BICYCLE THERAPEUTICS PLC

Previous wording

We do not expect to generate revenue or profitability that is necessary to finance our operations in the short term. Since inception, we have incurred recurring losses, including net losses of $66.4 million and $81.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively. As of June 30, 2024, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $578.1 million. To date, we have not commercialized any products or generated any revenues from the sale of products, and absent the realization of sufficient revenues from product sales, we may never attain profitability in the future. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and our clinical trials. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. Net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital.

Current wording

We do not expect to generate revenue or profitability that is necessary to finance our operations in the short term. Since inception, we have incurred recurring losses, including net losses of $117.2 million and $131.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively. As of September 30, 2024, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $628.9 million. To date, we have not commercialized any products or generated any revenues from the sale of products, and absent the realization of sufficient revenues from product sales, we may never attain profitability in the future. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and our clinical trials. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. Net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital.

Previous wording

Our revenue to date has been primarily generated from our research collaborations with Bayer Consumer Care AG, or Bayer, Novartis Pharma AG, or Novartis, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Ionis, Genentech Inc., or Genentech, Dementia Discovery Fund, or DDF, Sanofi (formerly Bioverativ Inc.), AstraZeneca AB, or AstraZeneca, and Oxurion NV, or Oxurion. There can be no assurance that we will generate revenue from our collaborations in the future.

Current wording

Our revenue to date has been primarily generated from our research collaborations with Bayer Consumer Care AG, or Bayer, Novartis Pharma AG, or Novartis, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Ionis, Genentech Inc., or Genentech, Dementia Discovery Fund, Sanofi (formerly Bioverativ Inc.), AstraZeneca AB, and Oxurion NV. There can be no assurance that we will generate revenue from our collaborations in the future.

Previous wording

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents of $961.4 million as of June 30, 2024, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least 12 months from the date of filing of this Quarterly Report. Our estimate may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Further, changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

Current wording

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents of $890.9 million as of September 30, 2024, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least 12 months from the date of filing of this Quarterly Report. Our estimate may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Further, changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

Previous wording

Within our BTC programs, we are evaluating zelenectide pevedotin, previously called BT8009, a BTC molecule that targets Nectin-4 and carries a monomethyl auristatin E, or MMAE, cytotoxin payload, in both an ongoing company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary clinical activity in patients with Nectin-4 expressing advanced malignancies and an ongoing Phase II/III registrational trial called Duravelo-2, and BT5528, a BTC molecule that targets Ephrin type-A receptor 2, or EphA2 and carries a MMAE cytotoxin payload, in an ongoing, company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary clinical activity in patients with advanced malignancies associated with EphA2 expression. In addition, BT1718, a BTC molecule designed to target tumors that express MT1-MMP, is being investigated for safety, tolerability and efficacy in a Phase I/IIa clinical trial sponsored and fully funded by the Cancer Research UK Centre for Drug Development, or Cancer Research UK. Upon the completion of the Phase I/IIa clinical trial for BT1718, we have the right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial from Cancer Research UK upon the payment of a milestone, in cash and ordinary shares with a combined value in a mid six-digit dollar amount. If we do not exercise our right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial or we fail to obtain a license, our ability to continue development of BT1718 would be negatively impacted. We are also evaluating BT7480, which is a Bicycle* *TICA molecule targeting Nectin-4 and agonizing CD137, in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess the safety and tolerability of BT7480, and to determine a recommended Phase II dose. There can be no assurance our BTC molecules or Bicycle TICA molecules will ever demonstrate evidence of safety or effectiveness for any use or receive regulatory approval in the United States, the European Union, or any other country in any indication. Even if clinical trials show positive results, there can be no assurance that the FDA in the United States, or the European Commission, whose decision is based on an opinion from the EMA, in Europe or similar regulatory authorities will approve our BTC molecules or any of our other product candidates for any given indication for several potential reasons, including the failure to follow Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, a negative assessment of the risks and benefits, insufficient product quality control and standardization, failure to have Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP, compliant manufacturing facilities, or the failure to agree with regulatory authorities on clinical endpoints.

