Oric Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Previous wording

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and have financed our operations principally through public offerings and private placements of our common stock and other derivative securities. Our net loss was $35.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026, and as of March 31, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $728.0 million. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses in order to develop and market additional potential products.

Current wording

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and have financed our operations principally through public offerings and private placements of our common stock and other derivative securities. Our net loss was $77.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2026, and as of June 30, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $769.5 million. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses in order to develop and market additional potential products.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2026, we had $419.7 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient to fund our operations into the second half of 2028. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash, cash equivalents, and investments, to be able to continue to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.

Current wording

As of June 30, 2026, we had $387.6 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient to fund our operations into the second half of 2028. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash, cash equivalents, and investments, to be able to continue to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.

Previous wording

Lack of efficacy, adverse events, undesirable side effects or other adverse results may emerge in clinical trials conducted by third parties investigating the same class of product candidates as us in different territories or indications. For example, pursuant to the Voronoi License Agreement, Voronoi retains the right to develop and commercialize the same compounds licensed to us, after a certain period, as specified in the Voronoi License Agreement, including the compound we refer to as enozertinib, in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan and, subject to certain restrictions, to collaborate with others for such development and commercialization. We do not have control over Voronoi’s clinical trials or development program, and adverse findings from Voronoi’s conduct of clinical trials could adversely affect our development of enozertinib or even the viability of enozertinib as a product candidate. We may be required to report Voronoi’s adverse events or unexpected side effects to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which could, among other things, order us to cease further development of enozertinib.

Current wording

Lack of efficacy, adverse events, undesirable side effects or other adverse results may emerge in clinical trials conducted by third parties investigating the same class of product candidates as us in the same or different territories or indications. For example, pursuant to the Voronoi License Agreement, Voronoi retains the right to develop and commercialize the same compounds licensed to us, after a certain period, as specified in the Voronoi License Agreement, including the compound we refer to as enozertinib, in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan and, subject to certain restrictions, to collaborate with others for such development and commercialization. We do not have control over Voronoi’s clinical trials or development program, and adverse findings from Voronoi’s conduct of clinical trials could adversely affect our development of enozertinib or even the viability of enozertinib as a product candidate. We may be required to report Voronoi’s adverse events or unexpected side effects to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which could, among other things, order us to cease further development of enozertinib.

Previous wording

Reports of side effects or safety concerns in other companies’ clinical trials of the same or similar class of products or of products sharing the same mechanism of action as our product candidates could delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates or negatively impact public perception and market acceptance of our product candidates.

Current wording

Reports of adverse results, including side effects or safety concerns, in other companies’ clinical trials of the same or similar class of products or of products sharing the same mechanism of action as our product candidates could delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates or negatively impact public perception and market acceptance of our product candidates.

Previous wording

In addition, the legal and regulatory framework governing AI remains evolving and uncertain, and it is unclear how existing or future laws may apply to content produced by AI systems. While various jurisdictions have proposed or enacted AI-specific legislation, such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (the EU AI Act), the final implementation, interpretation, enforcement of these laws and the impact of these laws on our business are in flux. For example, obligations under the EU AI Act, which establishes broad obligations for the development and use of AI-based technologies in the European Union (EU) based on their potential risks and level of impact, have gone into effect and will continue to be implemented in phases. Other jurisdictions have delayed enforcement deadlines to mid-2026 to allow for further amendments, while the U.S. federal government has signaled an intent to potentially preempt or challenge certain state-level AI regulations.

Current wording

In addition, the legal and regulatory framework governing AI remains evolving and uncertain, and it is unclear how existing or future laws may apply to content produced by AI systems. While various jurisdictions have proposed or enacted AI-specific legislation, such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (the EU AI Act), the final implementation, interpretation, enforcement of these laws and the impact of these laws on our business are in flux. For example, obligations under the EU AI Act, which establishes broad obligations for the development and use of AI-based technologies in the European Union (EU) based on their potential risks and level of impact, have gone into effect and will continue to be implemented in phases. Other jurisdictions have similarly amended or delayed enforcement deadlines for their AI laws, and the scope and content of those laws remain subject to revision, while the U.S. federal government has taken active steps to preempt or challenge certain state-level AI regulations, including through executive action and legislative recommendations urging Congress to establish a uniform federal framework, though the legal and legislative landscapes remain unsettled.

Previous wording

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In August 2022, Congress passed the IRA, which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single-source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the IRA are unconstitutional. Further, the current administration has issued executive orders focused on decreasing prescription drug prices, including directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy drugs directly from manufacturers who sell at a most-favored-nation price (MFN) and directing the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the United States. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which was signed into law in July 2025, includes provisions that will impact the U.S. healthcare system in various ways, including by cuts to Medicaid and introducing new participant work and eligibility requirements for Medicaid coverage, which are expected to significantly change the administration and applicability of Medicaid coverage. In November 2025, CMS announced a voluntary initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions fOr

