ImmunityBio, Inc.

If we are unable to obtain, maintain, protect and enforce patent protection and other proprietary rights for our approved product, other product candidates, and other technologies in development, we may not be able to compete effectively or operate profitably, and our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical technology would be adversely affected.

Our success is dependent in large part on our obtaining, maintaining, protecting and enforcing patents and other proprietary rights in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our approved product and other product candidates and technology and on our ability to avoid infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of others. Certain of our intellectual property rights are licensed from other entities, and as such the preparation and prosecution of any such patents and patent applications was not performed by us or under our control. Furthermore, patent law relating to the scope of claims in the biotechnology field in which we operate is still evolving and, consequently, patent positions in our industry may not be as strong as in other more well-established fields. The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents has emerged to date. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, or commercial value of our patent rights remain highly uncertain.

Any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing therapeutics and technology. There is no guarantee that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued or granted patents, any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable, or any issued or granted patents will include claims sufficiently broad to cover our product candidates and technology, or to provide meaningful protection from our competitors. Our owned or in-licensed pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our ANKTIVA and hAd5 constructs, cell-based therapies or other product candidates and technologies that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license or own currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we own or in-license may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our ANKTIVA and hAd5 constructs, cell-based therapies or other product candidates and technologies will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and it is uncertain how much protection, if any, will be provided by our patents, including if they are challenged in the courts or patent offices or in other proceedings, such as re-examinations or oppositions, which may be brought in the U.S. or foreign jurisdictions to challenge the validity of a patent. A third party may challenge the validity or enforceability of a patent after its issuance. It is possible that a competitor may successfully challenge our patents or that a challenge will result in limiting their coverage. Moreover, it is possible that competitors may infringe our patents or successfully avoid the patented technology through design innovation. To counter infringement or other unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming, even if we were successful in stopping the violation of our patent rights.

We or our licensors may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant andinter partes review, or interference proceedings or other similar proceedings challenging our owned or licensed patent rights. Should third parties file patent applications, or be issued patents claiming technology also used or claimed by our licensor(s) or by us in any future patent application, we, or one of our licensors, may be required to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention for those patents or patent applications that are subject to the first-to-invent law in the U.S., or may be required to participate in derivation proceedings in the USPTO for those patents or patent applications that are subject to the first-inventor-to-file law in the U.S. We may be required to participate in such interference or derivation proceedings involving our issued patents and pending applications. We may also be required to participate in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, which challenge our or our licensor’s priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our owned or in‑licensed patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of patent protection of our ANKTIVA and hAd5 constructs, cell-based therapies or other product candidates and technologies. An adverse determination in any of the type of submissions described above, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our owned or in‑licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our ANKTIVA and hAd5 constructs, cell-based therapies or other product candidates or technologies and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

If we or our collaborators are unsuccessful in any such proceeding or other priority or inventorship dispute, we may be required to cease using the technology or to obtain and maintain license rights from prevailing third parties, including parties involved in any such interference proceedings or other priority or inventorship disputes. A prevailing party in that case may not offer us a license on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, 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 and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our owned and licensed patent claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, 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.

Some of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. In addition, certain of our licensors co-own the patents and patent applications we in-license with other third parties with whom we do not have a direct relationship. Our exclusive rights to certain of these patents and patent applications are dependent, in part, on inter-institutional or other operating agreements between the joint owners of such patents and patent applications, who are not parties to our license agreements. If our licensors do not have exclusive control of the grant of licenses under any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications or we are otherwise unable to secure such exclusive rights, 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 growth prospects.

If any of our owned or in-licensed patent applications do not issue as patents in any jurisdiction, we may not be able to compete effectively.

Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the U.S. and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. With respect to both in-licensed and owned intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors or other third parties. The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Additionally, recent reforms and changes at government agencies of the U.S. and those of non-U.S. jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications, and the maintenance, enforcement, or defense of our issued patents. For example, the ability of the USPTO and other applicable patent authorities to properly administer their functions is highly dependent on the levels of funding available to the agency and their ability to retain key personnel and fill key leadership appointments, among various factors. Termination of employees or delays in replacing or hiring for key positions could significantly impact the ability of the USPTO and other applicable patent authorities to fulfill their functions and could greatly impact our ability to timely and adequately prosecute or maintain our patent applications, and our ability to timely and adequately maintain, enforce, or defend our issued patents. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

We or our licensors, collaborators, or any future strategic partners may become subject to third-party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other proprietary rights, and we may need to resort to litigation to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property or the patents or other intellectual property of our licensors, all of which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful, may delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our product candidates, or may put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.

If we or one of our licensors initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates or other technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent is invalid and/or unenforceable or that we infringe their patents. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or other applicable body, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings).

