rights to patents or patent applications covering our licensed technology (such as CRISPR/Cas9 technology), they could assert that we infringe such patents and, as discussed above, we may be required to obtain rights from such parties (e.g., by obtaining a license) or cease our development and commercialization efforts. Even if such third parties are not ultimately successful in their claims, such assertions could result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Current wording

Third parties could assert, and have in the past asserted, that our licensors do not have rights to the licensed patents and/or patent applications (such as, in the case of the Caribou License, the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family), including inventorship and ownership rights to currently issued or allowable patents. In addition, third parties could assert, and have asserted, that our licensors, or any rights owned by our licensors, such as UC/Vienna/Charpentier, are limited. If such third parties were found to have rights to patents or patent applications covering our licensed technology (such as CRISPR technology), they could assert that we infringe such patents and, as discussed above, we may be required to obtain rights from such parties (e.g., by obtaining a license) or cease our development and commercialization efforts. Even if such third parties are not ultimately successful in their claims, such assertions could result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Previous wording

For example, various patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and the Broad Institute patent family have been involved in patent interferences and other patent challenges in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, in which the respective owners have alleged, and are alleging, that they invented and/or own intellectual property claiming overlapping aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 systems. Specifically, certain patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, licensed to us under the Caribou License, covering certain aspects of CRISPR/Cas9 systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells, including human cells (collectively, the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family”) have been the subject of patent interferences involving patents and patent application co-owned by the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Rockefeller University (collectively, the “Broad Institute”) that also claim CRISPR/Cas9 systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells (collectively, the “Broad Institute patent family”). For example, on June 25, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) declared an interference between the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and the Broad Institute patent family to determine which research group first invented the use of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology in eukaryotic cells and, therefore, is entitled to the U.S. patents covering that invention. The interference involved 14 allowable patent applications from the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and 13 patents and one patent application from the Broad Institute patent family. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a Decision of Priority and Judgment in the interference finding that the Broad Institute patent family has priority over the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family with respect to the subject matter of the interference. An appeal and cross-appeal from the interference are pending at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Case Nos. 22-1594 and 22-1653 (the “Interference Appeal”), and the oral argument occurred on May 7, 2024.

Current wording

For example, various patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and the Broad Institute patent family have been involved in patent interferences and other patent challenges in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, in which the respective owners have alleged, and are alleging, that they invented and/or own intellectual property claiming overlapping aspects of CRISPR systems. Specifically, certain patent applications within the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, licensed to us under the Caribou License, covering certain aspects of CRISPR systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells, including human cells (collectively, the “UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family”) have been the subject of patent interferences involving patents and patent applications co-owned by the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Rockefeller University (collectively, the “Broad Institute”) that also claim CRISPR systems to edit genes in eukaryotic cells (collectively, the “Broad Institute patent family”). On June 25, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) declared an interference between the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and the Broad Institute patent family to determine which research group first invented the use of the CRISPR technology in eukaryotic cells and, therefore, is entitled to the U.S. patents covering that invention. The interference involved 14 allowable patent applications from the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and 13 patents and one patent application from the Broad Institute patent family. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a Decision of Priority and Judgment in the interference, finding that the Broad Institute patent family has priority over the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family with respect to the subject matter of the interference. Both parties filed appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Case Nos. 22-1594 and 22-1653 (the “Interference Appeal”), and the oral argument occurred on May 7, 2024. On May 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit panel issued its decision in the Interference Appeal. The Federal Circuit (a) vacated the PTAB’s finding that the Broad Institute was the first to invent the use of CRISPR technology in eukaryotic cells, (b) returned the case to the PTAB to determine which research group was the first to invent the use of CRISPR technology in eukaryotic cells under the correct legal standard, (c) affirmed the PTAB’s finding that the first application filed by UC/Vienna/Charpentier lacked written description support, and (d) dismissed the Broad Institute’s cross-appeal. After neither party requested rehearing of the Federal Circuit panel’s decision, the mandate issued and the interference was returned to the PTAB for further proceedings.

Previous wording

In addition, on December 14, 2020, the PTAB declared an interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family, and one patent application owned by ToolGen, Inc. And, on June 21, 2021, the PTAB declared another interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and one patent application owned by Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA). Because the patent applications involved in these interferences also purport to cover the use of CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing in eukaryotic cells, the PTAB seeks to determine between the various groups which one invented first and is entitled to the resulting U.S. patents. A decision on motions issued in the ToolGen interference on September 28, 2022, and the priority phase of that interference was suspended until a mandate concludes the Interference Appeal. The Sigma-Aldrich interference is in its motions phase, and an order scheduling oral argument issued on October 24, 2022. In addition, other third parties, such as Vilnius University (whose patents we have sublicensed under our Caribou Agreement) and Harvard University, filed patent applications claiming CRISPR/Cas9-related inventions around or within a year after the first patent application filed in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and allege (or may allege) that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed by UC/Vienna/Charpentier before UC/Vienna/Charpentier. If the USPTO deems the scope of any of such third party’s claims sufficiently overlap with the allowable claims from the applicable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, the USPTO could declare other interference proceedings to determine the actual inventor of such claims.

