Rein Therapeutics, Inc.

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 and in other documents that we file with the SEC, in evaluating our company and our business. Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition

We require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. Our cash and cash equivalents are not sufficient to enable us to sustain our operations beyond the second quarter of 2026 or complete the development and commercialization of LTI-03. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our clinical and research and development programs, future commercialization efforts or other operations.

As of December 31, 2025, we had approximately $3.2 million in cash and cash equivalents. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2025, together with the $4.3 million of proceeds received by us pursuant to the securities purchase agreements we entered into in January and February 2026, will be sufficient to enable us to fund our planned operating expense and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2026. These funds are not sufficient to enable us to sustain our operations beyond the second quarter of 2026 or complete the Phase 2 RENEW clinical trial of LTI-03. Our future viability is dependent on our ability to raise additional capital to finance our operations within the next five months. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash and cash equivalents 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. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources. There is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining sufficient funding on terms acceptable to us to fund continuing operations, or at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding on terms acceptable to us, on a timely basis or at all, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some or all of our research and development programs, product portfolio expansion or future commercialization efforts, which could adversely affect our business prospects, or we may be unable to continue operations.

•

the scope, timing, progress, costs, and results of discovery, preclinical development, and clinical trials for our current and future product candidates;

•

the number of clinical trials required for regulatory approval of our current and future product candidates;

•

the costs, timing, and outcome of regulatory review of any of our current and future product candidates;

•

the cost of manufacturing clinical and commercial supplies of our current and future product candidates;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

if our product candidates are approved, our ability to establish a commercially viable pricing structure and obtain approval for coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party and government payors;

•

•

the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products, and technologies; and

•

unfavorable global economic conditions, which may exacerbate the magnitude of the factors discussed above.

We do not have any committed external source of funds or other support for our development efforts and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until we can generate sufficient revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements. If we raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Further, to the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, your ownership interest will be diluted. In addition, any debt financing may subject us to fixed payment obligations and covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable intellectual property or other rights to our product candidates, technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. We also may be required to seek collaborators for any of our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or relinquish our rights to product candidates or technologies that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to LTI-03, LTI-01 or other product candidates.

We expect our expenses to increase as we will incur significant research and development expenses as we conduct planned clinical trials, continue our non-clinical research with our product candidates, initiate additional clinical trials of our product candidates and pursue later stages of clinical development of our product candidates. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenues from the sale of our products, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and/or licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of our then existing stockholders may be diluted, and the terms of these securities could include liquidation or other preferences and anti-dilution protections that could adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. In addition, debt financing, if available, would result in fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, creating liens, redeeming stock or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Securing financing may also require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management team and could divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to oversee the development of our product candidates.

We may seek one or more collaborators for future development of our product candidates for one or more indications. However, we may not be able to enter into such collaborations on suitable terms, on a timely basis, or at all. Even if we are able to raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technology, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, reduce and/or eliminate our product development or future commercialization efforts, or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we might otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We have a limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult to evaluate our prospects and likelihood of success.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property portfolio and performing clinical trials and research and development of our main product candidate, LTI-03. In the fourth quarter of 2025, we decided to pause development activities related to LTI-01 for an indefinite period due to our current capital limitations. Our approach to the research and development of our product candidates is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any products of commercial value. LTI-03 is currently in Phase 2 clinical development. It will require substantial additional development and clinical research time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials to regulatory approval. We are still in mid-stage clinical development and may be unable to obtain regulatory approval, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. In addition, as a business with a limited operating history, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields. Consequently, we have no meaningful history of operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing drug products.

We have incurred significant net losses since inception and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future and do not expect to achieve or maintain profitability; Our recurring losses from operations raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and have financed our operations principally through equity financings. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, we reported an operating loss of $50.6 million and $65.1 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $401.3 million. We have devoted substantially all of our resources and efforts to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and discovering development programs, securing intellectual property rights and research and development and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we generate revenue from product sales. Even if we receive marketing approval for and commercialize 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 product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

•

advance the development of our lead clinical product candidate, LTI-03, through clinical development, and, if successful, later-stage clinical trials;

•

advance our preclinical development programs into clinical development;

•

research and develop new product candidates;

•

experience delays or interruptions to clinical trials, preclinical studies, our receipt of materials and services from our third-party service providers on whom we rely, or our supply chain;

•

•

commercialize our product candidates and any future product candidates, if approved;

•

increase the amount of research and development activities to identify and develop product candidates;

•

hire additional CMC, quality control, scientific and management personnel and expand our operational, financial and management systems and personnel, including personnel to support our clinical development and manufacturing efforts and our operations as a public company;

•

•

•

invest in or in-license other technologies or product candidates.

Moreover, these factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern may materially and adversely affect the price per share of our common stock, and it may be more difficult for us to obtain financing. If existing or potential collaborators decline to do business with us or potential investors decline to participate in any future financings due to such concerns, our ability to increase our cash position may be limited. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations.

Global and macroeconomic developments can disrupt our supply chains and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to continuing risks and uncertainties in connection with legislative, regulatory, political, geopolitical and macroeconomic developments beyond our control, including inflationary pressures, trade policies, including tariffs and other trade restrictions or the threat of such actions, military actions and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and elsewhere, general economic slowdown or a recession, high interest rates, changes in monetary policy or foreign currency exchange rates and changes in, instability in financial institutions. Most of these developments and factors are outside of our control and could exist for an extended period of time. Portions of our future clinical trials may be conducted outside of the U.S. and unfavorable economic conditions resulting in the weakening of the U.S. dollar would make those clinical trials more costly to operate. Furthermore, a severe or prolonged economic downturn, including due to the impact of tariff and trade policies or conflicts in the Middle East or Ukraine could result in a variety of risks to our business, including a reduced ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy or international conflicts or trade disputes could also strain our suppliers, some of which are located outside of the U.S., possibly resulting in supply disruption. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and may identify additional material weaknesses in the future or fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, which may result in material misstatements of our financial statements or cause us to fail to meet our periodic reporting obligations.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. An ineffective system of internal control could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025 and 2024. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. We identified the following material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting: (i) lack of sufficient accounting and supervisory personnel who have the appropriate level of technical accounting experience and training, and (ii) lack of adequate procedures and controls to ensure that accurate financial statements could have been prepared and reviewed on a timely basis for annual reporting purposes. Refer to Part II, Item 9A. “Controls and Procedures” for additional information regarding the material weaknesses.

We have implemented and are continuing to implement procedures to remediate these material weaknesses, however, we cannot assure you that these or other measures will fully remediate the material weaknesses in a timely manner or prevent future material weaknesses from occurring. For additional information regarding our remediation measures for the material weaknesses, please refer to Part II, Item 9A. “Controls and Procedures” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We hold a portion of our cash and cash equivalents that we use to meet our working capital and operating expense needs in deposit accounts that could be adversely affected if the financial institutions holding such funds fail.

We hold a portion of cash and cash equivalents that we use to meet our working capital and operating expense needs in deposit accounts. The balance held in these accounts may exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, standard deposit insurance limit of $0.25 million. If a financial institution in which we hold such funds fails or is subject to significant adverse conditions in the financial or credit markets, we could be subject to a risk of loss of all or a portion of such uninsured funds or be subject to a delay in accessing all or a portion of such uninsured funds. Any such loss or lack of access to these funds could adversely impact our short term liquidity and ability to meet our operating expense obligations.