With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our licensor, our or our licensor’s patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. Moreover, even if our patents were to survive such a litigation challenge to their validity, the patents might still be held to be valid but unenforceable if a court were to decide that the patents are being enforced in a manner inconsistent with the antitrust laws, or that the patents were obtained through deceit during patent office examination or other such failure of sufficient candor to the patent office. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding relating to intellectual property rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources, including our scientists and management, from our business.

An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceeding could put one or more of our owned or licensed patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly, and could put our patent applications at risk of not being issued. Such proceedings could result in revocation or cancellation of, or amendment to, our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or technologies. If the outcome of litigation is adverse to us, third parties may be able to use our patented invention without payment to us. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the inventions. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of our patents were upheld, a court would refuse to stop the other party on the grounds that its activities are not covered by, that is, do not infringe, our patents. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be better able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

The use of our technology and product or our other product candidates could potentially conflict with the rights of others, and third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other violation against us, our licensors or our collaborators may prevent or delay the development and commercialization of our product, product candidates and technologies.

Our commercial success depends in part on our, our licensors’ and our collaborators’ ability to avoid infringing, misappropriating and otherwise violating the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of complex litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical industry. Our potential competitors or other parties may have, develop or acquire patent or other intellectual property rights that they could assert against us. If they do so, then we may be required to alter our approved product or other product candidates, pay licensing fees or cease our development and commercialization activities with respect to the applicable approved product or product candidates or technologies. If our approved product or other product candidates conflict with patent or other intellectual property rights of others, such parties could bring legal actions against us or our collaborators, licensees, suppliers or customers, claiming damages and seeking to enjoin manufacturing, use and marketing of the affected products.

Although we have conducted FTO analyses of the patent landscape with respect to our approved product or other product candidates and continue to undertake FTO analyses of our manufacturing processes, no FTO analysis can be considered exhaustive because patent applications do not publish for 18 months and the claims of patent applications can change over time. We may not be aware of patents that have already been issued and that a competitor or other third party might assert are infringed by our approved product or other product candidates or technologies. It is also possible that we could be found to have infringed patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our approved product or other product candidates or technologies. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our approved product or other product candidates or technologies may infringe. Furthermore, patent and other intellectual property rights in biotechnology remains an evolving area with many risks and uncertainties. As such, we may not be able to ensure that we can market our approved product or other product candidates without conflict with the rights of others.

If intellectual property-related legal actions asserted against us are successful, in addition to any potential liability for damages (including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement), we could be enjoined from, or required to obtain a license to continue, manufacturing, promoting the use of or marketing the affected products. We may not prevail in any legal action and a required license under the applicable patent or other intellectual property may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, 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. We also could be required to redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Defense of infringement claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business, and may impact our reputation. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation or administrative proceedings more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our approved product and other product candidates.

As is the case with other immunotherapy and biopharmaceutical companies, our success is dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the U.S. has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the America Invents Act enacted in September 2011, the U.S. transitioned to a first-to-file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before such third party made it. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either file any patent application related to our product candidates or other technologies or invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Additionally, United States Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, the United States Supreme Court held in Amgen v. Sanofi (2023) that a functionally claimed genus was invalid for failing to comply with the enablement requirement of the Patent Act. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on the foregoing, we cannot predict how future decisions by Congress, the federal courts or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment, and other requirements imposed by government patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other government fees on patents and patent applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of a patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensors to pay these fees and take the necessary actions to comply with these requirements. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates and technologies are subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.

License agreements may not provide exclusive rights to use certain licensed intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to commercialize our technology and product candidates in the future. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors or other third parties from developing and commercializing competitive products that also utilize technology that we have in-licensed.

In addition, subject to the terms of any such license agreements, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and maintenance, and we may not have the right to control the enforcement, and defense of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from third parties. We cannot be certain that our in-licensed or out-licensed patents and patent applications that are controlled by our licensors or licensees will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors or licensees fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce, and defend such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, our right to develop and commercialize our approved product and any of our product candidates that are subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected, and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have licensed to and from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensees, our licensors and their counsel that took place prior to the date upon which we assumed control over patent prosecution.

Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed patents may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, certain of our in-licensed intellectual property was funded in part by the U.S. government. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to such intellectual property. When new technologies are developed with U.S. government funding, the U.S. government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the U.S. government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. The U.S. government’s rights may also permit it to disclose the funded inventions and technology to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use the technology we have licensed that was developed using U.S. government funding. The U.S. government may exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, or because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the U.S. in certain circumstances if this requirement is not waived. Any exercise by the U.S. government of such rights or by any third party of its reserved rights could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we may be required to pay damages and we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We have entered into license agreements with third parties and may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may be unable to obtain certain additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product or product candidates or continue to utilize our existing technology, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, manufacturing methods, product, product candidates, or future methods or products resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant.

