Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

The FDA has investigated serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101, and implemented boxed warnings and class labeling changes for certain currently marketed CAR T cell immunotherapies. In addition, the FDA noted that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes and noting that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Current wording

The FDA has investigated a serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapies, such as KYV-101, and implemented boxed warnings and class labeling changes for certain currently marketed CAR T cell immunotherapies. In addition, the FDA noted that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes described above. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Previous wording

We are a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We were formed in 2018 and we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights, and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates, including miv-cel. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success and viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing program candidates. Investment in biotechnology product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and we have incurred net losses since our inception through March 31, 2026. For the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, we reported a net loss of $39.7 million and $44.6 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $464.6 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development, and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Current wording

We are a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We were formed in 2018 and we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights, and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates, including miv-cel. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success and viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing product candidates. Investment in biotechnology product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and we have incurred net losses since our inception through June 30, 2026. For the six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025, we reported a net loss of $78.0 million and $86.7 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $502.9 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development, and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Previous wording

Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We also may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ (deficit) equity and working capital.

Current wording

Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We also may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Previous wording

We will incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations.

Current wording

Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations beyond our current expected operating cash runway.

Previous wording

Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, if ever, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources, which may dilute our stockholders or restrict our operating activities. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed or on acceptable terms would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our research-stage programs, clinical trials or future commercialization efforts.

Current wording

Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, if ever, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources, which may dilute our stockholders or restrict our operating activities. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed or on acceptable terms would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our research-stage programs, clinical trials or commercialization efforts.

Previous wording

Even if our product candidates are successful in clinical trials, we will not be permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates until we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive sufficient regulatory approval that will allow us to successfully commercialize any product candidates. If we do not receive FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval with the necessary conditions to allow commercialization, we will not be able to generate revenue from those product candidates in the United States or elsewhere in the foreseeable future, or at all. Any significant delays in obtaining approval for and commercializing our product candidates could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Even if our product candidates are successful in clinical trials, we will not be permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates until we receive regulatory approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive sufficient regulatory approval that will allow us to successfully commercialize any product candidates. If we do not receive FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval with the necessary conditions to allow commercialization, we will not be able to generate revenue from those product candidates in the United States or elsewhere in the foreseeable future, or at all. Any significant delays in obtaining approval for and commercializing our product candidates could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

Covenants and other provisions in the Loan and Security Agreement with Oxford Finance may restrict our business and operations, and if we do not effectively manage our covenants, our financial conditions and results of operations could be adversely affected. In addition, our operations may not provide sufficient cash to meet the repayment obligations of our debt incurred under the Loan and Security Agreement.

Current wording

Covenants and other provisions in the Loan and Security Agreement with Oxford Finance may restrict our business and operations, and if we do not effectively manage our covenants, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. In addition, our operations may not provide sufficient cash to meet the repayment obligations of our debt incurred under the Loan and Security Agreement.

Previous wording

Pursuant to the Loan and Security Agreement, dated October 31, 2025, or the Loan and Security Agreement, we granted to Oxford Finance LLC, or Oxford Finance, a security interest in substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property. If an event of default occurs under the Loan and Security Agreement, Oxford Finance may foreclose on its security interest and liquidate some or all of these assets, which would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Pursuant to the Loan and Security Agreement, dated October 31, 2025, as amended effective June 30, 2026, or the Loan and Security Agreement, we granted to Oxford Finance LLC, or Oxford Finance, a security interest in substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property. If an event of default occurs under the Loan and Security Agreement, Oxford Finance may foreclose on its security interest and liquidate some or all of these assets, which would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

The pledge of these assets and other restrictions imposed in the Loan and Security Agreement may limit our flexibility in raising capital for other purposes. Because substantially all of our assets are pledged to secure the Loan and Security Agreement obligations, our ability to incur additional indebtedness or to sell or dispose of assets to raise capital may be impaired, which could have an adverse effect on our financial flexibility.