Current wording

Within our BTC programs, we are evaluating zelenectide pevedotin, previously called BT8009, a BTC molecule that targets Nectin-4 and carries a monomethyl auristatin E, or MMAE, cytotoxin payload, in both an ongoing company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary clinical activity in patients with Nectin-4 expressing advanced malignancies and an ongoing Phase II/III registrational trial called Duravelo-2, and BT5528, a BTC molecule that targets Ephrin type-A receptor 2, or EphA2 and carries a MMAE cytotoxin payload, in an ongoing, company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary clinical activity in patients with advanced malignancies associated with EphA2 expression. In addition, BT1718, a BTC molecule designed to target tumors that express MT1-MMP, is being investigated for safety, tolerability and efficacy in a Phase I/IIa clinical trial sponsored and fully funded by the Cancer Research UK Centre for Drug Development, or Cancer Research UK. Upon the completion of the Phase I/IIa clinical trial for BT1718, we have the right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial from Cancer Research UK upon the payment of a milestone, in cash and ordinary shares with a combined value in a mid six-digit dollar amount. If we do not exercise our right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial or we fail to obtain a license, our ability to continue development of BT1718 would be negatively impacted. We are also evaluating BT7480, which is a Bicycle* *TICA molecule targeting Nectin-4 and agonizing CD137, in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess the safety and tolerability of BT7480, and to determine a recommended Phase II dose. There can be no assurance our BTC molecules or Bicycle TICA molecules will ever demonstrate evidence of safety or effectiveness for any use or receive regulatory approval in the United States, the European Union, or any other country in any indication. Even if clinical trials show positive results, there can be no assurance that the FDA in the United States, or the European Commission, whose decision is based on an opinion from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in Europe or similar regulatory authorities will approve our BTC molecules or any of our other product candidates for any given indication for several potential reasons, including the failure to follow Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, a negative assessment of the risks and benefits, insufficient product quality control and standardization, failure to have Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP, compliant manufacturing facilities, or the failure to agree with regulatory authorities on clinical endpoints.

Previous wording

The FDA in the United States, the European Commission based on a positive opinion from the EMA, or national competent regulatory authorities or EEA countries, in the EEA, and any other comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions must approve product candidates before they can be marketed, promoted or sold in those territories. We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any of our product candidates. We must provide these regulatory authorities with data from preclinical studies and clinical trials that demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for a specific indication before they can be approved for commercial distribution. We cannot be certain that our clinical trials for our product candidates will be successful or that any of our other product candidates will receive approval from the FDA, the European Commission based on a positive opinion from the EMA or any other comparable regulatory authority.

Current wording

The FDA in the United States, the European Commission based on a positive opinion from the EMA, or national competent regulatory authorities in the European Economic Area, or EEA, countries and any other comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions must approve product candidates before they can be marketed, promoted or sold in those territories. We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any of our product candidates. We must provide these regulatory authorities with data from preclinical studies and clinical trials that demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for a specific indication before they can be approved for commercial distribution. We cannot be certain that our clinical trials for our product candidates will be successful or that any of our other product candidates will receive approval from the FDA, the European Commission based on a positive opinion from the EMA or any other comparable regulatory authority.

Previous wording

Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval for our product candidates. The FDA, EMA or the European Commission or any other comparable regulatory authority may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data from clinical trials, or may change the requirements for approval even after it has reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials.

Current wording

Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval for our product candidates. The FDA, EMA or the European Commission or any other comparable regulatory authority may disagree with our clinical trial design and our

Previous wording

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with the required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. For example, due to the nature of the indications that we are initially targeting, patients with advanced disease progression may not be suitable candidates for treatment with our product candidates and may be ineligible for enrollment in our clinical trials. Therefore, early diagnosis in patients with our target diseases is critical to our success. Patient enrollment and trial completion is affected by factors including the:

Current wording

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with the required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. For example, due to the nature of the indications that we are initially targeting, patients with advanced disease progression may not be suitable candidates for treatment with our product candidates and may be ineligible for enrollment in our clinical trials. Therefore, early

Previous wording

these trials, including specific patient responses we have observed and disclosed, may not be replicated in the completed data sets or in future trials at global clinical trial sites in a later stage clinical trial conducted by us or our collaborators. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. While we have aligned with the FDA on the design of a Phase II/III registrational trial for zelenectide pevedotin, called Duravelo-2, which is now active and recruiting patients, we otherwise have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval.