In addition, each of our license agreements, and we expect our future agreements, will impose various development, diligence, commercialization, and other obligations on us. Certain of our license agreements also require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. In spite of our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours and we may be required to cease our commercialization of our approved product or the development and commercialization of certain of our other product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and growth prospects.

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

•the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;

•the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;

•the sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships;

•our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;

•the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and

•the priority of invention of patented technology.

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product or product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and growth prospects.

We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights in various jurisdictions throughout the world.

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the U.S. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our approved product and other product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our product or our other product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Geo-political actions in the U.S. and in foreign countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications or those of any current or future licensors and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents or those of any current or future licensors. For example, the U.S. and foreign government actions related to the Russia-Ukraine war may limit or prevent filing, prosecution and maintenance of patent applications in Russia. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Russia. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of our patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Russia. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, a decree was adopted by the Russian government in March 2022 allowing Russian companies and individuals to exploit inventions owned by patentees that have citizenship or nationality in, are registered in, or have a predominately primary place of business or profit-making activities in the U.S. and other countries that Russia has deemed unfriendly without consent or compensation. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in Russia or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into Russia. In another example, in April of 2025, the Brazilian government enacted a law allowing for the suspension of obligations related to foreign entity’s intellectual property rights in response to actions by foreign countries, including the U.S. Also, in March 2025, the Chinese government issued regulations for implementation of the 2021 Anti-Foreign Sanctions Act. These regulations expand the Chinese government’s ability to seize certain assets, including intellectual property, of foreign entities, in response to foreign sanctions, including those by the U.S. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed trade secrets or other confidential information of third parties or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties and their employees and contractors. In addition, we plan to employ and contract with individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed the trade secrets or other confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against or pursue these claims. Even if we are successful in resolving these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, consultants and independent contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may not be able to license or acquire new or necessary intellectual property rights or technology from third parties.

An element of our intellectual property strategy is to license intellectual property rights and technologies from third parties and/or our affiliates. Other parties, including our competitors or our affiliates, may have patents relevant to our business, may have already filed patent applications relevant to our business, and are likely filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business. In order to avoid infringing these patents, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses to such patents from such parties. In addition, with respect to any patents we co-own with other parties, including our affiliates, we may require licenses to such co-owners’ interest to such patents. The licensing or acquisition of intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and other more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources, and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. No assurance can be given that we will be successful in licensing any additional rights or technologies from third parties and/or our affiliates. Our inability to license the rights and technologies that we have identified, or that we may in the future identify, could have a material adverse impact on our ability to complete the development of our product candidates or to develop additional product candidates. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, 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. Failure to obtain any necessary rights or licenses may detrimentally affect our planned development of our current or future additional product candidates and could increase the cost, and extend the timelines associated with our development, of such other products, and we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we do not obtain patent term extension and data exclusivity for our approved product or any other product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, including our approved product, one or more of our owned or in-licensed U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension 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 per new drug, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar extensions as compensation for patent term lost during regulatory review processes are also available in certain foreign countries and territories, such as in Europe under a Supplementary Patent Certificate. However, we may not be granted an extension in the U.S. and/or foreign countries and territories because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is shorter than what we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects could be materially harmed.

We may be subject to claims challenging rights in our patents and other intellectual property.

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

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for ANKTIVA, hAd5 technologies and constructs, cell therapies, and other product candidates and technologies, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology, and other proprietary information and to maintain our competitive position. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We expect our trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles describing the methodology, and the movement of personnel from academic to industry scientific positions.

We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors, and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants as well as train our employees not to bring or use proprietary information or technology from former employers to us or in their work and remind former employees when they leave their employment of their confidentiality obligations. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Despite our efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the U.S. are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic, or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

•others may be able to make products that are similar to our approved product or other product candidates or utilize similar technology but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we license or may own;

•we, our current or future licensors or collaborators, might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we license or own now or in the future;

•we, our current or future licensors or collaborators, might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions;

•others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing on our owned or licensed intellectual property rights;

•it is possible that our current or future pending owned or licensed patent applications will not lead to issued patents;

•issued patents that we hold rights to may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors or other third parties;

•our competitors or other third parties might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;

•we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;

•the patents of others may harm our business; and

•we may choose not to file a patent in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent covering such intellectual property.

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Dr. Soon-Shiong, our Founder, Executive Chairman, Global Chief Scientific and Medical Officer and principal stockholder, has significant interests in other companies which may conflict with our interests.