For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, and Signature Bank, were closed by state regulators and the FDIC was appointed receiver for each bank. The FDIC created successor bridge banks and all deposits of SVB and Signature Bank were transferred to the bridge banks under a systemic risk exception approved by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. If financial institutions in which we hold funds for working capital and operating expenses were to fail, we cannot provide any assurances that such governmental agencies would take action to protect our uninsured deposits in a similar manner.

We also maintain investment accounts in which we hold our investments and, if access to the funds we use for working capital and operating expenses is impaired, we may not be able to open new operating accounts or to sell investments or transfer funds from our investment accounts to new operating accounts on a timely basis sufficient to meet our operating expense obligations.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Commercialization of Product Candidates

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, LTI-03.

We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We have our lead product candidate, LTI-03, in Phase 2 clinical development. If it encounters safety or efficacy problems, development delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed. We have completed a Phase 1a safety and tolerability clinical trial of LTI-03 in healthy normal volunteers and conducted a Phase 1b dose ranging, placebo-controlled safety and tolerability trial of LTI-03 in IPF patients. We must successfully complete Phase 3 clinical trials prior to obtaining the FDA approval of LTI-03 for commercial use.

For each product candidate, we must demonstrate its safety and efficacy in humans, obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, obtain manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, and substantially invest in marketing efforts before we are able to generate any revenue from such product candidate.

Before we can generate any revenue from sales of our clinical product candidate, LTI-03, we must perform additional clinical studies and/or preclinical development, and complete regulatory review and approval in one or more jurisdictions. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates is approved, we must ensure sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and conduct and finance significant marketing efforts in connection with any commercial launch. These efforts will require substantial investment, and we may not have the financial resources to continue development of our product candidates.

We may experience setbacks that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, our product candidates, including, but not limited to:

•

negative or inconclusive results from our clinical trials or preclinical studies or the clinical trials or preclinical studies of others for product candidates similar to ours, leading to a decision or requirement to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies or to abandon a program;

•

drug-related side effects experienced by subjects in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs or therapeutics similar to our product candidates;

•

delays in submitting Investigational New Drug applications, or INDs, or comparable foreign regulatory applications or delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators to commence a clinical trial, or a suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced;

•

conditions imposed by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities regarding the scope or design of our clinical trials or our drug development strategy;

•

delays in enrolling subjects in clinical trials;

•

•

inadequate or delayed supply or quality of product candidates or other materials necessary for the conduct of our clinical trials;

•

greater than anticipated clinical trial costs;

•

inability to compete with other therapies;

•

•

failure of our third-party manufacturers, contractors or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner, or at all;

•

delays in obtaining any pre-market inspections required by the FDA or other regulatory agencies;

•

•

We do not have complete control over many of these factors, including certain aspects of clinical development and the regulatory review process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and our manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales efforts or that of any future collaborator.

Our approach to drug research and development in the area of fibrotic diseases, with a focus on Cav1-related peptides, is unproven and may not result in marketable products.

Our approach is to develop targeted treatments for fibrosis with an initial focus on Cav1 biology and utilization of its caveolin scaffolding domain, or CSD, peptide region. However, to date, this mechanism has not been definitively proven to successfully treat fibrosis in patients. Utilizing a Cav1-related peptide to treat fibrosis is a novel approach in a rapidly developing field, and there can be no assurance that we will not experience unforeseen problems or delays in developing our product candidates, that such problems or delays will not result in unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems can be solved. Therefore, we may ultimately discover that our approach and any product candidates resulting therefrom do not possess properties required for therapeutic effectiveness. As a result, we may never succeed in developing a marketable product.

In addition, while we have utilized cell assays, precision cut lung slice models, and in vivo animal models to assess both anti-fibrotic and epithelium preservation functions of Cav1-related peptides, there can be no assurance that our technology will yield its intended benefits in human patients.

The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

We currently have no products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable products. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any future collaborators may decide, or regulatory authorities may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled, adequate 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 larger registration clinical trials will be successful. This is because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials.

From time to time, we may publish or report topline, interim or preliminary data from our clinical trials. We make assumptions, estimates, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to evaluate all data fully and carefully. As a result, topline, interim or preliminary data from clinical trials that we may conduct may not be indicative of the final results of such trials and are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as subject enrollment continues and more data from the trials become available. Topline, interim or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the interim or preliminary data. As a result, topline, interim or preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

We are conducting and may in the future choose to conduct clinical trials for current or future product candidates outside of the U.S., and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We may in the future choose to conduct one or more clinical trials outside the U.S. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in current or future product candidates that we may develop being delayed for development or regulatory authorization or not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of LTI-03.

We may experience delays in initiating or completing clinical trials. We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize LTI-03, including, but not limited to:

•

•

the FDA or other comparable regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical trial design, including with respect to dosing levels administered in our planned clinical trials, which may delay or prevent us from initiating our clinical trials with our originally intended trial design;

•

we may experience delays in reaching, or we may fail to reach, agreement on acceptable terms with prospective trial sites and prospective contract research organizations, or CROs, which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

•

the number of subjects required for clinical trials of any product candidates may be larger than we anticipate or patient recruitment and enrollment may be slow or subjects may drop out of these clinical trials or fail to return for post-treatment follow-up at a higher rate than we anticipate;

•

•

•

•

•

•

Our product development costs will increase if we experience additional delays in clinical testing or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. For example, we previously announced that we expect to investigate LTI-01 in an additional Phase 2 clinical trial. However, in June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 and until additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. In the fourth quarter of 2025, we decided to pause development activities related to LTI-01 for an indefinite period due to our current capital limitations. If we do not achieve our product development goals in the time frames we announce and expect, the approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed or prevented entirely. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

Our ongoing and future clinical trials may reveal significant adverse events or unexpected drug-drug interactions not seen in our preclinical studies or earlier clinical studies and may result in a safety profile that could delay or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.

We completed a healthy normal volunteer Phase 1a clinical trial of our clinical product candidate LTI-03. During our LTI-03 Phase 1a clinical trial, subjects experienced mild Treatment Emergent Adverse Events, or TEAEs, such as dry cough, as well as moderate or even severe TEAEs, such as wheezing, chest tightness, or decline in the amount of air a person can force from their lungs in one second. While no subject experienced a Serious Adverse Event, or SAE, it is possible that subjects in future clinical studies could develop TEAEs such as the ones experienced in the Phase 1a clinical trial, and it is possible that such the number and/or severity of such TEAEs could result in a pause or cessation of the clinical trial. We have also completed Phase 1b and Phase 2a clinical trials of our clinical product candidate LTI-01 in LPE patients. In the Phase 2a trial, four subjects experienced TEAEs, including 1 mild, 2 moderate, and 1 severe TEAE. There were no SAEs reported. The product candidate was concluded to be generally well-tolerated across all doses in trial participants.

If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our ongoing or future clinical trials, whether or not related to our product candidates, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to our clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts altogether or may result in safety profile that could delay or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.

