Beam Therapeutics Inc.

Previous wording

In addition to the other information set forth in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, you should carefully consider the factors discussed in the sections titled sections titled “Risk Factors Summary” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in the 2025 Form 10-K, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. The risk factors disclosure in the 2025 Form 10-K is qualified by the information in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The risks described in the 2025 Form 10–K are not our only risks. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or future results.

Current wording

In addition to the other information set forth in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, you should carefully consider the factors discussed in the sections titled “Risk Factors Summary” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in the 2025 Form 10-K, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. The risk factors disclosure in the 2025 Form 10-K is qualified by the information in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The risks described in the 2025 Form 10–K are not our only risks. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or future results.

Previous wording

We have in-licensed a number of issued U.S. patents and patent applications that cover base editing and gene targeting technologies, as well as our delivery platform technology. We have applied for provisional patent applications or Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications intended to specifically cover our base editing platform technology and uses with respect to treatment of particular diseases and conditions, and currently own twelve issued U.S. patents. We have applied for provisional patent applications or PCT applications intended to specifically cover our delivery platform technology but do not currently own any issued U.S. patents. Each U.S. provisional patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the filing date of the applicable provisional patent application. Any failure to file a non-provisional patent application within this timeline could cause us to lose the ability to obtain patent protection for the intentions disclosed in the associated provisional patent applications. We cannot be certain that any of these patent applications will issue as patents, and if they do, that such patents will cover or adequately protect our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or our product candidates, or that such patents will not be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, invalidated or held unenforceable. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Current wording

We have in-licensed a number of issued U.S. patents and patent applications that cover base editing and gene targeting technologies, as well as our delivery platform technology. We have applied for provisional patent applications or Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications intended to specifically cover our base editing platform technology and uses with respect to treatment of particular diseases and conditions, and currently own twelve issued U.S. patents. We have applied for provisional patent applications or PCT applications intended to specifically cover our delivery platform technology, and currently own sixissued U.S. patents but do not currently own any issued U.S. patents. Each U.S. provisional patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the filing date of the applicable provisional patent application. Any failure to file a non-provisional patent application within this timeline could cause us to lose the ability to obtain patent protection for the intentions disclosed in the associated provisional patent applications. We cannot be certain that any of these patent applications will issue as patents, and if they do, that such patents will cover or adequately protect our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or our product candidates, or that such patents will not be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, invalidated or held unenforceable. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Previous wording

As a result of the declaration of interference, an adversarial proceeding in the USPTO before the PTAB has been initiated, which is declared to ultimately determine priority, specifically and which party was first to invent the claimed subject matter. An interference is typically divided into two phases. The first phase is referred to as the motions or preliminary motions phase while the second is referred to as the priority phase. In the first phase, each party may raise issues including but not limited to those relating to the patentability of a party’s claims based on prior art, written description, and enablement. A party also may seek an earlier priority benefit or may challenge whether the declaration of interference was proper in the first place. Priority, or a determination of who first invented the commonly claimed invention, is determined in the second phase of an interference. The ten University of California patent applications and the 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties involved in U.S. Interference No. 106,115 generally relate to CRISPR/Cas9 systems or eukaryotic cells comprising CRISPR/Cas9 systems having fused or covalently linked RNA and the use thereof in eukaryotic cells. On March 26, 2026, the PTAB issued a decision that the Boston Licensing Parties have priority of invention over University of California with respect to a single RNA CRISPR-Cas9 system that functions in eukaryotic cells. This decision may be appealed. There can be no assurance that the U.S. interference will be resolved in favor of the Boston Licensing Parties on appeal. If the U.S. interference resolves in favor of University of California, or if the Boston Licensing Parties’ patents and patent application are narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, we may lose the ability to license the optioned patents and patent application and our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license to relevant third party patents that cover our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Current wording

As a result of the declaration of interference, an adversarial proceeding in the USPTO before the PTAB has been initiated, which is declared to ultimately determine priority, specifically and which party was first to invent the claimed subject matter. An interference is typically divided into two phases. The first phase is referred to as the motions or preliminary motions phase while the second is referred to as the priority phase. In the first phase, each party may raise issues including but not limited to those relating to the patentability of a party’s claims based on prior art, written description, and enablement. A party also may seek an earlier priority benefit or may challenge whether the declaration of interference was proper in the first place. Priority, or a determination of who first invented the commonly claimed invention, is determined in the second phase of an interference. The ten University of California patent applications and the 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties involved in U.S. Interference No. 106,115 generally relate to CRISPR/Cas9 systems or eukaryotic cells comprising CRISPR/Cas9 systems having fused or covalently linked RNA and the use thereof in eukaryotic cells. On March 26, 2026, the PTAB issued a decision that the Boston Licensing Parties have priority of invention over University of California with respect to a single RNA CRISPR-Cas9 system that functions in eukaryotic cells. This decision is being appealed. There can be no assurance that the U.S. interference will be resolved in favor of the Boston Licensing Parties on appeal. If the U.S. interference resolves in favor of University of California, or if the Boston Licensing Parties’ patents and patent application are narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, we may lose the ability to license the optioned patents and patent application and our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license to relevant third party patents that cover our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.