Our Founder, Executive Chairman and Global Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, Dr. Soon-Shiong, is also the founder of NantWorks. The various NantWorks companies are currently exploring opportunities in the immunotherapy, oncology, infectious disease, and inflammatory disease fields. In particular, we have agreements with a number of related parties that provide services, technology and equipment for use in their efforts to develop their product pipelines. Dr. Soon-Shiong holds a controlling interest, either directly or indirectly, in these entities. Consequently, Dr. Soon-Shiong’s interests may not be aligned with our other stockholders, and he may from time to time be incentivized to take certain actions that benefit his other interests and that our other stockholders do not view as being in their interest as investors in our company. In addition, other companies affiliated with Dr. Soon-Shiong may compete with us for business opportunities or, in the future, develop products that are competitive with ours (including products in other therapeutic fields which we may target in the future). Moreover, even if they do not directly relate to us, actions taken by Dr. Soon-Shiong and the companies with which he is involved could impact us.

We are also pursuing supply arrangements for various investigational agents controlled by affiliates to be used in their clinical trials. If Dr. Soon-Shiong were to cease his affiliation with us or NantWorks, these entities may be unwilling to continue these relationships with us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and as a result may impede our ability to control the supply chain for our combination therapies. These collaboration agreements do not typically specify how sales will be apportioned between the parties upon successful commercialization of the product. As a result, we cannot guarantee that we will receive a percentage of the revenue that is at least proportional to the cost that we will incur in commercializing the product candidate.

We have entered into shared services agreements with NantWorks, pursuant to which the respective parties and their affiliates provide corporate, general and administrative and other support services to each other. If Dr. Soon-Shiong was to cease his affiliation with us or with NantWorks, we may be unable to establish or maintain this relationship with NantWorks on a commercially reasonable basis, if at all. As a result, we could experience a lack of business continuity due to loss of historical and institutional knowledge and new employees and/or new service providers lack of familiarity with business processes, operating requirements, policies and procedures, and we may incur additional costs as new employees and/or service providers gain necessary experience. In addition, the loss of the services of NantWorks might significantly delay or prevent the commercialization of our approved product or the development of our other product candidates or achievement of other business objectives by diverting management’s attention to transition matters and identification of suitable replacements, if any, and could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Dr. Soon-Shiong, through his voting control of the company, has the ability to control actions that require stockholder approval.

Dr. Soon-Shiong, through his direct and indirect ownership of the company’s common stock, has voting control of the company. As of December 31, 2025, Dr. Soon-Shiong and his affiliates owned approximately 64.2% of our common stock outstanding. Dr. Soon-Shiong and his affiliates also own our outstanding convertible promissory note, certain warrants and stock options to purchase shares of our common stock, and certain CVRs as described under“—Conversion of our related-party promissory note, exercise of outstanding warrants and options to purchase our common stock, the achievement of the milestone under our outstanding CVRs, and potential additional equity issuances may dilute the ownership interest of existing stockholders or may otherwise depress the price of our common stock” below.

Dr. Soon-Shiong is in a position to control the outcome of corporate actions that require, or may be accomplished by, stockholder approval, including amending the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the company, the election or removal of directors and transactions involving a change of control. Dr. Soon-Shiong’s controlling ownership could limit the ability of the remaining stockholders of the company to influence corporate matters, and the interests of Dr. Soon-Shiong may not coincide with the company’s interests or the interests of its remaining stockholders.

In addition, pursuant to the Nominating Agreement between us and Cambridge, an entity that Dr. Soon-Shiong controls, Cambridge has the ability to designate one director to be nominated for election to the Board of Directors for as long as Cambridge continues to hold at least 20% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock. Dr. Soon-Shiong was selected by Cambridge to hold this board seat. Dr. Soon-Shiong and his affiliates will therefore have significant influence over management and significant control over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the annual election of directors and significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or other sale of our company or its assets, for the foreseeable future. This control will limit stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters and, as a result, we may take actions that our stockholders do not view as beneficial. As a result, the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected.

Conversion of our related-party promissory note, exercise of outstanding warrants and options to purchase our common stock, the achievement of the milestone under our outstanding CVRs, and potential additional equity issuances may dilute the ownership interest of existing stockholders or may otherwise depress the price of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2025, our indebtedness was comprised of a $505.0 million December 2024 Promissory Note held by an entity affiliated with Dr. Soon-Shiong that is convertible into shares of our common stock under certain circumstances. The December 2024 Promissory Note bears interest at Term SOFR plus 8.0% per annum, which provides that the noteholder has the option to convert all (but not less than all) of the outstanding principal amount and accrued but unpaid interest into shares of the company’s common stock at a conversion price of $5.4270 per share (subject to appropriate adjustment from time to time for any stock dividend, stock split, combination of shares, reorganization, recapitalization, reclassification or other similar event). In January 2026, we entered into a letter amendment that now permits the note holder to convert any portion of the outstanding principal amount of the $505.0 million December 2024 Promissory Note into fully paid and nonassessable shares of the company’s common stock at any time prior to the maturity date. See Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Subsequent Events” for more information regarding the letter amendment.