Clinical development involves a lengthy, complex and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In particular, the general approach for the FDA approval of a new drug is dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials of the relevant drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve many patients, have significant costs and can take years to complete. A product candidate can fail at any stage of testing, even after observing promising signals of activity in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition of candidate therapies from failure of these candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and previous clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as new drugs and there can be no assurance that any of our future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of LTI-03. Product candidates that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including, but not limited to:

•

clinical trials or preclinical studies may show the product candidates to be less effective than expected (e.g., a clinical trial could fail to meet its primary endpoint(s)) or to have unacceptable side effects or toxicities;

•

•

failure to receive the necessary regulatory approvals;

•

failure of contract manufacturers to comply with regulatory requirements;

•

•

In addition, differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many candidates that have performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Some of our future trials may be open label studies, where both the patient and investigator know whether a patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidates and sometimes do so at different dose levels. Open label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. In addition, open label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Therefore, it is possible that positive results observed in open label trials will not be replicated in later placebo-controlled trials.

In addition, the standards that the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities use when regulating us require judgment and can change, which makes it difficult to predict with certainty how they will be applied. Any analysis we perform of data from preclinical and clinical activities is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations. Examples of such regulations include future legislation or administrative action, or changes in the FDA policy during the period of product development and the FDA regulatory review. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. The FDA also requires a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support product candidate approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any product candidates that we develop.

If we seek to conduct clinical trials in foreign countries or pursue marketing approvals in foreign jurisdictions, we must comply with numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the ethical conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries and may include all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the U.S. and vice versa.

Studies involving human tissue samples may also be subject to institutional and government human subject privacy policies that may vary by territory. We or our partners which use human tissue samples or conduct tissue and/or animal studies on our behalf, may be found to be in violation of one or more of these regulations or policies and may be subject to closure, censure or other penalties. In some cases, these penalties could materially impact the performance, availability, or validity of studies conducted by us or on our behalf. Even in the absence of violations resulting in penalties, regulatory and other authorities may refuse to authorize the conduct or to accept the results of studies for regulatory or ethical reasons.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling and retaining patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

•

•

•

•

the proximity of patients to trial sites;

•

the design of the trial;

•

•

•

•

•

the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials or are discontinued from trials at the recommendation of the principal investigator before completion.

For example, we are developing LTI-03 for the treatment of IPF, which is an orphan indication. In the U.S., IPF is estimated to affect approximately 100,000 people. As a result, we may encounter difficulties enrolling subjects in our clinical trials of LTI-03 due, in part, to the small size of this patient population. In addition, our clinical trials could compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, it is possible that we would conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that a competitor uses, which would reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Certain of our planned clinical trials may also involve invasive procedures such as bronchoscopy and broncho-alveolar lavage procedure, which may lead some patients to drop out of trials to avoid these follow-up procedures. In addition, patients participating in our clinical trials may drop out before completion of the trial or experience adverse medical events unrelated to our products.

If approved, our product candidates that are regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still develop and receive approval of a competing biologic, so long as their biologics license application, or BLA, does not rely on the reference product, sponsor’s data or submit the application as a biosimilar application.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that are approved in the U.S. as a biological product under a BLA may qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that the FDA may not grant exclusivity, this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise undermined by a competitor, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. The approval of a biosimilar of our product candidates could have a material adverse impact on our business due to increased competition and pricing pressure.

Although we have received U.S. and EU Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-03 for IPF and U.S. and EU Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-01 for pleural empyema, we may be unable to obtain and maintain Orphan Drug Designation for our other product candidates and, even if we obtain such designation, we may not be able to realize the benefits of such designation, including potential marketing exclusivity of our product candidates, if approved.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and other major markets, may designate drugs intended to treat conditions or diseases affecting relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the U.S. where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S.

Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 specifies the requirements for designation as an orphan drug at the EU level. The medicinal product must be intended (i) for the treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating disease affecting no more than five in 10,000 individuals in the EU, or (ii) for the treatment of a correspondingly serious condition described in the Regulation, and in both cases, without additional incentives, the marketing of the medicinal product must be unlikely to generate sufficient profit to justify the necessary investment. If one of the two alternatives applies, it is assumed that there is no other satisfactory treatment method or, if such a method exists, that the new product has a significant therapeutic benefit compared to it.

Although we have received U.S. and EU Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-03 for IPF and U.S. and EU Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-01 for pleural empyema, we have not received U.S. Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-01 for LPE, which is the first indication that we are pursuing for LTI-01. Furthermore, the designation of any of our product candidates as an orphan drug does not mean that any regulatory agency will accelerate regulatory review of, or ultimately approve, that product candidate, nor does it limit the ability of any regulatory agency to grant Orphan Drug Designation to product candidates of other companies that treat the same indications as our product candidates.

Generally, if a product candidate with an Orphan Drug Designation in the U.S. receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same drug treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. Similar exclusivity rights apply under EU law if a product candidate with Orphan Drug Designation is authorized in the EU. Designation does not mean approval. Even if we obtain marketing authorization, the FDA may choose not to grant exclusivity. In the EU, market exclusivity only applies if the criteria for orphan drug designation still exist at the time when the marketing authorization is granted. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU. Under EU law, the period of exclusivity may be reduced to six years if it is established, at the end of the fifth year, that the criteria for orphan drug designation are no longer met. In the U.S., orphan drug exclusivity may be revoked if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We may face competition with respect to any product candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major biopharmaceutical companies, specialty biopharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

There are a number of large biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the commercialization or development of products for the treatment of fibrosis. Companies that we are aware of that are targeting the treatment of various fibrosis indications include large companies with significant financial resources such as, but not limited to: AbbVie Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Roche Holding AG, and Novartis AG. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. There are currently no approved therapeutics for the treatment of LPE. Roche Holding AG manufactures tissue plasminogen activator, or tPA, and recombinant deoxyribonuclease, or DNase, which are used off-label to treat LPE patients. We are not aware of any other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies developing drug therapies for the treatment of LPE.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial financial or other liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of testing LTI-03, LTI-01 and any of our other product candidates in clinical trials, and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any of our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

•

•

decreased demand for our products;

•

injury to our reputation;

•

•

initiation of investigations by regulators;

•

fines, injunctions or criminal penalties;

•

costs to defend the related litigation;

•

diversion of management’s time and our resources;

•

substantial monetary awards to trial participants;

•

•

loss of revenue;

•

•

adverse effects to our results of operations and business;

•

•

decline in our share price.

Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with collaboration partners. We will need to obtain additional insurance for clinical trials as LTI-03 and LTI-01 continue clinical development and as additional product candidates enter the clinic. However, we may be unable to obtain, or may obtain, on unfavorable terms, clinical trial insurance in amounts adequate to cover any liabilities from any of our clinical trials. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

Risks Related to Marketing Approval

We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate and we may be unable to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approval for any product candidate.

We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept for substantive review any new drug applications, or NDAs, or biologics license applications, or BLAs, that we submit for our product candidates or may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates. If the FDA does not accept or approve our NDAs or BLAs for our product candidates, it may require that we conduct additional clinical, nonclinical or manufacturing validation studies and submit that data before it reconsiders our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any NDA or BLA, or application that we submit may be delayed by several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve our NDAs or BLAs.

Even if LTI-03 receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid programs and managed care organizations, and others in the medical community. In addition, the availability of coverage by third-party payors may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures designed to reduce the cost of health care. If the product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable.