Current wording

In addition, on December 14, 2020, the PTAB declared an interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family, and one patent application owned by ToolGen, Inc. And, on June 21, 2021, the PTAB declared another interference between the same 14 allowable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier eukaryotic patent family and one patent application owned by Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA). Because the patent applications involved in these interferences also purport to cover the use of CRISPR for gene editing in eukaryotic cells, the PTAB seeks to determine between the various groups which one invented first and is entitled to the resulting U.S. patents. A decision on motions issued in the ToolGen interference on September 28, 2022, and the priority phase of that interference was suspended. In January 2026, in response to a motion from ToolGen seeking to lift the suspension, the PTAB ordered that the stay in the ToolGen interference will be lifted following a decision on remand in the Broad Interference, and the prevailing party in the Broad interference will then proceed with the priority phase against ToolGen. The Sigma-Aldrich interference is currently stayed. In addition, other third parties, such as Vilnius University (whose patents we have sublicensed under our Caribou Agreement) and Harvard University, filed patent applications claiming CRISPR-related inventions around or within a year after the first patent application filed in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and allege (or may allege) that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed by UC/Vienna/Charpentier before UC/Vienna/Charpentier. If the USPTO deems the scope of any of such third party’s claims sufficiently overlap with the allowable claims from the applicable patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family, the USPTO could declare other interference proceedings to determine the actual inventor of such claims.

Previous wording

If either the Broad Institute, ToolGen or Sigma-Aldrich were to succeed in any of their respective interferences, or if other third parties, such as Vilnius University or Harvard University, pursue claims and succeed in such claims, the prevailing party or parties could assert its issued patents against us based on our CRISPR/Cas9-based activities, including research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates or resulting products. In addition, such claims could result in the loss of rights to certain patents and patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and, thus, we (and our sublicensees) could lose the benefits that we obtained under our Caribou License to the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family. The prevailing party may also assert similar infringement claims against our existing or potential collaborators, clinical investigators, CMOs, CROs, consultants or vendors, and we may be obligated to defend and/or indemnify those parties against such infringement claims. As discussed above, such allegations or litigation may affect our ability to market and sell CRISPR/Cas9-based human therapeutics and may result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Current wording

If either the Broad Institute, ToolGen or Sigma-Aldrich were to succeed in any of their respective interferences, or if other third parties, such as Vilnius University or Harvard University, pursue claims and succeed in such claims, the prevailing party or parties could assert its issued patents against us based on our CRISPR-based activities, including research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates or resulting products. In addition, such claims could result in the loss of rights to certain patents and patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family and, thus, we (and our sublicensees) could lose the benefits that we obtained under our Caribou License to the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family. The prevailing party may also assert similar infringement claims against our existing or potential collaborators, clinical investigators, CMOs, CROs, consultants or vendors, and we may be obligated to defend and/or indemnify those parties against such infringement claims. As discussed above, such allegations or litigation may affect our ability to market and sell CRISPR-based human therapeutics and may result in significant costs or delays to our programs.

Previous wording

Further, many third parties, including the third parties described above, have also filed patent applications and obtained patents covering aspects of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology in other key jurisdictions, including the EU members, the U.K., China and Japan. If these patents are deemed valid and cover our product candidates or related activities, we could be prevented from developing and/or commercializing all or some of our product candidates, or the resulting products, unless we license the relevant intellectual property or avoid it.

Current wording

Further, many third parties, including the third parties described above, have also filed patent applications and obtained patents covering aspects of the CRISPR technology in other key jurisdictions, including the EU members, the U.K., China and Japan. If these patents are deemed valid and cover our product candidates or related activities, we could be prevented from developing and/or commercializing all or some of our product candidates, or the resulting products, unless we license the relevant intellectual property or avoid it.

Previous wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. There is a substantial amount of litigation as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, reexamination, and other post-grant proceedings before the USPTO and oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we expect this to be true for the CRISPR/Cas9 space as well. As discussed above, a number of third parties have filed oppositions challenging the validity, and seeking the revocation, of several CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing patents granted to UC/Vienna/Charpentier by the European Patent Office (“EPO”). U.S. law also provides for other procedures to challenge patents, including inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews and, in certain circumstances, interference or derivation proceedings, that add uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our developed or licensed patents and patent applications in the future. See the above risk factor entitled“Third party claims of intellectual property infringement against us, our licensors or our collaborators may prevent or delay our product discovery, research, development and/or commercialization efforts.”