In addition, as of December 31, 2025, we had outstanding warrants, stock options and unvested RSU awards covering the issuance of up to:

•65,053,571 shares of our common stock subject to warrants with exercise prices ranging from $3.1010 to $3.2946 per share, which are currently exercisable with expiration dates ranging from of July 24, 2026 to July 28, 2030 (these warrants were issued to certain institutional investors);

•any shares of our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of the $5.0 million option held by Oberland, for which the price per share shall be determined by the 30-day trailing volume weighted-average price of our common stock, calculated from the date of exercise, and which option is exercisable by Oberland until the earliest of (i) December 29, 2028, (ii) a change of control of the company, or (iii) a sale of substantially all of the company’s assets;

•5,783,187 shares of our common stock subject to stock options and RSU awards issued to Dr. Soon-Shiong that are outstanding as of December 31, 2025, of which 1,123,929 shares are subject to stock options that are vested and exercisable and 4,659,258 are subject to stock option and RSU awards that are unvested and, with respect to stock options, unexercisable; and

•1,638,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.24 per share exercisable from the 30th day following the achievement of a performance-based vesting condition pertaining to building manufacturing capacity to support supply requirements for ANKTIVA (which has not yet been satisfied) with an expiration date on the tenth anniversary of such initial exercise date (this warrant was issued to an affiliate of Dr. Soon-Shiong).

In addition, as of December 31, 2025, we had an aggregate of approximately $300.6 million CVRs outstanding that were issued to the former stockholders of Altor, including Dr. Soon-Shiong and certain affiliates, which such stockholders may choose to receive either in cash or shares of our common stock based upon an average of closing prices on a 20-trading day trailing period, upon the first calendar year prior to December 31, 2026 in which worldwide net sales of ANKTIVA exceed $1.0 billion. ANKTIVA with BCG for the treatment of adult patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC CIS with or without papillary tumors was approved for commercial sale in April 2024, but there can be no assurance that such sales milestone will be achieved. Dr. Soon-Shiong and his related party hold approximately $139.8 million of such CVRs, and have irrevocably agreed to receive shares of the company’s common stock in satisfaction of their CVRs.

The conversion or exchange of some or all of our outstanding promissory note into shares of our common stock, the exercise of any of our outstanding warrants andstock options, and the decision of the holders of our CVRs to receive shares of our common stock could dilute the ownership interests of existing stockholders. Any sales in the public market of our outstanding promissory note or warrants, or our common stock issuable upon conversion of our outstanding promissory note or exercise of the warrants or options, could adversely affect prevailing market prices of our common stock.

The market price of our common stock has been and may continue to be volatile, and investors may have difficulty selling their shares.

Although our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, the market for our shares has demonstrated varying levels of trading activity. You may not be able to sell your shares quickly or at the market price if trading in shares of our common stock is not active. Further, an inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares of our common stock and may impair our ability to enter into strategic partnerships or acquire companies or products by using our shares of common stock as consideration.

The stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The market price of our common stock has been and may continue to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:

•our ability to successfully commercialize our approved product or our failure to advance our other product candidates;

•the commencement, enrollment or results of the planned clinical trials of our non-FDA-approved product candidates or any future clinical trials we may conduct, or changes in the development status of such product candidates;

•any delay in our regulatory submissions for our approved product or our product candidates and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to the applicable regulatory authority’s review of such submissions, including without limitation the FDA’s issuance of a CRL or an RTF letter or a request for additional information;

•adverse results or delays in clinical trials;

•our decision to initiate a clinical trial, not to initiate a clinical trial or to terminate an existing clinical trial;

•adverse regulatory decisions, including failure to receive regulatory approval of our approved product in new markets or of our other product candidates;

•changes in laws or regulations applicable to our approved product or other product candidates, including but not limited to clinical trial requirements for approvals;

•additions or departures of key scientific or management personnel;

•unanticipated serious safety concerns related to the use of our approved product or other product candidates;

•announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts, acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments;

•our ability to effectively manage our growth;

•variations in our quarterly operating results, including those driven by liability accounting associated with embedded derivatives and fair value measurement;

•our liquidity position, RIPA liability covenants and the amount and nature of any debt we may incur;

•announcements that our revenue or income are below or that costs or losses are greater than analysts’ expectations;