•

•

•

•

•

•

the strength of marketing and distribution support;

•

•

In addition, even if we obtain approval, the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority might add specific warnings to the product label, making promotion more difficult. In the U.S., for example, a product with a “Boxed Warning” which is a call-out warning for the possibility of a serious, life-threatening risk, carries promotional restrictions. In addition, due to the nature of the serious risk potentially associated with the drug, necessitating the Boxed Warning, public acceptance of the product may be challenging.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us, or any future collaborators, from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidate that we may develop. As a result, we cannot predict when or if, and in which territories or for which indications, we, or any future collaborators, will obtain marketing approval to commercialize LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidate that we may develop.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing, promotion and distribution of drugs are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, whose laws and regulations may differ from country to country. We, and any future collaborators, are not permitted to market our product candidates in the U.S. or in other countries until we or they receive approval of an NDA or BLA from the FDA or marketing approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities. LTI-03 is in mid-stage of development and is subject to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for LTI-03 in the U.S. or in any other jurisdiction. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain marketing approvals, including the FDA approval of an NDA or BLA.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the U.S. and abroad, is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. It may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion and may determine that our product candidates are not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions, such as the aforementioned Boxed Warning in the product label, or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Further, the FDA may determine that we must provide additional evidence and data before approving a BLA or NDA for our candidate products. For example, the FDA reviews an application to determine whether there is “substantial evidence” to support a finding of effectiveness for the proposed product for its intended use(s), the FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to generally require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional confirmatory evidence may satisfy this standard. The FDA issued draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical trial to demonstrate effectiveness. In the event that we submit a BLA or NDA on the basis of one clinical trial and confirmatory evidence, the FDA could determine that such information is not sufficient to support approval of the application and the agency could require us to conduct an additional trial in support of the BLA or NDA.

Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals could materially adversely affect our ability or that of any collaborators we may have to generate revenue from the particular product candidate, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price.

Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad. Any approval we are granted for LTI-03 or LTI-01 in the U.S. would not assure approval of our product candidates in foreign jurisdictions.

In order to market and sell our products in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our potential third-party collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside of the U.S. generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside of the U.S., it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or our potential third-party collaborators may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside of the U.S. does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in other countries. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products candidates in any market.

Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the U.S., including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the U.S.

The design or execution of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support marketing approval, and flaws in the design or execution of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. We completed a Phase 2a dose-ranging, placebo-controlled trial of LTI-01 in LPE patients. We may need to investigate higher or lower doses of LTI-01 in future clinical trials to establish efficacy and safety. Additionally, as no drug has been approved for LPE, our Phase 2a primary endpoint of treatment failure, defined as death or referral to surgery by a specific criteria checklist within seven days of commencing treatment may not be considered an appropriate endpoint for approval by the regulatory authorities. The trial results did not show statistical significance on the primary endpoint. Additionally, our highest dose of LTI-01 in this trial showed a lower effect than the other LTI-01 doses tested. Based on the results of this trial, we expect to investigate LTI-01 in a Phase 2b dose-ranging, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a lower dose to establish efficacy and safety. However, in June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 and until additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. In the fourth quarter of 2025, we decided to pause development activities related to LTI-01 for an indefinite period. Even with additional clinical trial testing with a modified primary endpoint, we may never be successful in demonstrating sufficient results to support marketing approval.

Additionally, in some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials with the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including differences in trial protocols, size and type of the patient populations, variable adherence to the dosing regimen or other protocol requirements and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any clinical trials we conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates.

Further, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and in determining when or whether marketing approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Our product candidates may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in future Phase 3 clinical trials or registrational trials. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial designs and our interpretation of data from clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comments or advice on a protocol for a pivotal Phase 3 or registrational clinical trial. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or a more restrictive label than we expect (e.g., Boxed Warning). Similarly, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates, if approved.

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic or competitor versions of any of our drugs that receive marketing approval, or such authorities do not grant our drugs appropriate periods of data or market exclusivity before approving generic or competitor versions of our drugs, the sales of our drugs could be adversely affected.

Once an NDA is approved, the drug covered thereby becomes a “reference-listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations”. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference-listed drugs through submission of ANDAs in the U.S. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical trials demonstrating safety and efficacy. Rather, the applicant generally must show that its drug has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference-listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference-listed drug, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic drugs may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference-listed drug and companies that produce generic drugs are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference-listed drug is typically lost to the generic drug.

The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic drug until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference-listed drug has expired. The FDCA, provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA and the FDA may not approve the application until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference-listed drug is either invalid, will not be infringed by the generic drug, or unenforceable, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference-listed drug. Manufacturers may seek to launch these generic drugs following the expiration of the marketing exclusivity period, even if we still have patent protection for our drug.

Competition that our drugs may face from generic or competitor versions of our drugs could materially and adversely impact our future revenue, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in those drug candidates. Our future revenues, profitability and cash flows could also be materially and adversely affected and our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in those drug candidates may be substantially limited if our drugs, if and when approved, are not afforded the appropriate periods of non-patent exclusivity.

Risks Related to Reimbursement, Healthcare Regulations and Ongoing Regulatory Compliance

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the U.S. and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with cGMP and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

Manufacturers and their facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any marketing application, and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, and quality control.

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

We may seek to obtain certain regulatory designations for our product candidates. We may not receive such designations, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek to obtain breakthrough therapy designation, fast track designation, or priority review designation for our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA fast track designation is possible for drugs intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition. In addition, if the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time an NDA is submitted to the FDA.

Such regulatory designations are within the discretion of the FDA, and the FDA may not approve any application that we submit. Even if we were to obtain breakthrough designation or fast track designation, the FDA may subsequently withdraw such designation if the FDA determines that the designation no longer meets the conditions for qualification or is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. In addition, receipt of any such designations may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA of any drug candidates so designated.

accelerated approval preapproval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

There can be no assurance that the FDA will agree with any proposed surrogate endpoints or that we will decide to pursue or submit a BLA or NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for any of our current or future product candidates. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from the FDA, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological waste or hazardous waste insurance coverage, workers compensation or property and casualty and general liability insurance policies that include coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination, and as such we would have to pay the full amount of any resultant liability out of pocket, which could significantly impair our financial condition.

Additional laws and regulations governing international operations could negatively impact or restrict our operations.

If we expand our operations outside of the U.S., we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business entity from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the biopharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to the FCPA enforcement actions. Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the U.S., or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information products classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products, technology and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the U.S., it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the U.S., which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting.

We currently rely on foreign third-party manufacturers, including those in China. The U.S. government and persons involved in the Trump administration have made statements and taken certain actions that may lead to potential changes to U.S. and international trade policies. In February 2025, the U.S. government announced a 10% tariff on imports from China. If maintained and if extended to other countries, tariffs and the potential escalation of trade disputes with China and other countries could pose a significant risk to our business and could result in higher operating expenses. The extent and duration of any tariffs and the resulting impact on general economic conditions and on our business are uncertain and depend on various factors, such as negotiations between the United States and China and/or other countries, the response of such countries, exemptions or exclusions that may be granted, availability and cost of alternative sources of supply of materials we purchase from companies in China or other countries targeted with tariffs.