Current wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. There is a substantial amount of litigation as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, reexamination, and other post-grant proceedings before the USPTO and oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we expect this to be true for the CRISPR space as well. As discussed above, a number of third parties have filed oppositions challenging the validity, and seeking the revocation, of several CRISPR genome editing patents granted to UC/Vienna/Charpentier by the European Patent

Previous wording

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the U.S. Filing, prosecuting, maintaining and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can have a different scope and strength than do those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries, such as China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the U.S. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or adequate to prevent them from competing. In addition, in jurisdictions outside the U.S., a license may not be enforceable unless all the owners of the intellectual property agree or consent to the license. Further, patients may choose to travel to countries in which we do not have intellectual property rights or which do not enforce these rights to obtain the products or treatment from competitors in such countries.

Current wording

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can have a different scope and strength than do those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries, such as China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the U.S. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or adequate to prevent them from competing. In addition, in jurisdictions outside the U.S., a license may not be enforceable unless all the owners of the intellectual property agree or consent to the license. Further, patients may choose to travel to countries in which we do not have intellectual property rights or which do not enforce these rights to obtain the products or treatment from competitors in such countries.

Previous wording

If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or other jurisdictions, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition or derivation proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity, unpatentability and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. For example, as highlighted in the above risk factor entitled “We could be unsuccessful in obtaining or maintaining adequate patent protection for one or more of our products or product candidates, or asserting and defending our intellectual property rights that protect our products and technologies,” various third parties have filed, and may file in the future, challenges to the validity of patents we own or license (e.g., patents or patent applications in the UC/Vienna/Charpentier patent family). If we or the owners of patents we license (e.g., UC/Vienna/Charpentier) fail in defending the validity of these patents, we (and our sublicensees) may lose the benefit of patents and patent applications we own or license (e.g., patents and patent applications licensed under the Caribou License), as discussed above. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business in Europe.

Current wording

If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or other jurisdictions, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition or derivation proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity, unpatentability and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates.

Previous wording

We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. Our net loss was $519.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $2,177.4 million. We expect these losses to increase as we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations, seek regulatory approvals for our future product candidates, scale-up manufacturing capabilities, maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio and hire additional personnel to support the development of our product candidates and to enhance our operational, financial and information management systems. We expect to finance our operations through a combination of collaboration revenue, equity or debt financings or other sources, which may include collaborations with third parties.

Current wording

We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. Our net loss was $412.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $2,590.1 million. We expect these losses to increase as we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations, seek regulatory approvals for our future product candidates, scale-up manufacturing capabilities, maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio and hire additional personnel to support the development of our product candidates and to enhance our operational, financial and information management systems. We expect to finance our operations through a combination of collaboration revenue, equity or debt financings or other sources, which may include collaborations with third parties.

Previous wording

In vivo genome editing products andex vivo engineered cell therapies based on CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture.

Current wording

In vivo genome editing products andex vivo engineered cell therapies based on CRISPR genome editing technology are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture.

Previous wording

The manufacturing processes used to produce CRISPR/Cas9-basedin vivo genome editing product candidates and ex vivo engineered cell therapy product candidates are novel and complex. In addition, our manufacturing processes may require components that are difficult to obtain or manufacture at the necessary quantities and in accordance with regulatory requirements. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions; facility unavailability or contamination; raw material cost, shortages or contamination; natural disasters, such as pandemics or other outbreaks or similar public health crises; disruption in utility services; human error; insufficient personnel; inability to meet legal or regulatory requirements; or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

Current wording

The manufacturing processes used to produce CRISPR-basedin vivo genome editing product candidates and ex vivo engineered cell therapy product candidates are novel and complex. In addition, our manufacturing processes may require components that are difficult to obtain or manufacture at the necessary quantities and in accordance with regulatory requirements. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions; facility unavailability or contamination; raw material cost, shortages or contamination; natural disasters, such as pandemics or other outbreaks or similar public health crises; disruption in utility services; human error; insufficient personnel; inability to meet legal or regulatory requirements; or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials and is affected by many factors, including willingness of physicians to use an experimental therapy, the availability of existing treatments, the trial’s geographic locations and the number of patients in each geographic location. In addition, our ability to enroll and dose patients may be delayed by the relevant regulatory authority, as well as the IRB or another ethics committee (whether local or national). For example, as set forth in the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (“NIH Guidelines”), gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical trial can begin at any institution, that institution’s IRB and its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the relevant IRBs or ethics committees of the trial, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or upon a recommendation of the trial’s DMC, due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. For example, in October 2025, the FDA placed a clinical hold on the IND applications for the MAGNITUDE and MAGNITUDE-2 Phase 3 clinical trials for patients with ATTR-CM and ATTRv-PN, respectively. The clinical hold on the IND for the MAGNITUDE-2 clinical trial was removed in January 2026, but we cannot predict when we will resolve the clinical hold with the FDA on the IND for the MAGNITUDE clinical trial for nex-z, and there is a risk that we may not be able to resume this trial. For more information, see the above risk factor entitled“We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates.”If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of product candidates, the commercial prospects for such product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be impaired. In addition, any delays i…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.