Current wording

The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and preliminary or interim results of clinical trials do not necessarily predict success in the results of completed clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we could face similar setbacks. For example, our company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trials of zelenectide pevedotin, BT5528 and BT7480 are ongoing and BT1718 is being investigated in a Phase I/IIa trial conducted by Cancer Research UK, and the interim results of these trials, including specific patient responses we have observed and disclosed, may not be replicated in the completed data sets or in future trials at global clinical trial sites in a later stage clinical trial conducted by us or our collaborators. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. While we have aligned with the FDA on the design of a Phase II/III registrational trial for zelenectide pevedotin, called Duravelo-2, which is currently enrolling, we otherwise have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval.

Previous wording

We may employ companion diagnostics to help us more accurately identify patients within a particular subset, both during our clinical trials and in connection with the commercialization of our product candidates that we are developing or may in the future develop. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval or certification prior to commercialization. We do not develop companion diagnostics internally and thus we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our third-party collaborators in developing and obtaining approval or certification for these companion diagnostics. There can be no guarantees that we will successfully find a suitable collaborator to develop companion diagnostics. We and our collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval or certification for the companion diagnostics, including issues relating to selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation. Any delay or failure by our collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval or certification of the companion diagnostics could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates. In addition, our collaborators may encounter production difficulties that could constrain the supply of the companion diagnostics, and both they and we may have difficulties gaining acceptance of the use of the companion diagnostics in the clinical community or difficulties obtaining insurance coverage and reimbursement from private insurance or government payors. If such companion diagnostics fail to gain market acceptance, our ability to derive revenues from sales of any products, if approved, will be adversely affected. In addition, the diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our product candidates.

Current wording

We may employ companion diagnostics to help us more accurately identify patients within a particular subset, both during our clinical trials and in connection with the commercialization of our product candidates that we are developing or may in the future develop. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval or certification prior to commercialization. We do not develop companion diagnostics internally and thus we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our third-party collaborators in developing and obtaining approval or certification for these companion diagnostics. There can be no guarantees that we will successfully find a suitable collaborator to develop companion diagnostics. We and our collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval or certification for the companion diagnostics, including issues relating to selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation. Any delay or failure by our collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval or certification of the companion diagnostics could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates. In addition, our collaborators may encounter production difficulties that could constrain the supply of the companion diagnostics, and both they and we may have difficulties gaining acceptance of the use of the companion diagnostics in the clinical community or difficulties obtaining insurance coverage and reimbursement from private insurance or government payors. If such companion diagnostics fail to gain market acceptance, our ability to derive revenues from sales of any products, if approved, will be adversely affected. In addition, the diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product

Previous wording

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval expose us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by patients, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. There is a risk that our product candidates may induce adverse events. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

Current wording

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval expose us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by patients, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. There is a risk that our product candidates may induce adverse events. If we cannot successfully defend against

Previous wording

For example, we may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for one or more of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our

Current wording

to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

Previous wording

Obtaining and maintaining marketing approval of our current and future product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain marketing approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining marketing approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the marketing approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval. We do not have experience in obtaining reimbursement or pricing approvals in international markets.

Current wording

our products is also subject to approval. We do not have experience in obtaining reimbursement or pricing approvals in international markets.

Previous wording

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or other regulatory authority. The FDA or other regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the trial. The FDA or other regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or other regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

Current wording

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or other regulatory authority. The FDA or other regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the trial. The FDA or other regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or other

Previous wording

In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. For example, regulatory authorities may approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-marketing studies. Regulators may approve a product candidate for a smaller patient population, a different drug formulation or a different manufacturing process, than we are seeking. If we are unable to obtain necessary regulatory

Current wording

In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. For example, regulatory authorities may approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-marketing studies. Regulators may approve a product candidate for a smaller patient population, a different drug formulation or a different manufacturing process, than we are seeking. If we are unable to obtain necessary regulatory approvals, or more limited regulatory approvals than we expect, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may suffer.