•publication of research reports about us or our industry, or immunotherapy in particular, or positive or negative recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage by securities analysts;

•changes in the market valuations of similar companies;

•sales of large blocks of our common stock;

•fluctuations in stock market prices and volumes;

•disputes or other developments relating to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;

•significant lawsuits, including patent or stockholder litigation;

•the perception of our clinical trial results by retail investors, which investors may be subject to the influence of information provided by third-party investor websites and independent authors distributing information on the internet;

•general economic slowdowns;

•government-imposed lockdowns, supply chain disruptions, and adverse economic effects from a potential pandemic, epidemic, or outbreak of an infectious disease, in the U.S. and abroad;

•geopolitical tensions and war, including the war in Ukraine and ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Yemen;

•coordinated actions by independent third-party actors to affect the price of certain stocks, coordinated via the internet and otherwise; and

•other factors described in this “Risk Factors” section.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies, including ImmunityBio, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results, or financial condition.

We have been subject to securities class action, shareholder derivative litigation, and other litigation and may be subject to similar or other litigation in the future, all of which will require significant management time and attention, result in significant legal expenses and may result in unfavorable outcomes, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition, and negatively affect the price of our common stock.

We are, and may in the future become, subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in or outside the ordinary course of business. The results of the shareholder derivative actions and any future legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Also, our insurance coverage may be insufficient, our assets may be insufficient to cover any amounts that exceed our insurance coverage, and we may have to pay damage awards or otherwise may enter into a settlement arrangement in connection with such claims. Any such payments or settlement arrangements in current or future litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, or financial condition. Even if the plaintiffs’ claims are not successful, current or future litigation could result in substantial costs and significantly and adversely impact our reputation and divert management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition, and negatively affect the price of our common stock. In addition, such lawsuits may make it more difficult to finance our operations.

For example, in June 2023, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and three of its officers and/or directors, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act stemming from the company’s disclosure on May 11, 2023 that it had received an FDA CRL stating, among other things, that it could not approve the company’s original BLA submission in its initial form due to deficiencies related to its pre-license inspection of the company’s third-party CMOs. In June 2025, the court granted final approval of a settlement of this securities class action.

From late October 2024 through February 2025, shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the members of our Board of Directors and certain officers, captioned Van Luven v. Soon-Shiong et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02014-L-AHG, Barbieri v. Soon-Shiong, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00416-AGS-JB, and Shin v. Soon-Shiong, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00423-JAH-DDL. These derivative actions involved the same underlying alleged misconduct claimed in the securities class action. In November 2025, the court granted final approval of a settlement of the derivative actions.

In November 2024, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the company’s Executive Chairman, certain affiliates of the Executive Chairman certain other members of company management, and current and former members of the Board of Directors who served on the Board’s Related Party Transactions Committee, captioned Carlson v. Soon-Shiong, et al., Case No. 2024-1195-VCL, asserting that September 2023 financing transactions between the company and the Executive Chairman were not fair to the company and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by entering into these transactions, thereby unjustly enriching the Executive Chairman. On February 4, 2026, this derivative action was dismissed. See Item 3.“Legal Proceedings” for more information.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plan, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. If our stockholders sell, or the market perceives that our stockholders intend to sell substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, including shares obtained from the conversion or exchange of our convertible promissory note, exercise of our warrants, satisfaction of our CVRs, or the exercise or settlement of our equity incentive awards, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly. In addition, our Founder, Executive Chairman and Global Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, Dr. Soon-Shiong, and his affiliates owned approximately 64.2% of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2025. Sales of stock by Dr. Soon-Shiong and his affiliates could have an adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.

Pursuant to the 2025 Plan, which was approved by our stockholders on June 18, 2025, our Board of Directors or its duly authorized committee is authorized to grant equity awards to our employees, directors, and consultants. Initially, the aggregate number of shares of our common stock that was able to be issued pursuant to equity awards under the 2025 Plan was 46,088,027 shares, plus the number of shares subject to awards granted under the 2015 Plan that expire or otherwise terminate without having been exercised in full or are forfeited to or repurchased by us (provided that the maximum number of shares that could (and can) be added to the 2025 Plan pursuant to awards under the 2015 Plan is 32,359,674 shares). As a result of the 2025 Plan, our stockholders may experience additional dilution.