Current wording

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In August 2022, Congress passed the IRA, which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single-source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the IRA are unconstitutional. Further, the current administration has issued executive orders focused on decreasing prescription drug prices, including directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy drugs directly from manufacturers who sell at a most-favored-nation price (MFN) and directing the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the United States. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which was signed into law in July 2025, includes provisions that will impact the U.S. healthcare system in various ways, including by cuts to Medicaid and introducing new participant work and eligibility requirements for Medicaid coverage, which are expected to significantly change the administration and applicability of Medicaid coverage. In November 2025, CMS announced a voluntary initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model) to introduce the option of most-favored-nation pricing to the Medicaid program, whereby a drug manufacturer may voluntarily …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Finally, state and foreign laws may apply generally to the privacy and security of information we maintain, and may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which took effect on January 1, 2020, gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. In addition, the CCPA (a) allows enforcement by the California Attorney General or the California Privacy Protection Agency, with fines set at $2,500 per violation (i.e., per person) or $7,500 per intentional violation and (b) authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. While it exempts some data regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and certain clinical trials data, the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. Additionally, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) became operative in most respects on January 1, 2023. The CPRA significantly modified the CCPA, which may require us to modify our practices and policies and may further increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Numerous other states’ legislatures are considering or have enacted similar laws that will require ongoing compliance efforts and investment, and which may increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. For example, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia have enacted legislation similar to the CCPA and CPRA that took effect in 2023; Florida, Montana, Oregon and Texas have enacted similar legislation that became effective in 2024; Tennessee, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New Jersey have enacted similar legislation that became effective in 2025; and Indiana, Rhode Island and Kentucky have enacted similar legislation that has become effective in 2026. Further, other states have enacted laws that cover certain aspects of the collection, use, disclosure, and/or other processing of health information, such as Washington’s My Health, My Data Act, which, among other things, provides for a private right of action.

Current wording

Finally, state and foreign laws may apply generally to the privacy and security of information we maintain, and may differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which took effect on January 1, 2020, gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. In addition, the CCPA (a) allows enforcement by the California Attorney General or the California Privacy Protection Agency, with fines set at $2,500 per violation (i.e., per person) or $7,500 per intentional violation and (b) authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. While it exempts some data regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and certain clinical trials data, the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. Additionally, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) became operative in most respects on January 1, 2023. The CPRA significantly modified the CCPA, which may require us to modify our practices and policies and may further increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Numerous other states’ legislatures are considering or have enacted similar laws that will require ongoing compliance efforts and investment, and which may increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. For example, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia have enacted legislation similar to the CCPA and CPRA that took effect in 2023; Florida, Montana, Oregon and Texas have enacted similar legislation that became effective in 2024; Tennessee, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New Jersey have enacted similar legislation that became effective in 2025; Indiana, Rhode Island and Kentucky have enacted similar legislation that have become effective in 2026; Oklahoma and Alabama have enacted similar legislation that will become effective in 2027; and Vermont has enacted similar legislation that will become effective in 2028. Further, other states have enacted laws that cover certain aspects of the collection, use, disclosure, and/or other processing of health information, such as Washington’s My Health, My Data Act, which, among other things, provides for a private right of action.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2026, we had 104 full-time employees, including 77 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

As of June 30, 2026, we had 111 full-time employees, including 83 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Previous wording

We are subject to tax laws, regulations, and policies of several taxing jurisdictions. Changes in tax laws, as well as other factors, could cause us to experience fluctuations in our tax obligations and effective tax rates and otherwise adversely affect our tax positions and/or our tax liabilities. Recently, legislation commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was signed into law in July 2025, which enacts significant changes to U.S tax and related laws, including but not limited to current deduction of domestic research expenses, increasing the limit of the deduction of interest expense to thirty percent of EBITDA and one hundred percent bonus depreciation on eligible property acquired after January 19, 2025. There were no changes to the Company’s tax expense or effective income tax rate given the Company’s valuation allowance position. Further, many countries, and organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have proposed implementing changes to existing tax laws, including a 15% global minimum tax (Pillar Two). Many EU member states and other countries have enacted or are considering enacting such legislation. The United States has withdrawn support for Pillar Two, and the OECD and participating jurisdictions have recently agreed to a side-by-side arrangement that would exempt U.S. parent groups from certain provisions of Pillar Two for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2026. Any of these developments or changes in federal, state, or international tax laws or tax rulings could adversely affect our effective tax rate and our operating results. There can be no assurance that our effective tax rates, tax payments, or tax credits and incentives will not be adversely affected by these or other developments or changes in law.

Current wording

We are subject to tax laws, regulations, and policies of several taxing jurisdictions. Changes in tax laws, as well as other factors, could cause us to experience fluctuations in our tax obligations and effective tax rates and otherwise adversely affect our tax positions and/or our tax liabilities. For example, legislation commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was signed into law in July 2025, which enacts significant changes to U.S tax and related laws, including but not limited to current deduction of domestic research expenses, increasing the limit of the deduction of interest expense to thirty percent of EBITDA and one hundred percent bonus depreciation on eligible property acquired after January 19, 2025. There were no material changes to the Company’s tax expense or effective income tax rate due to these rules given the Company’s valuation allowance position. Further, many countries, and organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have proposed implementing changes to existing tax laws, including a 15% global minimum tax (Pillar Two). Many EU member states and other countries have enacted or are considering enacting such legislation. The United States has withdrawn support for Pillar Two, and the OECD and participating jurisdictions have recently agreed to a side-by-side arrangement that would exempt U.S. parent groups from certain provisions of Pillar Two for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2026. Any of these developments or changes in federal, state, or international tax laws or tax rulings could adversely affect our effective tax rate and our operating results. There can be no assurance that our effective tax rates, tax payments, or tax credits and incentives will not be adversely affected by these or other developments or changes in law.

