Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We develop our mRNA-based product candidates by leveraging our proprietary technology and our manufacturing platform, which is an unproven approach to the treatment of autoimmune disease. We are early in most of our clinical development efforts and may not be successful in our efforts to build a pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable drugs.

Current wording

We develop our mRNA-based product candidates by leveraging our proprietary technology and our manufacturing platform, which is an unproven approach to the treatment of autoimmune disease. We may not be successful in our efforts to build a pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable drugs.

Previous wording

Our mRNA approach to develop product candidates for the treatment of autoimmune diseases is an unproven approach. Our most advanced product candidate, Descartes-08, is in the initial phase of Phase 3 clinical development. We have not demonstrated the ability to successfully complete any Phase 3 or other pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial product, or arrange for a third-party to do so on our behalf, or conduct other sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. We may have problems identifying new product candidates and applying our technologies to other areas. Even if we are successful in identifying new product candidates, they may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of manufacturing difficulties, harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

Current wording

Our mRNA approach to develop product candidates for the treatment of autoimmune diseases is an unproven approach. Our most advanced product candidate, Descartes-08, is in Phase 3 clinical development. We have not demonstrated the ability to successfully complete any Phase 3 or other pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial product, or arrange for a third-party to do so on our behalf, or conduct other sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. We may have problems identifying new product candidates and applying our technologies to other areas. Even if we are successful in identifying new product candidates, they may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of manufacturing difficulties, harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

Previous wording

In addition, we cannot be certain as to what type and how many clinical trials the FDA will require us to conduct before we may gain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates in the United States or other countries, if any. Prior to approving a new therapeutic product, the FDA generally requires that safety and efficacy be demonstrated in two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials.

Current wording

In addition, we cannot be certain as to what type and how many clinical trials the FDA will require us to conduct before we may gain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates in the United States or other countries, if any. Prior to approving a new therapeutic product, the FDA generally requires that safety and efficacy be demonstrated in two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. Although the FDA may provide comments regarding our development plan as part of an SPA agreement or otherwise, final determination for marketing application approval are made after a complete review of a marketing application and are based on the entirety of the data in the IND or BLA.

Previous wording

Opening and conducting clinical trials at trial sites outside the United States may involve additional regulatory, administrative and financial burdens, including compliance with foreign and local requirements relating to regulatory submission and clinical trial practices. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs and the FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection, if necessary. Generally, the patient population for any clinical trials conducted outside the United States must be representative of the population for which we intend to seek approval in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of any applicable product candidates.

Current wording

States, acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs and the FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection, if necessary. Generally, the patient population for any clinical trials conducted outside the United States must be representative of the population for which we intend to seek approval in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of any applicable product candidates.

Previous wording

There exist several designations that we can apply for from the FDA and other regulators that would provide us with various combinations of the potential for expedited regulatory review, certain financial incentives as well as the potential for post-approval exclusivity for a period of time. These designations include but are not limited to orphan drug designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval, fast track status and priority review for our product candidates. For example, Descartes-08 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation and RMAT Designation by the FDA for the treatment of MG. Descartes-08 also received Rare Pediatric Disease Designation by the FDA for the treatment of JDM. We expect to seek one or more of these designations for our other current and future product candidates. There can be no assurance that any of our other product candidates will qualify for any of these designations. There can also be no assurance that any of our product candidates that do qualify for these designations will be granted such designations or that the FDA will not revoke a designation it grants at a later date, or that Congress will not change the law about a designation.

Current wording

There exist several designations that we can apply for from the FDA and other regulators that would provide us with various combinations of the potential for expedited regulatory review, certain financial incentives, aid in our obtaining marketing approval as well as the potential for post-approval exclusivity for a period of time. These designations include but are not limited to orphan drug designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval, CNPV, fast track status and priority review for our product candidates. For example, Descartes-08 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation and RMAT Designation by the FDA for the treatment of MG. Descartes-08 received Rare Pediatric Disease Designation by the FDA for the treatment of JDM. We expect to seek one or more of these designations for our other current and future product candidates. There can be no assurance that any of our other product candidates will qualify for any of these designations. There can also be no assurance that any of our product candidates that do qualify for these designations will be granted such designations or that the FDA will not revoke a designation it grants at a later date, or that Congress will not change the law about a designation.