Trade tensions and conflicts between the U.S. and China have been escalating in recent years and, as such, we are exposed to the possibility of product supply disruption and increased costs and expenses in the event of changes to the laws, rules, regulations and policies of the governments of the U.S. or China, or due to geopolitical unrest and unstable economic conditions. Certain Chinese biotechnology companies may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, other regulatory requirements or proposed legislation by the U.S. government, which could restrict or even prohibit our ability to work with such entities, thereby potentially disrupting their supply of material or services to us. In 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the BIOSECURE Act, and the Senate has advanced a substantially similar bill. Though such legislation was not enacted into law in 2024, Congress could re-introduce similar measures, which legislation, if passed and enacted into law, would have the potential to restrict the ability of U.S. biopharmaceutical companies like us to purchase services or products from, or otherwise collaborate with, certain Chinese biotechnology companies “of concern”, without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. It is possible some of our contractual counterparties could be impacted by such legislation.

In addition to our operations in the U.S., we may seek to conduct clinical trials in the EEA and may become subject to additional European data protection laws, regulations and guidelines. The GDPR, became effective on May 25, 2018, and deals with the collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals in the EEA. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the EEA, including to the U.S., providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent to certain processing activities from the individuals to whom the personal data relates, keeping personal data secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal data, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal data, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR provides for substantial penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to two percent of our total worldwide annual revenues, whichever is greater, for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to four percent of our total worldwide annual revenues, whichever is greater, for more serious offenses. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers, and recent court decisions and regulatory guidance have substantially increased the compliance burden and legal uncertainty associated with transferring the personal data of EEA individuals to third countries outside of the EEA whose data protection laws are not believed to be adequate by European standards (although the recent EU-US Data Privacy Framework offers a new route for data transfers from the EU to be made lawfully to the U.S.).

Further, the GDPR provides for opening clauses in certain areas, which enable the legislators of member states of the EU to implement additional requirements to the GDPR in national law, whereby national laws may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EEA.

Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic, biometric and health data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty. The UK’s decision to leave the EU (and it is important to note that the EEA does not include the UK), often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the UK and to what extent UK law will diverge from the GDPR in the future. At this point in time, the UK Government has incorporated the GDPR into UK law, known as the “UK GDPR”, but has also published proposals recently to reform UK data protection law which are going through the UK Parliament and likely to become law in 2024. In the context of international data transfers, European Commission has issued adequacy decisions which have the effect of authorizing data transfers from the EEA to the UK. The UK Government and the Information Commissioner’s Office have also published proposals recently to indicate how data transfers between the UK and the rest of the world will be regulated now that the UK has left the EU. For instance, the UK Government proposes recognizing more countries as adequate for data transfers as part of reducing barriers to data flows—this would include countries not yet authorized by the European Commission. The UK Government has also approved the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework for data transfers from the UK to the U.S.

The GDPR increases our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms and safeguards to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. We face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European data protection laws are sufficient, and personal data transfers from the EEA to the U.S. (which include accessing in the U.S. personal data from EEA individuals, even if the data actually remains stored in the EEA) may face particular scrutiny. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or biopharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European or multi-national clients or biopharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR. Such clients or biopharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Any of the forgoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations, which are collectively referred to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We also expect our non-U.S. activities to increase in time. We plan to engage third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities.

The same is true of disruptions related to public health emergencies that have occurred or that may occur in the future. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. The FDA has now indicated that it can and will conduct timely reviews of applications for medical products in line with its user fee performance goals, including conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. However, in the event of a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic or another similar public health emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. facing similar circumstances may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to future emergencies and may also experience delays in their regulatory activities.

The application of newly developed artificial intelligence and other technologies which are widely anticipated to reduce the development time to bring new products to market may materially increase the volume of applications for product approval to the FDA compared to historical application levels. If this increased application volume materializes and additional staff and resources are not allocated to the FDA, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace of application reviews and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. facing similar increases in application volume may also experience delays in their regulatory activities. Accordingly, if a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, or the volume of application to the FDA for new product candidates increases materially, 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. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets.

Further, with the change in presidential administrations in 2025, there is substantial uncertainty as to how, if at all, the new administration will seek to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates. There is also uncertainty as to how other measures being implemented by the Trump Administration across the government will our activities and those of the FDA and its operations. For example, the potential loss of the FDA personnel could lead to further disruptions and delays in FDA review of our product candidates. Similarly, efforts by the new administration to substantially reduce research funding by the National Institutes of Health of medical research could have substantial direct or indirect impacts on our research activities.

We rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our clinical trials and preclinical studies. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any potential product candidates.

We depend upon third parties to conduct certain aspects of our clinical trials and preclinical studies, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic collaborators and others. We expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third parties, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

We will rely especially heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and, as a result, will have limited control over the clinical investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP or other requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional clinical trials or preclinical studies before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements.

Any third parties conducting aspects of our clinical trials or preclinical studies will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical programs and preclinical studies. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons or if due to federal or state orders they are unable to meet their contractual and regulatory obligations, our development timelines, including clinical development timelines, may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third parties or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs might require prior regulatory approvals or notifications and involves additional cost. Furthermore, it requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

Because we rely on third-party manufacturing and supply vendors, our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development materials may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality.

We rely on third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates for clinical trials and preclinical studies. We do not own manufacturing facilities for producing any clinical trial product supplies. There can be no assurance that our preclinical and clinical development product supplies will not be limited, interrupted, or of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices.

The manufacturing process for a product candidate is subject to the FDA and foreign regulatory authority review. Suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards, such as cGMPs. In the event that any of our manufacturers fail to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third-party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all, or on a delayed basis. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third-party and a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or may require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third-party manufacture our product candidates. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget. In addition, the new manufacturer must comply with the aforementioned quality-related regulatory requirements.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers if we receive regulatory approval for LTI-03. To the extent that we have existing, or enter into future, manufacturing arrangements with third parties, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance. If we are unable to obtain or maintain third-party manufacturing for product candidates, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our product candidates successfully. Our or a third-party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements and comply with cGMP or other requirements could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including, but not limited to:

•

•

imposition of a clinical hold;

•

initiation of an Import Alert or Automatic Detection;

•

•

•

•

requirements to cease distribution or to recall batches of our product candidates;

•

increase manufacturing costs for delays and/or finding replacement manufacturers; and

•

In addition, we contract with fill and finishing providers with the appropriate expertise, facilities and scale to meet our needs. Failure to maintain cGMP and other regulatory compliance can result in a contractor receiving sanctions by the FDA or another foreign regulatory agency, which can impact our ability to operate or lead to delays in any clinical development programs. We believe that our current fill and finish contractors are operating in accordance with cGMP and other regulatory requirements, but we can give no assurance that the FDA or other regulatory agencies will not conclude that a lack of compliance exists. In addition, any delay in contracting for fill and finish services, or failure of the contract manufacturer to perform the services as needed, may delay any clinical trials, registration and launches, which could negatively affect our business.

We depend on sole-source third-party suppliers for materials that are necessary for the conduct of preclinical studies and manufacture of our product candidates for clinical trials, and the loss of these third-party suppliers and manufacturers or their inability to supply us with sufficient quantities of adequate materials, or to do so at acceptable quality levels and on a timely basis, could harm our business.