Previous wording

to patients when prior therapy is not effective. We may initially seek approval of zelenectide pevedotin, BT5528, BT7480, BT1718 and any other product candidates we develop as a therapy for patients who have received one or more prior treatments. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval potentially as a first-line therapy, but there is no guarantee that product candidates we develop, even if approved, would be approved for first-line therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials.

Current wording

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first-line, second-line, third-line or later-line therapies, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for third-line use. When cancer is detected early enough, first-line therapy, usually chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery, radiation therapy, immunotherapy or a combination of these, is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure. Second- and third-line therapies are administered to patients when prior therapy is not effective. We may initially seek approval of zelenectide pevedotin, BT5528, BT7480, BT1718 and any other product candidates we develop as a therapy for patients who have received one or more prior treatments. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval potentially as a first-line therapy, but there is no guarantee that product candidates we develop, even if approved, would be approved for first-line therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials.

Previous wording

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe effects, are more convenient, have a broader label, are marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EU or other marketing approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Even if the product candidates we develop achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive products if any have been approved by then, resulting in reduced competitiveness.

Current wording

marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EU or other marketing approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Even if the product candidates we develop achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive products if any have been approved by then, resulting in reduced competitiveness.

Previous wording

Even if a product candidate displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product, if approved for commercial sale, will not be known until after it is launched. Our efforts to educate the medical community and payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources than are required by the conventional technologies marketed by our competitors, particularly due to the novelty of our Bicycle* *approach. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable.

Current wording

Even if a product candidate displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product, if approved for commercial sale, will not be known until after it is launched. Our efforts to educate the medical community and payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources than are required by the conventional technologies marketed by our competitors, particularly due to the novelty of our

Previous wording

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about coverage and reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, as the CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is: (1) a covered benefit under its health plan; (2) safe, effective and medically necessary; (3) appropriate for the specific patient; (4) cost-effective; and (5) neither experimental nor investigational. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

Current wording

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about coverage and reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, as the CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is: (1) a covered benefit under its health plan; (2) safe, effective and medically necessary; (3) appropriate for the specific patient; (4) cost-effective; and (5) neither experimental nor investigational. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug

Previous wording

applications, or ANDAs, in the United States. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference-listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference-listed drug, meaning, in part, that it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference-listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference-listed drug may be typically lost to the generic product, and the price of the branded product may be lowered.

Current wording

Once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “reference-listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or the Orange Book. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference-listed drugs through submission of abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, in the United States. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference-listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference-listed drug, meaning, in part, that it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference-listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference-listed drug may be typically lost to the generic product, and the price of the branded product may be lowered.

Previous wording

other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution;

Current wording

program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. “Remuneration” has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, or federal civil money penalties. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution;

Previous wording

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements, (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling, (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products, (iv) restriction on coverage, reimbursement, and pricing for our products, (v) transparency reporting obligations regarding transfers of value to health care professionals or (vi) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements, (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling, (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products, (iv) restriction on coverage, reimbursement, and pricing for our products, (v) transparency reporting obligations

Previous wording

healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, created a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Current wording

Among policy makers in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, created a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Previous wording

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries, Presidential executive orders and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (i) allows HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. These provisions take effect progressively starting in 2023. On

Current wording

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries, Presidential executive orders and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could

Previous wording

August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but it is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Further, in response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. Similarly, individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures.

Current wording

pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (i) allows HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. These provisions take effect progressively starting in 2023. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but it is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Further, in response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. Similarly, individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures.

Previous wording

Outside of the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards may govern data privacy and security. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR, and the United Kingdom’s GDPR, or UK GDPR, impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the EU GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros or 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

Current wording

United Kingdom’s GDPR, or UK GDPR, impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the EU GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros or 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

Previous wording

We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties on whom we rely may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. Such failures can subject us to potential foreign, local, state and federal action if they are found to be deceptive, unfair, or misrepresentative of our actual practices, which could negatively impact our business operations and compliance posture. For example, any failure by a third-party processor to comply with applicable law, regulations, or contractual obligations could result in adverse effects, including inability to or interruption in our ability to operate our business and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. If we or the third parties on which we rely fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy or security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; and orders to destroy or not use personal data. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process personal data or operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations.