Previous wording

For example, the President recently signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2026, which includes Section 851 regarding “[p]rohibition on contracting with certain biotechnology providers” (the BIOSECURE Act), which restricts federal government contracts, grants, and loans from being issued to companies that use biotechnology equipment or services from any designated “biotechnology company of concern,” as part of such companies’ performance of those agreements with the U.S. government. Once fully implemented through issuance of regulations, the BIOSECURE Act may ultimately limit certain U.S. biotechnology companies (such as ours) from using equipment or services produced or provided by Chinese biotechnology companies that meet the designation criteria of the new law, or certain affiliated entities. In addition, even if we do not seek any covered federal government contracts, grants, or loans, commercial partners, government agencies, or other third parties may view our business less favorably if we contract with entities that ultimately become biotechnology companies of concern.

Current wording

For example, the President recently signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2026, which includes Section 851 regarding “[p]rohibition on contracting with certain biotechnology providers” (the BIOSECURE Act), which restricts federal government contracts, grants, and loans from being issued to companies that use biotechnology equipment or services from any designated “biotechnology company of concern,” as part of such companies’ performance of those agreements with the U.S. government. Once fully implemented through regulations to be published by approximately mid-2028, the BIOSECURE Act may ultimately limit certain U.S. biotechnology companies (such as ours) from using equipment or services produced or provided by Chinese biotechnology companies that meet the designation criteria of the new law, or certain affiliated entities. In addition, even if we do not seek any covered federal government contracts, grants, or loans, commercial partners, government agencies, or other third parties may view our business less favorably if we engage with entities that ultimately become biotechnology companies of concern. For example, we currently contract with Chinese companies for certain research and development services, which may be designated a biotechnology company of concern, and this association could affect the perception of our business among third parties.

Previous wording

As of June 1, 2023, European patent applications have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent, which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). The option of a Unitary Patent will be a significant change in European patent practice, and our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is limited precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation in the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries that are subject to its jurisdiction. The UPC may, as a single court system, invalidate or centrally revoke our future European patents that are subject to its jurisdiction, and such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates due to increased competition and, resultantly, on our financial condition, prospects and results of operations. 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, where applicable, opt our future European patents out of the UPC, and as such each of our future

Current wording

As of June 1, 2023, European patent applications have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent, which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). The option of a Unitary Patent will be a significant change in European patent practice, and our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is limited precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation in the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries that are subject to its jurisdiction. The UPC may, as a single court system, invalidate or centrally revoke our future European patents that are subject to its jurisdiction, and such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates due to increased competition and, resultantly, on our financial condition, prospects and results of operations. 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, where applicable, opt our future European patents out of the UPC, and as such each of our future European patents for which we opted out would need to be challenged in each individual country. Moreover, our future European patents could remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC if we do not meet all of the opt-out formalities and requirements under the UPC. If we decide to opt out our future European patents from the UPC, doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the UPC, such as the ability to obtain a pan-European injunction against our competitors. The UPC will also provide our competitors with a new forum to potentially obtain pan-European injunctions, and the granting of such pan-European injunctions against us could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates and, resultantly, on our financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2026, we co-own a pending international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty claiming inventions that were generated, in part, through the use of U.S. government funding. In the future, we may acquire or license other intellectual property rights that have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants. Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the U.S. government has certain rights in inventions developed with government funding. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). If the U.S. government exercised its march-in rights in our future intellectual property rights that are generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants, we could be forced to license or sublicense intellectual property developed by us or that we license on terms unfavorable to us, and there can be no assurance that we would receive compensation from the U.S. government for the exercise of such rights. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property.

Current wording

As of June 30, 2026, we co-own one pending U.S. patent application and one European patent application, claiming inventions that were generated, in part, through the use of U.S. government funding. In the future, we may acquire or license other intellectual property rights that have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants. Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the U.S. government has certain rights in inventions developed with government funding. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). If the U.S. government exercised its march-in rights in our future intellectual property rights that are generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants, we could be forced to license or sublicense intellectual property developed by us or that we license on terms unfavorable to us, and there can be no assurance that we would receive compensation from the U.S. government for the exercise of such rights. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property.

Previous wording

No officers or directors, as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) of the Exchange Act, adopted and/orterminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” or a “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” each as defined in Regulation S-K Item 408, during the last fiscal quarter.

Current wording

Except as described above, no officers or directors, as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) of the Exchange Act, adopted and/orterminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” or a “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” each as defined in Regulation S-K Item 408, during the last fiscal quarter.