Current wording

In the event of a default in connection with our bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, or reorganization, Oxford Finance would have a prior right to substantially all of our assets to the exclusion of our general unsecured creditors. Only after satisfying the claims of Oxford Finance and any unsecured creditors would any amount be available for our equity holders. The pledge of these assets and other restrictions imposed in the Loan and Security Agreement may limit our flexibility in raising capital for other purposes. Because substantially all of our assets are pledged to secure the Loan and Security Agreement obligations, our ability to incur additional indebtedness or to sell or dispose of assets to raise capital may be impaired, which could have an adverse effect on our financial flexibility.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2026, we had 129 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to continue to expand our employee base for managerial, operational, financial and other resources. In addition, we have limited experience in manufacturing, marketing and commercialization. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and contract with other organizations to provide manufacturing and other capabilities for us. In the future, we expect to have to manage additional relationships with collaborators or partners, suppliers and other organizations. Our ability to manage our operations and future growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. Our inability to successfully manage our growth and expand our operations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

As of June 30, 2026, we had 149 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to continue to expand our employee base for managerial, operational, financial and other resources. In addition, we have limited experience in manufacturing, marketing and commercialization. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and contract with other organizations to provide manufacturing and other capabilities for us. In the future, we expect to have to manage additional relationships with collaborators or partners, suppliers and other organizations. Our ability to manage our operations and future growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. Our inability to successfully manage our growth and expand our operations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2025, we had federal NOL carryforwards of $245.1 million and state NOL carryforwards of $333.8 million. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, our U.S. federal net operating losses will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of federal net operating losses is limited to no more than 80% of current year taxable income (with certain adjustments). In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. We have performed a Section 382 study as of December 31, 2025, and expect approximately $2.0 million of federal net operating losses, $12.1 million of federal research and development credits and $1.9 million California net operating losses to expire unused due to Section 382 limitations. Furthermore, there may be additional ownership changes in the future, including as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. As a result, if we undergo an ownership change, and our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes is limited, it would harm our future results of operations by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Current wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2025, we had federal NOL carryforwards of $245.1 million and state NOL carryforwards of $333.8 million. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, our U.S. federal net operating losses will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of federal net operating losses is limited to no more than 80% of current year taxable income (with certain adjustments). In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. We have performed a Section 382 study as of December 31, 2025, and expect approximately $2.0 million of federal net operating losses, $12.1 million of federal research and development credits and $1.9 million of California net operating losses to expire unused due to Section 382 limitations. Furthermore, there may be additional ownership changes in the future, including as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. As a result, if we undergo an ownership change, and our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes is limited, it would harm our future results of operations by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Previous wording

We may be the target of securities litigation in the future, including based on volatility in the market price of our stock and, as described more fully below, are currently named as a defendant in a securities class action complaint. The stock market in general, and Nasdaq and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. The market price of our common stock is volatile. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. In addition, certain of our directors and officers are involved in ongoing securities or other lawsuits in the context of their roles with other public companies, and our directors or officers may in the future become involved in such litigation. Securities litigation (including the cost to defend against, and any potential adverse outcome resulting from any such proceeding) can be expensive, time-consuming, damage our reputation and divert our management’s and board of directors’ attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Current wording

We may be the target of securities litigation in the future, including based on volatility in the market price of our stock and, as described more fully below, we are currently named as a defendant in a securities class action complaint. The stock market in general, and Nasdaq and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. The market price of our common stock is volatile. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. In addition, certain of our directors and officers are involved in ongoing securities or other lawsuits in the context of their roles with other public companies, and our directors or officers may in the future become involved in such litigation. Securities litigation (including the cost to defend against, and any potential adverse outcome resulting from any such proceeding) can be expensive, time-consuming, damage our reputation and divert our management’s and board of directors’ attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Previous wording

As noted above, in December 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against our company, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of our IPO. Per a stipulated schedule, an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2025, or the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with our IPO and the prospectus contained therein contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of federal securities laws. Pursuant to a stipulated order setting a response schedule, on June 26, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims on June 26, 2025, with plaintiff filing an opposition on August 18, 2025. Defendants filed their reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2025. Following oral argument, on March 23, 2026, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss on all claims, with leave to amend the complaint. On April 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed another amended complaint alleging the same claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss all claims in the amended complaint.