Certain holders of our common stock are entitled to certain rights with respect to the registration of their shares under the Securities Act, including the shares purchased by affiliates of Oberland in connection with our entry into the RIPA. Registration of these shares under the Securities Act would result in the shares becoming freely tradable without restriction under the Securities Act, except for shares held by our affiliates as defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. Any sales of securities by these stockholders could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

In addition, we expect that additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including our commercialization efforts, conducting clinical trials, regulatory approval efforts, expanded research and development activities, and costs associated with operating as a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, preferred stock, convertible securities, or other equity securities (including warrants) in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, preferred stock, convertible securities, or other equity securities, existing investors may be materially diluted, and new investors could gain rights, preferences, and privileges senior to the holders of our common stock. The issuance of additional shares of common stock or warrants to purchase common stock, perception that such issuances may occur, or the exercise of outstanding warrants or other equity securities will have a material dilutive impact on existing stockholders and could have a material negative effect on the market price of our common stock.

We have incurred and will continue to incur costs as a result of operating as a public company and our management has been and will be required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices, including maintaining an effective system of internal control over financial reporting.

As a public company listed in the U.S., we have incurred and will continue to incur significant additional legal, accounting, and other expenses as a result of operating as a public company. In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including Sarbanes-Oxley and regulations implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq, may increase legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. We intend to invest resources to create a larger finance function with additional personnel to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment will result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If, notwithstanding our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards, we fail to comply,

regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us, and our business may be harmed. As of June 30, 2025, we are a large accelerated filer.

As a public company in the U.S., we are required, pursuant to Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, and as a large accelerated filer, we expect that compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act will substantially increase our compliance costs. The controls and other procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file with the SEC is disclosed accurately and is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms.

In the normal course of business our controls and procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or the degree of compliance with these policies or procedures may deteriorate and material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting may be discovered. We may err in the design or operation of our controls, and all internal control systems, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Because there are inherent limitations in all control systems, there can be no absolute assurance that all control issues have been or will be detected. If we are unable, or are perceived as unable, to produce reliable financial reports due to internal control deficiencies, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information and operating results, which could result in a negative market reaction.

To fully comply with Section 404, we may need to retain additional employees to supplement our current finance staff, and we may not be able to do so in a timely manner, or at all. In addition, in the process of evaluating our internal control over financial reporting, we expect that certain of our internal control practices will need to be updated to comply with the requirements of Section 404 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and we may not be able to do so on a timely basis, or at all. In the event that we are not able to demonstrate compliance with Section 404 in a timely manner, or are unable to produce timely or accurate financial statements, we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC or Nasdaq, and investors may lose confidence in our operating results and the price of our common stock could decline. Furthermore, if we are unable to certify that our internal control over financial reporting is effective and in compliance with Section 404, we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC or stock exchanges, and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could hurt our business, the price of our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets.

Operating as a public company makes it more expensive for us to obtain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on the Board of Directors, on committees of the Board of Directors, or as members of senior management.

If a restatement of our consolidated financial statements were to occur, our stockholders’ confidence in the company’s financial reporting in the future may be affected, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

If any material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting are discovered or occur in the future, our consolidated financial statements may contain material misstatements, and we could be required to restate our financial results. In addition, if we are unable to successfully remediate any future material weaknesses in our internal controls or if we are unable to produce accurate and timely financial statements, our stock price may be adversely affected, and we may be unable to maintain compliance with applicable stock exchange listing requirements.

We have not paid cash dividends in the past and do not expect to pay dividends in the future. Any return on investment may be limited to the value of our common stock.

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying cash dividends for the foreseeable future. The payment of dividends on our common stock will depend on earnings, financial condition, and other business and economic factors affecting us at such time as the Board of Directors may consider relevant. If we do not pay dividends, our common stock may be less valuable because a return on your investment will only occur if our stock price appreciates.

Because we are relying on the exemptions from corporate governance requirements as a result of being a “controlled company” within the meaning of the Nasdaq listing standards, you do not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

Our Founder, Executive Chairman and Global Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, Dr. Soon-Shiong, and entities affiliated with him, control a majority of our common stock. As a result, we are a controlled company within the meaning of the Nasdaq listing standards. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, a group or another company is a controlled company and may elect not to comply with certain Nasdaq corporate governance requirements, including (1) the requirement that a majority of the Board of Directors consist of independent directors and (2) the requirement that we have a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities. Accordingly, you do not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements. However, our Board of Directors is currently comprised of a majority of independent directors, and we currently have a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the majority of the members of such committee are independent directors.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock and the value of our warrants will depend on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. There can be no assurance that analysts will cover us or provide favorable coverage. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or change their opinion of our stock, our share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

Holders of our CVRs that are payable contingent upon us achieving certain milestones may not receive any further consideration.

In connection with our 2017 acquisition of Altor, we issued CVRs under which we agreed to pay the prior stockholders of Altor approximately $304.0 million of contingent consideration upon the successful regulatory approval of a BLA by the FDA, or foreign equivalent, for ANKTIVA by December 31, 2022, and approximately $304.0 million of contingent consideration upon calendar-year worldwide sales of ANKTIVA exceeding $1.0 billion prior to December 31, 2026, with amounts payable in cash or shares of our common stock or a combination thereof.