Previous wording

Further, there can be no assurance that any of our product candidates that are granted such designations, including Descartes-08, will ever benefit from such designations or that the FDA would not withdraw such designations once granted. Were we to receive a designation that promised a period of market exclusivity, such as orphan drug exclusivity, such exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. In particular, the scope of exclusivity afforded for mRNA-modified cell therapy products may not be well defined. Further with respect to orphan drug status, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior if it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Current wording

Further, there can be no assurance that any of our product candidates that are granted such designations, including Descartes-08, will ever benefit from such designations or that the FDA would not withdraw such designations once granted. Were we to receive a designation that promised a period of market exclusivity, such as orphan drug exclusivity, such exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. In particular, the scope of exclusivity afforded for mRNA-modified cell therapy products may not be well defined and may change. Further with respect to orphan drug status, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior if it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Previous wording

From time to time, we may publish interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical studies, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a full analyses of all data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary or top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available.

Current wording

From time to time, we may publish interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical studies, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a full analysis of all data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary or top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available.

Previous wording

In November 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR-T cell immunotherapies. While the FDA noted that it currently believes that the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA stated that it is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action. Further, in January 2024, the FDA announced it would require a so-called “boxed warning” be added to the prescribing information for all six then-currently approved CAR-T therapies. A boxed warning is the strongest safety labeling the FDA may require. However, because all currently approved CAR T-cell immunotherapies are in oncology indications, there can be no assurance that FDA will reach the same risk-benefit analysis in other indications.

Current wording

In November 2023, the FDA issued a statement that it is investigating serious risk of T-cell malignancy following BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR-T cell immunotherapies. While the FDA noted that it currently believes that the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA stated that it is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action. Further, in January 2024, the FDA announced it would require a so-called “boxed warning” be added to the prescribing information for all six then-currently approved CAR-T therapies. A boxed warning is the strongest safety labeling the FDA may require. However, because all currently approved CAR T-cell immunotherapies are in oncology indications, there can be no assurance that FDA will reach the same risk-benefit analysis in other indications. In June 2025, the FDA eliminated the REMS for currently approved BCMA- and CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor CAR T cell immunotherapies, but maintained the boxed warning and stated that the products would continue to be subject to safety monitoring through AE reporting and any post-marketing commitments or requirements.

Previous wording

While we believe our mRNA-based CAR-T product candidates may have a differentiated toxicity profile than currently approved DNA-based CAR-T therapies, there can be no assurance that the FDA would not treat Descartes-08 or any of our other product candidates similar to approved DNA-based CAR-T therapies. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Current wording

While we believe our mRNA-based CAR-T product candidates may have a differentiated toxicity profile than currently approved DNA-based CAR-T therapies, there can be no assurance that the FDA would not treat Descartes-08 or any of our other product candidates similar to approved DNA-based CAR-T therapies, or decide a REMS is necessary to assure safe use. The FDA’s investigation may impact the FDA’s review of product candidates that we are developing, or that we may seek to develop in the future, which may, among other things, result in additional regulatory scrutiny of our product candidates, delay the timing for receiving any regulatory approvals or impose additional post-approval requirements on any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval.

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also increase the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies or to otherwise respond to regulatory submissions, which would adversely affect our business. For example, the Trump Administration has discussed several changes to the reach and oversight of the FDA, which could affect its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, transparency in decision making and ultimately the cost and availability of prescription drugs. Additionally, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down multiple times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA and other government employees and stop critical activities. If funding for the FDA is reduced, FDA priorities change or a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also increase the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies or to otherwise respond to regulatory submissions, which would adversely affect our business. For example, the Trump Administration has discussed several changes to the reach and oversight of the FDA, which could affect its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, transparency in decision making and ultimately the cost and availability of prescription drugs. Additionally, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down multiple times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough or reduce the number of critical FDA and other government employees and stop critical activities. If funding for the FDA is reduced, FDA priorities change or a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Previous wording

Except for the year ended December 31, 2022, we have incurred significant operating losses since our inception. We incurred a net loss of $77.4 million and $219.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2024, and 2023, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $692.1 million. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through public offerings and private placements of our securities, funding received from collaboration and license arrangements and a credit facility. We currently have no source of product revenue, and we do not expect to generate product revenue for the foreseeable future. We expect to devote substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to developing our mRNA-based therapies for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and our clinical trials. We are in the early stages of clinical development of most of our product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We expect that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

Current wording

Except for the year ended December 31, 2022, we have incurred significant operating losses since our inception. We incurred a net loss of $130.3 million and $77.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2025, and 2024, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $822.4 million. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through public offerings and private placements of our securities, funding received from collaboration and license arrangements and a credit facility. We currently have no source of product revenue, and we do not expect to generate product revenue for the foreseeable future. We expect to devote substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to developing our mRNA-based therapies for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and our clinical trials. We are in the early stages of clinical development of most of our product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We expect that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