Manufacturing our product candidates requires many specialty materials and equipment, some of which are manufactured or supplied by small companies with limited resources and experience to support commercial biologics production. We currently depend on a limited number of vendors for certain materials and equipment used in the manufacture of our product candidates. If this sole supplier is unable to supply to us in the quantities we require, or at all, or otherwise defaults on its supply obligations to us, we may not be able to obtain alternative supplies from other suppliers on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. We also do not have long-term supply agreements with any of our suppliers. Our current contracts with certain suppliers may be canceled or not extended by such suppliers and, therefore, do not afford us with protection against a reduction or interruption in supplies. Moreover, in the event that any of these suppliers breach their contracts with us, our legal remedies associated with such a breach may be insufficient to compensate us for any damages we may suffer.

In addition, we developed the cell line and manufacturing process for drug substance manufacture in collaboration with our sole manufacturer. The loss of this contract development and manufacturing company, or

CDMO, or its failure to supply us with material to support our clinical development program on a timely basis could impair our ability to develop our product candidates or otherwise delay the development process, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Some of our CDMO’s raw material suppliers may not have the capacity to support clinical trials and commercial products manufactured under cGMP or other regulatory requirements by biopharmaceutical firms or may otherwise be ill-equipped to support our needs. We also do not have supply contracts with many of these suppliers directly, and we or our CDMOs may not be able to obtain supply contracts with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we or our CDMOs may experience delays in receiving key raw materials and equipment to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

For some of these specialty materials, we and our CDMOs rely on and may in the future rely on sole-source vendors or a limited number of vendors. The supply of specialty materials and equipment that are necessary to produce our product candidates could be reduced or interrupted at any time. In such case, identifying and engaging an alternative supplier or manufacturer could result in delay, and we may not be able to find other acceptable suppliers or manufacturers on acceptable terms, or at all. Switching suppliers or manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. If we change suppliers or manufacturers for clinical or commercial production, applicable regulatory agencies may inspect the new vendor or require us to conduct additional studies or trials. If key suppliers or manufacturers are lost, or if the supply of the materials is diminished or discontinued, we may not be able to develop, manufacture and market our product candidates in a timely and competitive manner, or at all. An inability to continue to source product from any of these suppliers, which could be due to a number of issues, including regulatory actions or requirements affecting the supplier, adverse financial or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected demands or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for our product candidates, which could adversely and materially affect our product sales and operating results or our ability to conduct preclinical and clinical trials, either of which could significantly harm our business.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue, obtain, or maintain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors or licensees.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the U.S. or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our technology, including our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

We cannot be certain that we are the first to invent the inventions covered by pending patent applications and, if we are not, we may be subject to priority disputes. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. Similarly, for U.S. applications in which at least one claim is not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, derivation proceedings can be instituted to determine whether the subject matter of a patent claim was derived from a prior inventor’s disclosure.

Recent or future patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. Under the enacted Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or America Invents Act, enacted in 2013, the U.S. moved from a “first to invent” to a “first-to-file” system. Under a “first-to-file” system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The America Invents Act includes a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and establish a new post-grant review system. The effects of these changes are currently unclear as the USPTO only recently developed new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act and many of the substantive changes to patent law, including the “first-to-file” provisions, only became effective in March 2013. In addition, the courts have yet to address many of these provisions and the applicability of the act and new regulations on specific patents discussed herein have not been determined and would need to be reviewed. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our business. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

•

•

we or our licensors, as the case may be, may fail to meet our obligations to the U.S. government in regard to any in-licensed patents and patent applications funded by U.S. government grants, leading to the loss of patent rights;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

We are currently party to license or other collaboration agreements that impose certain obligations on us, and we may enter into additional license or collaboration agreements in the future. If we fail to comply with our obligations under such present or future agreements with third parties, we could lose license rights that may be important to our business.

In connection with our efforts to expand our pipeline of product candidates, we may enter into certain licenses or other collaboration agreements in the future pertaining to the in-license of rights to additional candidates. Such agreements may impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance or other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensor or collaboration partners may have the right to terminate the relevant agreement, in which event we would not be able to develop or market the products covered by such licensed intellectual property. Our existing licensing agreements with UTHSCT, the University of Texas at Austin, the Medical University of South Carolina, and Vivarta Therapeutics, LLC contain diligence obligations to maintain each license agreement.

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including, but not limited to:

•

•

•

•

•

•

the priority of invention of patented technology.

In addition, we may have limited control over the maintenance and prosecution of these in-licensed patents and patent applications, or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, our limited control over the prosecution of these in-licensed patents and patent applications, or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property may allow the licensors to pursue additional patent applications with limited input from us. Result in the licensor to pursue filing and prosecuting patent applications or obtaining patents without our knowledge or agreement. Such conduct by the licensor could have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot also be certain that such activities by any future licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

Reliance on third parties requires us to share our proprietary information, which increases the possibility that such information will be misappropriated or disclosed.

If we collaborate with third parties for the development or commercialization of our current or future product candidates, we must, at times, share proprietary information with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our employees, collaborators, advisors, third-party contractors, and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share confidential information increases the risk that such information becomes known by our competitors, is inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or is disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how, a competitor’s discovery of our know-how or other unauthorized use or disclosure could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our employees, collaborators, advisors, third-party contractors, and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our know-how. Despite our efforts to protect our know-how, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know-how by the parties to these agreements. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our confidential information or proprietary technology and processes. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. If any of the collaborators, scientific advisors, employees, contractors, and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation. Moreover, if confidential information that is licensed or disclosed to us by our partners, collaborators, or others is inadvertently disclosed or subject to a breach or violation, we may be exposed to liability to the owner of that confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our proprietary information, like patent litigation, is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect proprietary information.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our current or future licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming.

In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question or for other reasons. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business.

We may choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third-party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-parte re-examination, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources. We may choose to challenge a third-party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office, or EPO, or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third-party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates or proprietary technologies.

In addition, because some patent applications in the U.S. may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in the U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our owned and in-licensed issued patents or our pending applications, or that we or, if applicable, a licensor were the first to invent the technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our owned and in-licensed patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to those owned by or in-licensed to us, we or, in the case of in-licensed technology, the licensor may have to participate in an interference or derivation proceeding declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the U.S. If we or one of our licensors is a party to an interference or derivation proceeding involving a U.S. patent application on inventions owned by or in-licensed to us, we may incur substantial costs, divert management’s time, and expend other resources, even if we are successful.

misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the U.S.

In addition to patent protection, we rely heavily upon know-how and trade secret protection, as well as non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and third parties, to protect our confidential and proprietary information, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third-party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. Because we expect to rely on third parties in the development and manufacture of our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our product candidates and/or proprietary technologies infringe their intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates, and further applications in the fields could continue to be filed. For example, even if we were the first to file a patent application related to our technology, we cannot be certain that a third-party is or will be filing and prosecuting patent applications related to our technology or related to our field, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

As the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. There can be no assurance that our business does not, or will not in the future, infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate existing or future third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. Identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our business is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases, and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims, or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

Numerous U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications exist in our market that are owned by third parties. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use, and sell our product candidates. We do not always conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications and patents issued to third parties. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are typically published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Certain U.S. applications that will not be filed outside the U.S. can remain confidential until patents issue. In addition, patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere can be pending for many years before issuance, or unintentionally abandoned patents or applications can be revived. Furthermore, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, product candidates, or the use of our product candidates. As such, there may be applications of others now pending or recently revived patents of which we are unaware. These patent applications may later result in issued patents, or the revival of previously abandoned patents, that may be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of our technologies or product candidates or will prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use, or sell our technologies and product candidates.