With respect to the regulatory milestone CVR agreement, the FDA approved our BLA in April 2024, which was after the milestone date set forth in such CVR agreement. The FDA did not approve our BLA on or before December 31, 2022, and therefore the regulatory milestone was not met, and the regulatory milestone CVR agreement terminated in accordance with its terms. With respect to the sales milestone CVR agreement, there can be no assurance that such sales milestone will be achieved. Accordingly, holders of our CVRs that are payable contingent upon us achieving the aforementioned milestones may not receive any further consideration. Further, failure to achieve the milestones set forth in our CVR agreements may give rise to disputes with the holders of such CVRs. For example, the shareholder representative for the holders of regulatory milestone CVRs has notified us that it is exploring, and intends to pursue, claims on behalf of such holders based on our alleged failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to secure FDA approval of the BLA on or before the December 31, 2022 milestone date. To the extent claims are filed regarding our CVR agreements, we could be subject to monetary awards that may be substantial notwithstanding our vigorous defense, and even if such claims are not successful, litigation could result in substantial costs, adversely impact our reputation, and divert management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition.

We are not subject to the provisions of Section 203 of the DGCL, which could negatively affect your investment.

We elected in our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to not be subject to the provisions of Section 203 of the DGCL. In general, Section 203 prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. A business combination includes a merger, asset sale, or other transaction resulting in a financial benefit to the interested stockholder. An interested stockholder is a person who, together with affiliates and associates, owns (or, in certain cases, within three years prior, did own) 15% or more of the corporation’s voting stock. Our decision not to be subject to Section 203 will allow, for example, our Founder, Executive Chairman and Global Chief Scientific and Medical Officer (who, with members of his immediate family and entities affiliated with him, owned, in the aggregate, approximately 64.2% of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2025) to transfer shares in excess of 15% of our voting stock to a third-party free of the restrictions imposed by Section 203. This may make us more vulnerable to takeovers that are completed without the approval of our Board of Directors and/or without giving us the ability to prohibit or delay such takeovers as effectively.

Some provisions of our charter documents and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders. These provisions include:

•a requirement that special meetings of stockholders be called only by the board of directors, president or chief executive officer;

•advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations for election to the board of directors; and

•the authority of the board of directors to issue preferred stock on terms determined by the board of directors without stockholder approval and which preferred stock may include rights superior to the rights of the holders of common stock.

These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our Board of Directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current Board of Directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our Board of Directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Claims for indemnification by our directors and officers may reduce our available funds to satisfy successful third-party claims against us and may reduce the amount of money available to us.

Our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws provide that we will indemnify our directors and officers, in each case to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the DGCL, our Amended and Restated Bylaws, and our indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that:

•We will indemnify our directors and officers for serving us in those capacities or for serving other business enterprises at our request, to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. Delaware law provides that a corporation may indemnify such person if such person acted in good faith and in a manner such person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the registrant and, with respect to any criminal proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe such person’s conduct was unlawful.

•We may, in our discretion, indemnify employees and agents in those circumstances where indemnification is permitted by applicable law.

•We are required to advance expenses, as incurred, to our directors and officers in connection with defending a proceeding, except that such directors or officers shall undertake to repay such advances if it is ultimately determined that such person is not entitled to indemnification.

•We are not obligated pursuant to our Amended and Restated Bylaws to indemnify a person with respect to proceedings initiated by that person against us or our other indemnitees except with respect to proceedings authorized by our Board of Directors or brought to enforce a right to indemnification.

•The rights conferred in our Amended and Restated Bylaws are not exclusive, and we are authorized to enter into indemnification agreements with our directors, officers, employees and agents and to obtain insurance to indemnify such persons.

•We may not retroactively amend our Bylaws provisions to reduce our indemnification obligations to directors, officers, employees and agents.

To the extent that a claim for indemnification is brought by any of our directors or officers, it would reduce the amount of funds available for use in our business.

Our Bylaws provide that the Delaware Court of Chancery is the exclusive forum for substantiallyall disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees.

Our Amended and Restated Bylaws provides that the Delaware Court of Chancery (or, if the Delaware Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) is the sole and exclusive forum for any state law claims for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provisions of the DGCL, or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Delaware Court of Chancery, our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or our Amended and Restated Bylaws (including the interpretation, validity or enforceability thereof), or (iv) any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine; provided, that these choice of forum provisions do not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all such Securities Act actions. Our Amended and Restated Bylaws provide that the federal district courts are the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. The choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. If a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in the Amended and Restated Bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions of our Amended and Restated Bylaws described above.