Current wording

As noted above, in December 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against our company, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of our IPO. Per a stipulated schedule, an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2025, or the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with our IPO and the prospectus contained therein contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of federal securities laws. Pursuant to a stipulated order setting a response schedule, on June 26, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the Amended Complaint, with plaintiff filing an opposition on August 18, 2025. Defendants filed their reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2025. Following oral argument, on March 23, 2026, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss on all claims, with leave to amend the complaint. On April 20, 2026, plaintiff filed another amended complaint alleging the same claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the entire second amended complaint on May 19, 2026. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 17, 2026. Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss on July 2, 2026. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for September 3, 2026.

Previous wording

Additionally, we believe, through our interactions with the FDA under our Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation, that our Phase 2 clinical trial in stiff-person syndrome, or SPS, which is a pivotal trial, will be sufficient for use as a registration-enabling study, and in May 2026, we initiated a rolling Biologic License Application, or BLA, submission for SPS. However, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may conclude that the trial is not sufficient to be registration-enabling to support a BLA, or similar submission in other jurisdictions. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Current wording

Additionally, we believe that, through our interactions with the FDA under our Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation, our Phase 2 clinical trial in SPS, which is a pivotal trial, will be sufficient for use as a registration-enabling study, and in May 2026, we initiated a rolling BLA submission for SPS. However, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may conclude that the trial is not sufficient to be registration-enabling to support a BLA, or similar submission in other jurisdictions. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Previous wording

All of our product candidates are either in preclinical or clinical development and their risk of failure is high. Some of the product candidates and technologies we are developing are novel and unproven, which makes it difficult to accurately predict the challenges we may face with respect to our product candidates as they proceed through development. We believe we may face greater risks with respect to our product candidates than many other biotechnology candidates because our product candidates are being developed to address conditions for which many prior products and product technologies have been unsuccessful. In addition, the patient population that our product candidates are seeking to target are often heavily immunosuppressed and may be more likely to experience serious adverse events with potential treatments and have higher morbidity rates generally than other patient populations. It is also impossible to predict whether our clinical trials will continue and when or if any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and lengthy, complex and expensive clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. Clinical testing can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. 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 and results in one indication may not be predictive of results to be expected for the same product candidate in another indication. 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. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unfavorable safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of such product candidates. We may be unable to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful. Commencing any future clinical trials is subject to finalizing the trial design and submitting an application to the FDA or a similar foreign regulatory authority.

Current wording

All of our product candidates are either in preclinical or clinical development and their risk of failure is high. Some of the product candidates and technologies we are developing are novel and unproven, which makes it difficult to accurately predict the challenges we may face with respect to our product candidates as they proceed through development. We believe we may face greater risks with respect to our product candidates than many other biotechnology candidates because our product candidates are being developed to address conditions for which many prior products and product technologies have been unsuccessful. In addition, the patient population that our product candidates is seeking to target is often heavily immunosuppressed and may be more likely to experience serious adverse events with potential treatments and have higher morbidity rates generally than other patient populations. It is also impossible to predict whether our clinical trials will continue and when or if any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and lengthy, complex and expensive clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. Clinical testing can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. 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 and results in one indication may not be predictive of results to be expected for the same product candidate in another indication. 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. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unfavorable safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of such product candidates. We may be unable to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful. Commencing any future clinical trials is subject to finalizing the trial design and submitting an application to the FDA or a similar foreign regulatory authority.