We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents and other intellectual property rights do not exist which might be enforced against our product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture, and formulations thereof, and could result in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant.

•

•

•

•

if a license is available from a third-party, we may have to pay substantial royalties, upfront fees and other amounts, and/or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our products and any license that is available may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property; and

•

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our technology 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 where enforcement is not as strong as in the U.S. These products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our proprietary rights generally. The initiation of proceedings by us to enforce our patent rights or by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Such proceedings could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we become party to and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process and following the issuance of a patent. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of

Our collaborators may assert ownership or commercial rights to inventions they develop from research we support or that we develop from our use of samples or other materials, which they provide to us, or otherwise arising from the collaboration.

We collaborate with several institutions, universities, medical centers, physicians and researchers in scientific matters and expect to continue to enter into additional collaboration agreements. In certain cases, we do not have written agreements with these collaborators, or the written agreements we have do not cover intellectual property rights. If we cannot successfully negotiate sufficient ownership and commercial rights to any inventions that result from our use of a third-party collaborator’s materials, or if disputes arise with respect to the intellectual property developed with the use of a collaborator’s samples, or data developed in a collaborator’s study, we may be limited in our ability to capitalize on the market potential of these inventions or developments.

In addition, we may in the future be subject to claims by former employees, collaborators, or other third parties asserting an ownership right in our patents or patent applications. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar technology and therapeutics, without payment to us, or could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technologies and product candidates. Such challenges may also result in our inability to develop, manufacture, or commercialize our technologies and product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop, or commercialize current or future technologies and product candidates. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our or our licensors’ ownership of our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization, infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights. We may need to license intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions of matter, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment that encompass the composition, use or manufacture of our product candidates. There may be currently pending patent applications of which we are currently unaware which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or their use or manufacture may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover our product candidates, intermediates used in the manufacture of our product candidates or our materials generally, aspects of our formulations or methods of use, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Any current or future patents, if issued, covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or the USPTO.

If we or one of our licensors 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, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/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 abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, 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 and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 16, 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. On March 16, 2013, under America Invents Act, the U.S. transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO on or after March 16, 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biopharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future. For example, recent decisions raise questions regarding the award of patent term adjustment, or PTA, for patents where related patents have issued without PTA. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty how PTA will or will not be viewed in future and whether patent expiration dates may be impacted.

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system took effect on June 1, 2023, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, all European patents, including those issued prior to June 1, 2023, now by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of a new European Unified Patent Court, or the UPC, for litigation involving such patents. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC. During the first seven years of the UPC’s existence, the UPC legislation allows a patent owner to opt its European patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC. We may decide to opt out our future European patents from the UPC, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the UPC. Moreover, if we do not meet all of the formalities and requirements for opt-out under the UPC, our future European patents could remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC will provide our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke our European patents, and allow for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunction. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. We cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the United States Congress, or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. Any similar adverse change in the patent laws of other jurisdictions could also adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the U.S. Filing, prosecuting 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 be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries 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 where enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions such as patent term adjustments and/or extensions, may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

The U.S. patent licensed from the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System directed to methods of using intrapleural single chain urokinase plasminogen activator, or scuPA, polypeptide for decreasing the severity of pleural scarring, expired in 2024 without patent term extension. We cannot assure that, we will not face competition from competitive products, now that the patent has expired. We plan to rely on the 12 years of data exclusivity provided under the BPCIA, as well as the complexity of the manufacturing process of LTI-01. There can be no assurance that BPCIA product protection will be available if LTI-01 is approved, or the Company will be able to maintain the confidentiality of its trade secrets and know-how in its manufacturing process.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984 Hatch-Waxman Amendments, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data, obtain approval of competing products, and launch their products earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Any name we propose to use with our product candidates in the U.S. must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, it may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark.

We may not be able to protect our rights to our trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our vendors or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Although we attempt to secure our systems and have a process to identify and mitigate threats, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future vendors and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, ransomware attacks and other malicious behavior, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident, attack or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information, inability to access critical systems and applications, or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption, attack or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur costs of notification to individuals, regulators and other third parties, remediation costs, liability to our customers or third parties and/or regulatory fines and penalties, our competitive position could be harmed, and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

We could be subject to risks caused by misappropriation, misuse, leakage, falsification or intentional or accidental release or loss of information maintained in the information systems and networks of our company and our vendors, including personal information of our employees and study subjects, and company and vendor confidential data. In addition, outside parties may attempt to penetrate our systems or those of our vendors or fraudulently induce our personnel or the personnel of our vendors to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to our data and/or systems. We may experience threats to our data and systems, including malicious codes and viruses, phishing, ransomware and other cyberattack. The number and complexity of these threats continue to increase over time. If a material breach of, or accidental or intentional loss of data from, our information technology systems or those of our vendors occurs, the market perception of the effectiveness of our security measures could be harmed and our reputation and credibility could be damaged. We could be required to expend significant amounts of money and other resources to respond to an incident and repair or replace information systems or networks. In addition, we could be subject to regulatory actions and/or claims made by individuals and groups in private litigation involving privacy issues related to data collection and use practices and other data privacy laws and regulations, including claims for misuse or inappropriate disclosure of data, failure to use reasonable measures to safeguard data, violation of state laws protecting the confidentiality, privacy and integrity of personal information and health-related information, as well as unfair or deceptive practices. Although we develop and maintain systems and controls designed to prevent these events from occurring, and we have a process to identify and mitigate threats, the development and maintenance of these systems, controls and processes is costly and requires ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies change and efforts to overcome security measures become increasingly sophisticated. Moreover, despite our efforts, the possibility of these events occurring cannot be eliminated entirely. As we outsource more of our information systems to vendors, engage in more electronic transactions with payors and patients, and rely more on cloud-based information systems, the related security risks will increase, and we will need to expend additional resources to protect our own technology and information systems and manage potential security risks associated with our vendors. In addition, there can be no assurance that our internal information technology systems or those of our third-party vendors, or our and our vendors’ efforts to implement adequate security and control measures, will be sufficient to protect us against breakdowns, service disruption, data deterioration or loss in the event of a system malfunction, or prevent data from being stolen or corrupted or the company being subject to attempted extortion in the event of a cyberattack or ransomware attack, security breach, industrial espionage attacks or insider threat attacks which could result in financial, legal, business or reputational harm.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

If we fail to maintain compliance with the requirements for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock could be delisted from trading, which would adversely affect the liquidity of our common stock.

Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market. We are required to meet specified requirements to maintain our listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market, including a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share for our common stock and standards relative to minimum stockholders’ equity, minimum market value of publicly held shares and various additional requirements. In the past we have, from time to time, received written notification from the Nasdaq Stock Market informing us that we were not in compliance with certain continued listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market. There can be no assurance that we will continue to maintain compliance with the requirements for listing our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Any potential delisting of our common stock from the Nasdaq Capital Market would likely result in decreased liquidity and increased volatility for our common stock and would adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital or to enter into strategic transactions. Any potential delisting of our common stock from the Nasdaq Capital Market would also make it more difficult for our stockholders to sell our common stock in the public market.