Current wording

We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties on whom we rely may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. Such failures can subject us to potential foreign, local, state and federal action if they are found to be deceptive, unfair, or misrepresentative of our actual practices, which could negatively impact our business operations and compliance posture. For example, any failure by a third-party processor to comply with applicable law, regulations, or contractual obligations could result in adverse effects, including inability to or interruption in our ability to operate our business and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. If we or the third parties on which we rely fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy or security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data;

Previous wording

As a company with operations in the United Kingdom, our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States. Many of our suppliers and clinical trial relationships are located outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

Current wording

As a company with operations in the United Kingdom, our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States. Many of our suppliers and clinical trial relationships are located

Previous wording

Any or all of these factors could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, global instability increased after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. In response to the invasion, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, has deployed additional military forces to Eastern Europe, including to Lithuania, and the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States implemented certain sanctions against Russia. The invasion of Ukraine and the retaliatory measures that have been taken, or could be taken in the future, by the United States, NATO, and other countries or multi-national entities have created global security concerns that could result in a regional conflict and otherwise have a lasting impact on regional and global economies, any or all of which could disrupt our supply chain and increase the costs associated with or otherwise adversely affect our ability to conduct ongoing and future clinical trials of our product candidates. In addition, the conflict has had

Current wording

regional and global economies, any or all of which could disrupt our supply chain and increase the costs associated with or otherwise adversely affect our ability to conduct ongoing and future clinical trials of our product candidates. In addition, continued instability may adversely impact our ability to raise capital in the future on favorable terms or at all.

Previous wording

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate information about us, our programs and the diseases our therapeutics are being developed to treat. Social media practices in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media platforms to comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, a product or a product candidate, which could result in reporting obligations or other consequences. Further, the accidental or intentional disclosure of non-public information by our workforce or others through media channels could lead to information loss. In addition, there is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us, our products, or our product candidates on any social media platform. The nature of social media prevents us from having real-time control over postings about us on social media. We may not be able to reverse damage to our reputation from negative publicity or adverse information posted on social media platforms or similar mediums. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with application regulations, we could incur liability, face restrictive regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business including quick and irreversible damage to our reputation, brand image and goodwill. Additionally, artificial intelligence, or AI, based platforms are increasingly being used in the pharmaceutical industry. While we have introduced measures to restrict the internal use of public AI platforms, they may be used by our vendors, suppliers and contractors with access to our proprietary and

Current wording

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate information about us, our programs and the diseases our therapeutics are being developed to treat. Social media practices in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media platforms to comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, a product or a product candidate, which could result in reporting obligations or other consequences. Further, the accidental or intentional disclosure of non-public information by our workforce or others through media channels could lead to information loss. In addition, there is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us, our products, or our product candidates on any social media platform. The nature of social media prevents us from having real-time control over postings about us on social media. We may not be able to reverse damage to our reputation from negative publicity or adverse information posted on social media platforms or similar mediums. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with application regulations, we could incur liability, face restrictive regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business including quick and irreversible damage to our reputation, brand image and goodwill. Additionally, artificial intelligence, or AI, based platforms are increasingly being used in the pharmaceutical industry. While we have introduced measures to restrict the internal use of

Previous wording

confidential information, including trade secrets. Such use may lead to the release of our proprietary and confidential information, which may negatively impact our company, including our ability to realize the benefit of our intellectual property.

Current wording

public AI platforms, they may be used by our vendors, suppliers and contractors with access to our proprietary and confidential information, including trade secrets. Such use may lead to the release of our proprietary and confidential information, which may negatively impact our company, including our ability to realize the benefit of our intellectual property.