Previous wording

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus our development efforts on certain selected product candidates in certain selected indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates, or other indications for our existing product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Current wording

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus our development efforts on certain projects or initiatives or selected product candidates in certain selected indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of other projects, initiatives or opportunities with other product candidates, or other indications for our existing product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Previous wording

From time to time, we estimate the timing of the anticipated accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials, as well as the submission of regulatory filings. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All of these milestones are and will be based on numerous assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary dramatically compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. If we do not meet these milestones as publicly announced, or at all, the commercialization of our programs may be delayed or never achieved and, as a result, our stock price may decline. Additionally, delays relative to our projected timelines are likely to cause overall expenses to increase, which may require us to raise additional capital sooner than expected and prior to achieving targeted development milestones.

Current wording

From time to time, we estimate the timing of the anticipated accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials, as well as the submission of regulatory filings. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All of these milestones are and will be based on numerous assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary dramatically compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. If we do not meet these milestones as publicly announced, or at all, the commercialization of our programs may be delayed or never achieved and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

Moreover, some of our patents may in the future be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Moreover, some of our patents may in the future be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

We cannot prevent other companies from licensing some of the same intellectual properties that we have licensed or from otherwise duplicating our business model and operations.

Current wording

We cannot prevent other companies from licensing some of the same intellectual property that we have licensed or from otherwise duplicating our business model and operations.

Previous wording

Since parties we have licenses with are developing therapies to similar technologies, they may make their methods and data available to third parties, who may want to enter into our line of business and compete against us. Although we currently exclusively license certain intellectual property for each of our product candidates, there can be no assurance we will not need to license other intellectual property on a non-exclusive basis in the future or that our exclusively licensed intellectual property could be used to prevent third parties from duplicating our business plan or from otherwise directly competing against us. Further, no assurance can be given that our existing exclusive rights are or will be sufficient to prevent others from competing with us and developing substantially similar products.

Current wording

Since parties we have licenses with are developing therapies using similar technologies, they may make their methods and data available to third parties, who may want to enter into our line of business and compete against us. Although we currently exclusively license certain intellectual property for each of our product candidates, there can be no assurance we will not need to license other intellectual property on a non-exclusive basis in the future or that our exclusively licensed intellectual property could be used to prevent third parties from duplicating our business plan or from otherwise directly competing against us. Further, no assurance can be given that our existing exclusive rights are or will be sufficient to prevent others from competing with us and developing substantially similar products.

Previous wording

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

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

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

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on products or product candidates for an adequate amount of time. If we do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Current wording

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position with respect to products or product candidates for an adequate amount of time. If we do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Previous wording

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any of our product candidates, one or more of our or our licensors’ issued U.S. patents or issued U.S. patents that we may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar patent term restoration provisions to compensate for commercialization delay caused by regulatory review are also available in certain foreign jurisdictions, such as in Europe under Supplemental Protection Certificate. However, we may not be granted any extensions for which we apply because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. In addition, to the extent we wish to pursue patent term extension based on a patent that we in-license from a third party, we would need the cooperation of that third party. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Current wording

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

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

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. Although we have environmental liability insurance for our California facility as required by the related lease agreement, we do not currently carry specific biological waste or hazardous waste insurance coverage, workers compensation or property and casualty and general liability insurance policies that include coverage for criminal damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.

Current wording

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. Although we have environmental liability insurance for our California facility as required by the related lease agreement, we do not currently carry specific biological waste or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our workers' compensation, property and casualty and general liability insurance policies do not include coverage for criminal damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.

Previous wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it was investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T cell immunotherapies, such as miv-cel. While the FDA noted that it believed that the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA stated that it was investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and was evaluating the need for regulatory action. In January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed chimeric CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes and noting that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. Because all currently approved CAR T-cell immunotherapies are in oncology indications, there can be no assurance that the FDA will reach the same risk-benefit analysis in other indications, such as autoimmune. Given that the autoimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are different indications from the approved oncology indications, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may apply a different benefit-risk assessment threshold such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T-cell therapies, the FDA could ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Current wording