Previous wording

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash as of December 31, 2024, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2027. We may pursue additional cash resources through public or private equity or debt financings, by establishing collaborations with other companies or through the monetization of potential royalty and/or milestone payments pursuant to our existing collaboration and license arrangements. Management’s expectations with respect to our ability to fund current and long-term planned operations are based on estimates that are subject to risks and uncertainties. If actual results are different from management’s estimates, we may need to seek additional strategic or financing opportunities sooner than would otherwise be expected. However, there is no guarantee that any of these strategic or financing opportunities will be executed on favorable terms, and some could be dilutive to existing stockholders. If we are unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis, we may be forced to significantly curtail, delay, or discontinue one or more of our planned research or development programs or be unable to expand our operations, meet long-term obligations or otherwise capitalize on our commercialization of our product candidates. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Current wording

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash as of December 31, 2025, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. We may pursue additional cash resources through public or private equity or debt financings, by establishing collaborations with other companies or through the monetization of potential royalty and/or milestone payments pursuant to our existing collaboration and license arrangements. Management’s expectations with respect to our ability to fund current and long-term planned operations are based on estimates that are subject to risks and uncertainties. If actual results are different from management’s estimates, we may need to seek additional strategic or financing opportunities sooner than would otherwise be expected. However, there is no guarantee that any of these strategic or financing opportunities will be executed on favorable terms, and some could be dilutive to existing stockholders. If we are unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis, we may be forced to significantly curtail, delay, or discontinue one or more of our planned research or development programs or be unable to expand our operations, meet long-term obligations or otherwise capitalize on our commercialization of our product candidates. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Previous wording

Furthermore, our ability to use NOLs of companies that we may acquire in the future may be subject to limitations. As a result, we may not be able to use a material portion of the NOLs reflected on our balance sheet, even if we attain profitability. Under current law, NOLs that arose before January 1, 2018 may be carried forward up to 20 years. NOLs that arose after 2017 may be used to offset at most 80% of our taxable income to the extent not offset by pre-2018 NOLs and such NOLs can be carried forward indefinitely. As a result, we may become required to pay federal income taxes in future years despite having generated losses for federal income tax purposes in prior years.

Current wording

Under current law, NOLs that arose before January 1, 2018 may be carried forward up to 20 years. NOLs that arose after 2017 may be used to offset at most 80% of our taxable income to the extent not offset by pre-2018 NOLs and such NOLs can be carried forward indefinitely. As a result, we may become required to pay federal income taxes in future years despite having generated losses for federal income tax purposes in prior years.

Previous wording

We have recorded a material amount of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets in connection with the Merger. We may record impairment charges, which would adversely impact our financial position and results of operations.

Current wording

We have recorded a material amount of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets in connection with the Merger. We have, and may in the future, record impairment charges, which would adversely impact our financial position and results of operations.

Previous wording

In addition, the determination as to whether our indefinite-lived intangible assets related to Descartes-08 are impaired is heavily dependent on the results of our ongoing clinical trials, as well as other factors, such as the potential market for Descartes-08, if approved.

Current wording

In addition, the determination as to whether our indefinite-lived intangible assets related to Descartes-08 are impaired is heavily dependent on the results of our ongoing clinical trials, as well as other factors, such as the potential market for Descartes-08, if approved. For example, during the year ended December 31, 2025, we recorded a $56.7 million impairment charge related to Descartes-08 in SLE, due to our announced pause in further development of Descartes-08 in SLE, following which we made a further decision that we would no longer pursue the development of Descartes-08 in SLE. See Note 3, “Goodwill and Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets” to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report for more information.

Previous wording

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct and manage our clinical trials, including our planned Phase 3 clinical trials of Descartes-08. We also expect to rely on other third-parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials.

Current wording

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct and manage our clinical trials, including our current and planned Phase 3 clinical trials of Descartes-08. We also expect to rely on other third-parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials.

Previous wording

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Current wording

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing and prosecuting patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Previous wording

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. As we reach the statutory deadlines for deciding whether and where to initiate prosecution in specific foreign jurisdictions by filing national stage applications based on our Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications, we will have to decide whether and where to pursue patent protection for the various inventions claimed in our patent portfolio, and we will only have the opportunity to obtain patents in those jurisdictions where we pursue protection. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as, with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third-parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. We also cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete and thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

Current wording

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. As we reach the statutory deadlines for deciding whether and where to initiate prosecution in specific foreign jurisdictions by filing national stage applications based on our Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications, we will have to decide whether and where to pursue patent protection for the various inventions claimed in our patent portfolio, and we will only have the opportunity to obtain patents in those jurisdictions where we pursue protection. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation, filing or prosecution of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as, with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If there are material defects in the form, preparation filing or prosecution of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. We also cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete and thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

Previous wording

Moreover, other parties may have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our approach, and may have filed or may file patent applications, and may have received or may receive patents that may overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming similar methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. In addition, it may be some time before we understand how the patent office reacts to our patent claims and whether they identify prior art of relevance that we have not already considered.