Previous wording

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of clinical or commercial supplies of the product candidates that we are developing or evaluating in our development programs. We have limited personnel with experience in drug manufacturing and lack the resources and the capabilities to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We rely on third parties, including those located in China, for supply of our product candidates, and our strategy is to outsource all manufacturing of our product candidates and products to third parties. For any activities conducted in China, we are exposed to the increased possibility of supply disruptions and higher costs in the event of changes in the policies of the U.S. or Chinese governments, political unrest or unstable economic conditions including sanctions on China or any of our China-based suppliers. Our manufacturing costs could

Current wording

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of clinical or commercial supplies of the product candidates that we are developing or evaluating in our development programs. We have limited personnel with experience in drug manufacturing and lack the resources and the capabilities to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We rely on third parties, including those located in China, for supply of our product candidates, and our strategy is to outsource all manufacturing of our product candidates and products to third parties. For any activities conducted in China, we are exposed to the increased possibility of supply disruptions and higher costs in the event of changes in the policies of the U.S. or Chinese governments, political unrest or unstable

Previous wording

also increase as a result of future appreciation of the local currency in China or increased labor costs if the demand for skilled laborers increases and/or the availability of skilled labor declines in China. In addition, certain Chinese biotechnology companies may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, other regulatory requirements, or proposed legislation by the U.S. government, which could restrict or even prohibit our ability to work with such entities, thereby potentially disrupting the supply of material to us. For example, the recently proposed BIOSECURE Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, and a substantially similar bill in the U.S. Senate, target U.S. government contracts, grants, and loans for entities that use equipment and services from certain named Chinese biotechnologies companies, and authorizes the U.S. government to include additional Chinese biotechnologies companies of concern. If these bills become law, or similar laws are passed, they would have the potential to severely restrict the ability of companies to work with certain Chinese biotechnology companies of concern without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. Such disruption could have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates and our business operations.

Current wording

economic conditions including sanctions on China or any of our China-based suppliers. Our manufacturing costs could also increase as a result of future appreciation of the local currency in China or increased labor costs if the demand for skilled laborers increases and/or the availability of skilled labor declines in China. In addition, certain Chinese biotechnology companies may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, other regulatory requirements, or proposed legislation by the U.S. government, which could restrict or even prohibit our ability to work with such entities, thereby potentially disrupting the supply of material to us. For example, the recently proposed BIOSECURE Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, and a substantially similar bill in the U.S. Senate, target U.S. government contracts, grants, and loans for entities that use equipment and services from certain named Chinese biotechnologies companies, and authorizes the U.S. government to include additional Chinese biotechnologies companies of concern. If these bills become law, or similar laws are passed, they would have the potential to severely restrict the ability of companies to work with certain Chinese biotechnology companies of concern without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. Such disruption could have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates and our business operations.

Previous wording

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

Current wording

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or

Previous wording

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved

Current wording

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the

Previous wording

products by submitting ANDAs to the FDA in which they claim that our patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

Current wording

subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting ANDAs to the FDA in which they claim that our patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

Previous wording

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. 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

Current wording

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade

Previous wording

processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach.

Current wording

secrets. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. 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. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach.

Previous wording

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Current wording

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product

Previous wording

We cannot provide assurance that our efforts to seek patent protection for one or more of our products and product candidates will not be negatively impacted by the decisions described above, rulings in other cases or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO. We cannot fully predict what impact courts’ decisions in historical and future cases may have on the ability of life science companies to obtain or enforce patents relating to their products in the future. These decisions, the guidance issued by the USPTO and rulings in other cases or changes in USPTO guidance or procedures could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent rights and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

Current wording

We cannot provide assurance that our efforts to seek patent protection for one or more of our products and product candidates will not be negatively impacted by the decisions described above, rulings in other cases or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO. We cannot fully predict what impact courts’ decisions in historical and future cases may have on the ability of life science companies to obtain or enforce patents relating to their products in the future. These decisions, the guidance issued by the USPTO and rulings in other cases or changes in USPTO guidance

Previous wording

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we were previously party to protracted litigation with Pepscan, which we settled in 2020. We may become party to, or be threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products candidates, including interference and post-grant proceedings before the USPTO. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the composition, use or manufacture of our product candidates. We 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 or 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

Current wording

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we were previously party to protracted litigation with Pepscan, which we settled in 2020. We may become party to, or be threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products candidates, including interference and post-grant proceedings before the USPTO. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the composition, use or manufacture of our product candidates. We cannot guarantee that any of