On November 28, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it was investigating a serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T cell immunotherapies . While the FDA noted that it believed that the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA stated that it was investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and was evaluating the need for regulatory action. In January 2024, the FDA notified the manufacturers of the six FDA-approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed CAR genetically modified autologous T-cell therapies that their products’ safety information must be updated to include a boxed warning that T-cell malignancies have occurred following treatment with BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. In April 2024, the FDA issued a public safety statement announcing its initiation of the class labeling changes and noting that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for secondary malignancies. Because all currently approved CAR T-cell immunotherapies are in oncology indications, there can be no assurance that the FDA will reach the same risk-benefit analysis in other indications, such as autoimmune diseases. Given that the autoimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are different indications from the approved oncology indications, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may apply a different benefit-risk assessment threshold such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T-cell therapies, the FDA could ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals, require us to include a boxed warning on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Previous wording

The current U.S. administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government, including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, frequently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions and proposals may, for example, include directives: (1) reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, or CMNI, to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (6) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, which reduced funding to federal healthcare programs and imposed additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, which may result in decreased access to healthcare, particularly in Medicaid programs.

Current wording

The current U.S. administration has indicated that it is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government, including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, frequently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions and proposals may, for example, include directives: (1) reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, or CMMI, to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and develop a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (6) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and to standardize prices across hospitals and health plans. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, which reduced funding to federal healthcare programs and imposed additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, which may result in decreased access to healthcare, particularly in Medicaid programs.

Previous wording

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers can expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research and, if approved, sell, market and distribute our products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales, marketing and business arrangements of our product candidates, is subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

Current wording

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers can expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research and, if approved, sell, market and distribute our products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales, marketing and business arrangements of our product candidates, is subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

Previous wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval pathway, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date accelerated approval is granted. The FDA has issued draft guidance that proposes criteria it will use to evaluate to determine if a trial is underway, including whether enrollment in the trial has been initiated. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. In addition, FDORA gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw accelerated approval on an expedited basis if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, such studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit or the sponsor fails to send the necessary updates to the FDA. The FDA is empowered to take action against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory study or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials for products receiving accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval pathway, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date accelerated approval is granted. The FDA has issued draft guidance that proposes criteria it will use to determine if a trial is underway, including whether enrollment in the trial has been initiated. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. In addition, FDORA gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw accelerated approval on an expedited basis if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, such studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit or the sponsor fails to send the necessary updates to the FDA. The FDA is empowered to take action against companies that fail to conduct any post-approval confirmatory study with due diligence or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials for products receiving accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of th…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Prior to seeking accelerated approval for any of our product candidates, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit an NDA seeking accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback 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 for our product candidates, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidates would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, if any, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Current wording

Prior to seeking accelerated approval for any of our product candidates, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit an NDA or BLA seeking accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback 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 for our product candidates, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidates would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, if any, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Previous wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a product candidate, nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. We received orphan drug designation from the FDA for miv-cel for the treatment of MG in April 2024, for the treatment of SPS in August 2024, and for the treatment of SSc in September 2024, but we may not be granted orphan drug designations for our product candidates in other indications in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions.

Current wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a product candidate, nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. We received orphan drug designation from the FDA for miv-cel for the treatment of MG in April 2024, for the treatment of SPS in August 2024, and for the treatment of systemic sclerosis in September 2024, but we may not be granted orphan drug designations for our product candidates in other indications in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions.

Previous wording

In December 2021, Regulation No. 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the European Union. This Regulation, which went into effect in January 2022 and took effect as of January 2025, is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at European Union level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the European Union, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the European Union could be negatively affected.

Current wording

In December 2021, Regulation No. 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the European Union. This Regulation, which entered into force in January 2022 and became applicable as of January 2025, is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at European Union level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the European Union, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical)

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shutdowns, or funding changes, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could negatively impact our business, operations, regulatory interactions and access to capital.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including government shutdowns, funding changes, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could negatively impact our business, operations, regulatory interactions and access to capital.