Current wording

Moreover, other parties may have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our approach, and may have filed or may file patent applications, and may have received or may receive patents that may overlap or conflict with our patent applications or patents, either by claiming similar methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. In addition, it may be some time before we understand how patent offices react to our patent claims and whether they identify prior art of relevance that we have not already considered.

Previous wording

Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any owned patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, nor can we know whether those from whom we may license patents were the first to make the inventions claimed or were the first to file. For these and other reasons, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are subject to a level of uncertainty. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Current wording

Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any owned patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, nor can we know whether those from whom we have licensed or may license patents were the first to make the inventions claimed or were the first to file. For these and other reasons, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are subject to a level of uncertainty. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Previous wording

We may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or other patent office, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third-parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Furthermore, an adverse decision in an interference proceeding can result in a third-party receiving the patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, market or otherwise commercialize our product candidates. The issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patents are subject to a level of uncertainty.

Current wording

We may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or other patent office, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third-parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Furthermore, an adverse decision in an interference or a derivation proceeding can result in our inability to receive, or a a third party receiving, the patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, market or otherwise commercialize our product candidates. The issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patents are subject to a level of uncertainty.

Previous wording

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by our patents. Although our agreements require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any other third-parties who have access to our trade secrets, proprietary know-how and other confidential information and technology to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and other confidential information and technology will not be subject to unauthorized disclosure or that our competitors will not otherwise gain access to or independently develop substantially equivalent trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and other information and technology. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property globally. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized disclosure of our intellectual property related to our product candidates and technology to third-parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could adversely affect our business and operations.

Current wording

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by our patents. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any other third parties who have access to our trade secrets, proprietary know-how and other confidential information and technology to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and other confidential information and technology will not be subject to unauthorized disclosure or that our competitors will not otherwise gain access to or independently develop substantially equivalent trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and other information and technology. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property globally. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized disclosure of our intellectual property related to our product candidates and technology to third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could adversely affect our business and operations.

Previous wording

Any litigation to enforce or defend our patent rights, even if we were to prevail, could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation, or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings, may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be adversely affected.

Current wording

Any litigation to enforce or defend our patent rights or other intellectual property rights, even if we were to prevail, could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. We may not prevail in any lawsuits we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation, or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings, may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, recent patent reform legislation could further increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, included provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation, including first-to-file provisions. A third-party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third-party. This requires us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Thus, for our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, the date such provisions became effective, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. Moreover, some of the patent applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the pre-Leahy-Smith Act law and regulations, while other patents applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the law and regulations, as amended by the Leahy-Smith Act. This introduces additional complexities into the prosecution and management of our portfolio.

Current wording

As is the case with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, patent reform legislation could further increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, included provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation, including first-to-file provisions. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This requires us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Thus, for our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, the date such provisions became effective, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. Moreover, some of the patent applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the pre-Leahy-Smith Act law and regulations, while other patents applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the law and regulations, as amended by the Leahy-Smith Act. This introduces additional complexities into the prosecution and management of our portfolio.

Previous wording

Depending on these and other decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change or be interpreted in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that may issue to us in the future. In addition, these events may adversely affect our ability to defend any patents that may issue in procedures in the USPTO or in courts.

Current wording

Depending on these and other decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change or be interpreted in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that have issued or may issue to us in the future. In addition, these events may adversely affect our ability to defend any patents that have issued or may issue in procedures in the USPTO or in courts.

Previous wording

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including our patents or the patents of our licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. If we initiated legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent, if and when issued, covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement, or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with the prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third-parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment of our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or competitive products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant 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. Moreover, even if not found invalid or unenforceable, the claims of our patents could be construed narrowly or in a manner that does not cover the allegedly infringing technology in question. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

Current wording

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including our patents or the patents of our licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. If we initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent, if and when issued, covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement, or failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with the prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment of our patents including claimes in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or competitive products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant 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. Moreover, even if not found invalid or unenforceable, the claims of our patents could be construed narrowly or in a manner that does not cover the allegedly infringing technology in question. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

Previous wording

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, consultants, advisors and contractors who may be involved in the 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 develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third-parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Similarly, we may be subject to claims that an employee, advisor or consultant performed work for us that conflicts with that person’s obligations to a third-party, such as an employer, and thus, that the third-party has an ownership interest in the intellectual property arising out of work performed for us. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

Current wording

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, consultants, advisors and contractors who may be involved in the 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 develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our or other relevant assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third-parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Similarly, we may be subject to claims that an employee, advisor or consultant performed work for us that conflicts with that person’s obligations to a third-party, such as an employer, and thus, that the third-party has an ownership interest in the intellectual property arising out of work performed for us.

Previous wording

The application for patent term extension is subject to approval by the USPTO, in conjunction with the FDA. It takes at least six months to obtain approval of the application for patent term extension. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, 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 restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened, our competitors may obtain earlier approval of competing products and our ability to generate revenues could be materially adversely affected.

Current wording

The application for patent term extension is subject to approval by the USPTO, in conjunction with the FDA. It may take at least several months to a few years to obtain approval of the application for patent term extension. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, 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 restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened, our competitors may obtain earlier approval of competing products and our ability to generate revenues could be materially adversely affected.

Previous wording

A variety of risks associated with maintaining our subsidiary in Russia or expanding operations internationally could adversely affect our business.

Current wording

A variety of risks associated with winding down operations of our subsidiary in Russia or expanding operations internationally could adversely affect our business.

Previous wording

In addition to our U.S. operations, we maintain a wholly owned subsidiary in Russia, Selecta (RUS). However, we are in the process of winding down all remaining operations of this subsidiary. We may face risks associated with winding down the operations of our subsidiary in Russia, or with any international operations, including possible unfavorable regulatory, pricing and reimbursement, legal, political, tax and labor conditions, and risks associated with our compliance with evolving international sanctions, which could harm our business. We may also rely on collaborators to commercialize any approved product candidates outside of the United States. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

Current wording

In addition to our U.S. operations, we maintain a wholly owned subsidiary in Russia, Selecta (RUS). We are in the process of winding down the operations of our subsidiary in Russia, but until that process is complete, we remain subject to risks associated with this subsidiary, or with any international operations, including possible unfavorable regulatory, pricing and reimbursement, legal, political, tax and labor conditions, and risks associated with our compliance with evolving international sanctions, which could harm our business. We may also rely on collaborators to commercialize any approved product candidates outside of the United States. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

Previous wording

Our executive officers, directors and stockholders who own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock and their respective affiliates, in the aggregate, hold shares representing approximately 64.5% of our outstanding voting stock as of December 31, 2024, assuming the conversion of all shares of all outstanding shares of Series A Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, or Series A Preferred Stock, and Series B Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, or Series B Preferred Stock, into common stock, or 68.4%, assuming no conversion of outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock into common stock. As a result, if some or all of these stockholders choose to act together, they would be able to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would control or significantly influence the election of directors, the composition of our management and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

Current wording

Our executive officers, directors and stockholders who own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock and their respective affiliates, in the aggregate, hold shares representing approximately 67.1% of our outstanding voting stock as of December 31, 2025, assuming the conversion of all shares of all outstanding shares of Series A Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, or Series A Preferred Stock, and Series B Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, or Series B Preferred Stock, into common stock, or 59.7%, assuming no conversion of outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock into common stock. As a result, if some or all of these stockholders choose to act together, they would be able to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would control or significantly influence the election of directors, the composition of our management and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

Previous wording

On February 7, 2024, Justin Sloan, a purported stockholder of our Company, filed a putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of the Company against our Company and members of our Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, titled Sloan v. Barabe, et al., No. 2024-0105. The complaint alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to our Company’s stockholders in our Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on January 31, 2024 in connection with the solicitation of stockholder approval of the Series A Conversion Proposal. The complaint seeks a temporary injunction against the stockholder vote on the Series A Conversion Proposal, compensatory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. At a telephonic hearing on February 28, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the proceedings, rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that the lawsuit raised colorable disclosure claims warranting expedited treatment. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed. This action was subsequently dismissed on March 13, 2024.

Current wording

On February 7, 2024, Justin Sloan, a purported stockholder of our Company, filed a putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of the Company against our Company and members of our Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, titled Sloan v. Barabe, et al., No. 2024-0105. The complaint alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to our Company’s stockholders in our Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on January 31, 2024 in connection with the solicitation of stockholder approval of the Series A Conversion Proposal. The complaint sought a temporary injunction against the stockholder vote on the Series A Conversion Proposal, compensatory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. At a telephonic hearing on February 28, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the proceedings, rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that the lawsuit raised colorable disclosure claims warranting expedited treatment. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed. This action was subsequently dismissed on March 13, 2024.