Our shares of common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Global Market on June 29, 2017, and transferred to The Nasdaq Capital Market, effective December 30, 2019. Given the limited trading history of our common stock, there is a risk that an active trading market for our shares may not be sustained, which could put downward pressure on the market price of our common stock and thereby affect the ability of stockholders to sell their shares. An inactive trading market for our common stock may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund our operations by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or technologies by using our shares as consideration.

The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. If few analysts commence, or if analysts discontinue, coverage of us, the trading price of our stock would likely decrease. If one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our stock, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

The trading price of our common stock is highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. These factors include:

•

the timing and results of clinical trials of LTI-03;

•

our ability to raise additional capital as and when needed;

•

any delay in identifying and advancing a clinical candidate for our other development programs;

•

any delay in our regulatory filings for LTI-03 and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to the applicable regulatory authority’s review of such filings, including without limitation the FDA’s issuance of a “refusal to file” letter or a request for additional information;

•

•

•

adverse regulatory decisions, including failure to receive regulatory approval of LTI-03;

•

changes in laws or regulations applicable to LTI-03, including but not limited to clinical trial requirements for approvals;

•

adverse developments concerning our manufacturers;

•

•

our inability to establish collaborations, if needed;

•

•

•

unanticipated serious safety concerns related to the use of LTI-03;

•

•

•

our ability to effectively manage our growth;

•

actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly operating results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;

•

our cash position;

•

our failure to meet, or actual or anticipated changes in, the estimates and projections as to financial results, development timelines or recommendations of the investment community or that we may otherwise provide to the public;

•

•

•

•

•

overall performance of the equity markets;

•

•

trading volume of our common stock;

•

changes in accounting practices;

•

ineffectiveness of our internal controls;

•

•

significant lawsuits, including patent or stockholder litigation;

•

general political and economic conditions;

•

•

•

In addition, the stock market in general, and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

Our stock price has been and will likely continue to be volatile. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and our resources, which could harm our business.

Changes in tax law may adversely affect our business or financial condition. The TCJA, as amended by the CARES Act, significantly reformed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The TCJA, among other things, contained significant changes to corporate taxation, including a reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21% and, the limitation of the deduction for net operating losses to 80% of current year taxable income for net operating losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 (though any such net operating losses may be carried forward indefinitely). In addition, beginning in 2022, the TCJA eliminated the option to deduct research and development expenditures currently and requires corporations to capitalize and amortize them over five years or fifteen years (for expenditures attributable to foreign research).

In addition to the CARES Act, as part of Congress’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, economic relief legislation was enacted in 2020 and 2021 containing tax provisions. The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, was also signed into law in August 2022. The IRA introduced new tax provisions, including a 1% excise tax imposed on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded corporations. The 1% excise tax generally applies to any acquisition by the publicly traded corporation (or certain of its affiliates) of stock of the publicly traded corporation in exchange for money or other property (other than stock of the corporation itself), subject to a de minimis exception. Thus, the excise tax could apply to certain transactions that are not traditional stock repurchases.

On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) was enacted. The OBBBA amends U.S. tax law including provisions related to domestic research and development expenses and bonus depreciation, among others. The provision related to domestic research and development expenses allows for immediate expensing of domestic research and development costs along with accelerated deductions on previously capitalized domestic research and development costs. The Company has included impacts for the provisions in effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024 in its consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025 and notes there was not a material impact.

Regulatory guidance under the OBBBA, TCJA, the IRA, and such additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the OBBBA, TCJA, the IRA, and additional tax legislation.

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the market at any time, which could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. As of March 24, 2026, we had 28,039,032 shares of common stock outstanding and 12,232 shares of our Series X non-voting convertible preferred stock, or Series X Preferred Stock, outstanding, which were convertible into 12,232,000 shares of common stock, subject to beneficial ownership limitations.

In connection with our October 2023 private placement, we filed a resale registration statement with the SEC covering the resale of the shares purchased by the purchasers in the private placement and shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants issued in the private placement. The shares subject to the resale registration statement no longer constitute restricted securities and may be sold freely in the public markets, subject to lapse on any related contractual restrictions related thereto of any purchaser and subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

We have also registered all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans, including upon exercise of outstanding options. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

Assuming the conversion of all outstanding Series X Preferred Stock and the exercise of outstanding warrants, there is a concentration of ownership of our outstanding common stock by one group of affiliated stockholders. If this group chooses to act together, it could exert substantial influence over our business, and the interests of this group may conflict with those of other stockholders.

As of March 24, 2026, entities and individuals affiliated with Bios Partners, or collectively, the Bios Entities, beneficially owned 7.11% of our outstanding common stock. This ownership percentage does not, due to certain restrictions on conversion and exercisability, take into account the issuance of all shares of our common stock upon conversion of the Series X Preferred Stock or upon exercise of the warrants issued to the Bios Entities in our October 2023 private placement.

The Certificate of Designation for the Series X Preferred Stock provides that any holder of Series X Preferred Stock will not have a right to convert, subject to certain exceptions, the Series X Preferred Stock for our common stock if, as a result of such conversion, the holder, together with its affiliates and other attribution parties, would hold 19.99% of the total number of shares of our common stock then outstanding, subject to decrease upon written notice by the holder. Similarly, under the terms of the warrants a holder shall not have the right to exercise any portion of any warrant, to the extent that after giving effect to such exercise, the holder (together with its affiliates and any other persons acting as a group together with the holder or any of its affiliates), would beneficially own in excess of a percentage elected by the holder up to 19.99% of the number of shares of our common stock outstanding immediately after giving effect to such exercise, as such percentage ownership is determined in accordance with the terms of the warrants. Assuming the conversion of all outstanding Series X Preferred Stock and the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options and any other rights to acquire our common stock, and without giving effect to the foregoing beneficial ownership limitations on Series X Preferred Stock and the warrants, the Bios Entities would, as of March 24, 2026, own 38.4% of our common stock on a fully diluted basis.

If any of the Bios Entities acted together, they could be able to exert substantial influence over our business. Additionally, the interests of the Bios Entities may be different from or conflict with the interests of our other stockholders. This concentration of voting power with the Bios Entities could delay, defer, or prevent a change of control, entrench our management and the Board of Directors, or delay or prevent a merger, consolidation, takeover, or other business combination involving us on terms that other stockholders may desire. In addition, conflicts of interest could arise in the future between us, on the one hand, and the Bios Entities on the other hand, concerning potential competitive business activities, business opportunities, the issuance of additional securities and other matters.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for shares of common stock. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

•

•

•

•

•

•

limit who may call stockholder meetings;

•

•

Our certificate of incorporation designates the state courts in the State of Delaware or, if no state court located within the State of Delaware has jurisdiction, the federal court for the District of Delaware, as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could discourage lawsuits against the company and our directors, officers and employees.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or employees to our company or our stockholders, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware or our certificate of incorporation or bylaws, or any action asserting a claim against us governed by the internal affairs doctrine. We do not expect this choice of forum provision will apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act, the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any other claim for which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. This exclusive forum provision may limit the ability of our stockholders to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholders find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees.