BICYCLE THERAPEUTICS PLC

We are a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company developing a novel class of medicines, which we refer to as Bicycle® molecules, for diseases that are underserved by existing therapeutics. Bicycle molecules are fully synthetic short peptides constrained to form two loops which stabilize their structural geometry. This constraint facilitates target binding with high affinity and selectivity, making Bicycle* *molecules attractive candidates for drug development. Bicycle molecules are a unique therapeutic modality combining the pharmacology usually associated with a biologic with the manufacturing and pharmacokinetic, or PK, properties of a small molecule. The relatively large surface area presented by Bicycle molecules allows targets to be drugged that have historically been intractable to non-biological approaches. Bicycle molecules are excreted by the kidney rather than the liver and have shown no signs of immunogenicity to date, qualities which we believe explain the molecules’ favorable toxicological profile.

We have a novel and proprietary phage display screening platform which we use to identify Bicycle molecules in an efficient manner. The platform initially displays linear peptides on the surface of engineered bacteriophages, or phages, before “on-phage” cyclization with a range of small molecule scaffolds which can confer differentiated physicochemical and structural properties. Our platform encodes quadrillions of potential Bicycle molecules which can be screened to identify molecules for optimization to potential product candidates. We have used this powerful screening technology to identify our current portfolio of candidates in oncology and intend to use it in conjunction with our collaborators to seek to develop additional future candidates across a range of other disease areas.

Our product candidates, zelenectide pevedotin, formerly BT8009, and BT5528, are each a Bicycle Toxin Conjugate, or a BTC®molecule. These Bicycle molecules are chemically attached to a toxin that, when administered, is cleaved from the Bicycle molecule and kills the tumor cells. We are evaluating zelenectide pevedotin, a BTC molecule targeting Nectin-4, in both an ongoing company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial and an ongoing company-sponsored Phase II/III registrational trial called Duravelo-2, and enrollment in both of these trials are ongoing. We are also evaluating BT5528, a BTC molecule targeting Ephrin type A receptor 2, or EphA2, in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial, for which enrollment is ongoing. Our other product candidate, BT7480, is a Bicycle Tumor-Targeted Immune Cell Agonist®, or a Bicycle TICA®molecule. A Bicycle TICA molecule links immune cell receptor binding Bicycle molecules to tumor antigen binding Bicycle molecules. We are evaluating BT7480, a Bicycle TICA molecule targeting Nectin-4 and agonizing CD137, in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial. Our discovery pipeline in oncology includes next-generation BTC molecules and Bicycle* *Radionuclide Conjugates, or BRC® molecules. In August 2024, we focused our research and development pipeline on clinical programs and research areas that we believe have the highest potential to maximize value creation and we consolidated all discovery research activities to our headquarters in Cambridge, U.K. Moving forward, we will prioritize the clinical development of BTC molecules in multiple tumor types; focus near-term research efforts on advancing our BRC pipeline and the discovery of next-generation BTC molecules; and, except for BT7480, explore innovative ways to continue development of our immuno-oncology portfolio, including Bicycle TICA molecules, through collaboration.

Beyond our wholly owned oncology portfolio, we are collaborating with biopharmaceutical companies and organizations in additional therapeutic areas in which we believe our proprietary Bicycle screening platform can identify therapies to treat diseases with significant unmet medical need.

The following table summarizes key information about our oncology programs:

We were founded in 2009 based on innovative science conducted by Sir Greg Winter and Professor Christian Heinis. Sir Greg Winter is a pioneer in monoclonal antibodies and, in 2018, was awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry for the invention of the technology underpinning our proprietary phage display screening platform that we use to identify Bicycle molecules. From our founding through December 31, 2024, we have generated substantial intellectual property, including 10 patent families directed to novel scaffolds, linkers and payloads, 10 patent families directed to our platform technology, 48 patent families directed to bicyclic peptides and related conjugates, and 21 patent families directed to later inventions relating to such bicyclic peptides and related conjugates, such as methods of making or using certain bicyclic peptide conjugates for treating various indications. As of December 31, 2024, our trademark portfolio consisted of 106 trademark registrations across six territories (the United Kingdom, European Union, United States, Japan, Hong Kong and Australia) as well as a number of pending applications for new trademarks. The work we have conducted in developing Bicycle molecules and our proprietary screening platform have created substantial know-how that we believe provides us with a competitive advantage.

Our management team includes veteran executives in drug development from leading pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. Our board of directors, scientific advisory board and clinical advisory board include industry experts with extensive experience in drug development.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to become a leading pharmaceutical company by pioneering Bicycle molecules as a novel therapeutic modality to treat diseases that are inadequately addressed with existing treatment modalities. Specifically, we seek to execute on the following strategy to maximize the value of our novel technology and pipeline:

We are also evaluating BT5528, another BTC molecule targeting EphA2, in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial and BT7480, a Bicycle TICA molecule targeting Nectin-4 and agonizing CD137, in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial. We intend to advance development of these candidates across oncology indications based on target expression and initial clinical activity.

The Bicycle®** Advantage**

Introduction to Bicycle molecules

Bicycle molecules are fully synthetic, short peptides consisting of nine to 20 amino acids constrained to form two loops which stabilize the structural geometry of the peptide and facilitate target binding with high affinity and selectivity. Bicycle molecules represent a unique therapeutic class, combining the pharmacological properties normally associated with a biologic with the manufacturing and PK advantages of a small molecule, with no signs of immunogenicity observed to date.

Drugs must bind to target proteins with high affinity and selectivity to achieve a therapeutic effect, while minimizing undesired effects on other proteins and physiological functions. Peptides exist in a number of folded states, only a few of which are able to bind to target proteins, and a key challenge for peptide therapeutics is designing structures that achieve these goals. We have designed our molecules to be highly constrained by linking a chemical connector compound, also known as a scaffold, to particular amino acids in the peptide chain. The resulting cyclized molecule, which we refer to as a Bicycle molecule, is locked in the preferred state to bind to the target proteins.

Schematic of the Creation of a Cyclized Molecule Resulting in a Bicycle** **Molecule

We have expanded the diversity of the chemical space we can cover from approximately 1013 potential molecules in 2009 to in excess of 1020 potential molecules today. We have applied our novel Bicycle modality to a growing range of targets, from a single target in 2009 to more than 150 today. We can create a wide range of Bicycle molecules by varying four parameters:

Properties of Bicycle Molecules as Therapeutic Agents

Bicycle molecules have a large surface area available for target binding, which is designed to allow for high affinity and selectivity to the designated target. As short sequences of amino acids, or peptides, they have a low molecular weight, typically ranging from 1.5 kDa to 2.0 kDa. Bicycle molecules have a readily adjustable PK profile with good plasma stability and rapid distribution from the vasculature into the extracellular space. This PK profile enables rapid tissue penetration and a renal route of elimination that minimizes liver exposure. Toxicity issues are observed with small molecules that are metabolized and eliminated by the liver. Bicycle molecules, by contrast, are not subject to metabolism or elimination by the liver but are metabolized in the peripheral circulation or kidney with subsequent rapid excretion in the urine. Consequently, by increasing excretion in urine, the liver exposure is minimized and the risk of liver toxicity is reduced. The modular nature of Bicycle molecules allows us to optimize therapeutic molecules for specific targets.

Compared to biologics, Bicycle molecules have a lower cost of production and a simpler manufacturing process, and are recognized by regulatory authorities as small molecule new chemical entities. We can readily identify Bicycle molecules that may drug a wide spectrum of targets and target classes, including many that have so far been undruggable with small molecules, such as protein-protein interactions. Our novel and proprietary screening platform allows us to screen Bicycle* *molecules against molecular targets rapidly and efficiently, affording potentially reduced timelines and costs compared to other high-throughput screening approaches. Leveraging our platform, we can rapidly and efficiently identify a compound for development with the historical average time being 12 months after a target has been selected.

Properties of Bicycle** **Molecules May Translate into Potential Therapeutic and Other Advantages

Comparison of Bicycle** **Molecules to Other Common Classes of Therapeutics

Our Proprietary Bicycle Screening Platform

We utilize our novel and proprietary phage display screening platform to identify Bicycle molecules that are potentially useful in medicine. We have used this technology to identify our current pipeline and intend to leverage it to develop a broader portfolio of product candidates to address unmet medical needs across a wide range of diseases.

Phages are bacteria-infecting viruses consisting of genetic material wrapped in a protein coat. Phages can be harnessed to identify Bicycle molecules by splicing DNA into the genome of a phage so that the linear peptides that encode Bicycle molecules are presented on the surface of the phage. One of our founders, Sir Greg Winter, a pioneer in phage display, applied this technology and added a cyclization step that forms Bicycle molecules from these linear peptides. This technology underpins our novel and proprietary screening platform.

Our screening process self-selects for Bicycle molecules that are amenable to attachment, commonly referred to as conjugation, to other molecular payloads such as cytotoxins, chelated radiopharmaceutical agents, innate immune agonists or other Bicycle molecules. Bicycle molecules can be linked together with synthetic ease to create complex molecules with combinatorial pharmacology. Alternatively, Bicycle molecules in the form of multimers can also be used as standalone therapeutics, such as those that we are exploring in our systemic and tumor-targeted immune cell agonist programs. We believe that the flexibility of our Bicycle molecules and our powerful screening platform allow new therapeutics to be rapidly conceived and reduced to practice to potentially serve diverse therapeutic applications across a wide range of indications. We can readily identify Bicycle molecules that may drug a wide spectrum of targets and target classes, including many that have so far been undruggable with small molecules, such as protein-protein interactions.

Schematic of our Proprietary Bicycle Screening Process

We have optimized our proprietary Bicycle screening platform, enabling the technique to be applied to a diverse range of over 150 challenging targets to date, successfully identifying Bicycle molecules for over 85% of these targets since our IPO, some of which are intractable to small molecules. During these screens, Bicycle molecules with diverse pharmacologies were identified, including enzyme inhibitors, receptor antagonists, agonists (partial, full and supra) and neutral site binders. Neutral site binders often bind to entirely novel sites on target proteins, previously undescribed in the scientific literature. These binders can be useful when conjugated with therapeutic payloads since they allow antigen-targeted payload delivery without impacting target function.

Our Product Candidates

Our portfolio of internal product candidates is directed to oncology applications where we believe they have the potential to treat a broad spectrum of cancers. We are collaborating with biopharmaceutical companies and organizations in additional therapeutic areas where we believe our proprietary Bicycle screening platform can identify therapies to treat diseases with significant unmet medical need.

Our Programs

The following table summarizes key information about our programs.

**Our Internal Programs

We believe Bicycle molecules are an ideal vehicle to deliver small molecule payloads to tumors, each as potent cytotoxins in the case of BTC molecules, chelated radiopharmaceutical payloads and imaging agents in the case of BRC molecules, as well as small molecule agonists of the immune system in the case of our Bicycle TICA molecules. We believe that Bicycle conjugates can offer improved performance as compared to antibody-mediated delivery.

In addition to their use as drug conjugates, Bicycle molecules can also be configured for use as standalone therapeutics. We have identified Bicycle molecules that have been observed to directly interact with CD137, a key immune cell co-stimulatory molecule. We believe our CD137-targeting Bicycle molecules may overcome limitations inherent in antibody-mediated approaches and have the potential to be converted into simple tumor-targeted immune cell-engaging Bicycle molecules.

Bicycle Toxin Conjugates®

Within our BTC programs, we are evaluating zelenectide pevedotin, 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 the safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary clinical activity in patients with Nectin-4 expressing advanced malignancies, and an ongoing company-sponsored Phase II/III registrational trial, called Duravelo-2, allowing for potential accelerated approval in untreated and previously treated metastatic urothelial cancer. Zelenectide pevedotin has been granted Fast Track Designation, or FTD, by the FDA as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. The FDA has also granted FTD to zelenectide pevedotin for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, NECTIN4 gene-amplified, advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer, and we plan to initiate additional Phase I/II clinical trials to assess zelenectide pevedotin in NECTIN4 gene-amplified breast cancer, lung cancer and multiple other cancers in 2025. Zelenectide has also been selected to participate in the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, or CMC, Development

and Readiness Pilot Program launched by the FDA to facilitate CMC development for therapies with expedited clinical development timeframes based on the anticipated clinical benefits of earlier patient access to the therapy.

We are also evaluating BT5528, a BTC molecule that targets EphA2 and carries an MMAE cytotoxin payload, in an ongoing, company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity in patients with solid tumors. BT5528 has been granted FTD for treatment of adult patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

Background

The discovery of monoclonal antibodies enabled the development of antibody drug conjugates, or ADCs. ADCs link antibodies that target tumor-associated antigens to potent cytotoxins through a process known as conjugation. ADCs are designed to selectively and potently destroy cancer cells by combining the targeting capability of antibodies with the cancer-killing ability of cytotoxins. Despite the growing use of ADCs in treating cancer and high interest in ADC development programs, we believe there are significant challenges to ADCs. The large molecular size of the antibody impairs the penetration of ADCs into tumors. ADCs are generally required to internalize into tumor cells after binding to internalizing tumor antigens on the surface. Finally, the relatively long systemic exposure and subsequent liver clearance generally associated with ADCs result in dose-limiting toxicities as well as other toxicities, such as hematological, liver, ocular, skin and gastrointestinal toxicities, and neuropathies.

Properties of Bicycle Toxin Conjugates

We believe the properties of our BTC molecules may address the challenges associated with ADCs and therefore that our approach has the potential to offer substantial benefits, including:

In order to compare the ability of a Bicycle conjugate and an antibody conjugate to penetrate a tumor, using positron emission tomography, or PET, imaging, we compared a radiolabeled Bicycle molecule to an antibody directed at the same target in a preclinical rodent study. As shown in the figure below, we observed that 15% to 20% of the injected dose per gram was detected after administration of the Bicycle molecule in the tumor at 40 to 60 minutes, with no antibody detectable in the tumor during this time. We also observed accumulation of the balance of the Bicycle molecules in the bladder and kidneys, indicating rapid renal excretion. In contrast, the antibody was detected in the vasculature.

PET Imaging Revealing Payload Delivery in a Mouse Model

In addition, in a preclinical rodent study using photoacoustic imaging, we observed that Bicycle molecules were retained in the tumor for 24 hours and at levels substantially in excess of those observed with a comparator antibody.

The figure below summarizes the results of a preclinical rodent xenograft model that investigated payload concentrations over time in different organ systems after administration of a BTC molecule. In this model, we observed the toxin payload was retained in the target-expressing tumor over time but was rapidly eliminated from other tissues.

Payload Concentrations Over Time in Different Organ Systems After Administration of a BTC Molecule

We believe these data demonstrate the potential of BTC molecules to have long-term sustained activity and to limit the toxicity associated with ADCs.

Zelenectide Pevedotin

Zelenectide pevedotin is a BTC molecule designed to target Nectin-4, a well-validated tumor antigen. The molecule is composed of our Nectin-4 targetingBicycle molecule, a val-cit cleavable linker, and a cytotoxin MMAE payload.

Schematic of Zelenectide Pevedotin

Nectin-4 (also known as PVRL4) is a cell adhesion molecule from the Nectin and Nectin-like family, members of which are integral to the formation of the homotypic and heterotypic cell junctions. Nectin-4 has been shown to be overexpressed in tumor cells and is believed to play a role in tumor cell growth and proliferation. High in normal embryonic and fetal tissue, Nectin-4 declines in adulthood, showing a limited distribution in healthy tissues. However, Nectin-4 is expressed on tumor cells in numerous cancer types including bladder, breast, gastric, lung and ovarian.

In December 2023, the FDA approved enfortumab vedotin, a Nectin-4 ADC program developed jointly by Pfizer Inc., (formerly Seagen, Inc., or Seagen, acquired by Pfizer in December 2023) and Astellas Pharma, Inc., or Astellas, in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. The FDA previously granted accelerated approval to this combination for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy as well as to enfortumab vedotin as a monotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Additionally, in April 2022 the European Commission approved enfortumab vedotin as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who have previously received a platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Pfizer and Astellas are also pursuing additional indications for enfortumab vedotin.

We are advancing zelenectide pevedotin in both an ongoing company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary clinical activity in patients with Nectin-4 expressing advanced malignancies, and an ongoing company-sponsored Phase II/III registrational trial, called Duravelo-2, allowing for potential accelerated approval in untreated and previously treated metastatic urothelial cancer. Zelenectide pevedotin has been granted FTD by the FDA as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and has also been selected to participate in the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, or CMC, Development and Readiness Pilot Program launched by the FDA to facilitate CMC development for therapies with expedited clinical development timeframes based on the anticipated clinical benefits of earlier patient access to the therapy.

In September 2024, we announced updated Phase I/II clinical results for zelenectide pevedotin used as a monotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer at the European Society for Medical Oncology, or ESMO, Congress 2024. In the ongoing Phase I/II clinical trial evaluating 5 mg/m 2 weekly of zelenectide pevedotin monotherapy in 45 metastatic urothelial cancer patients who had not previously been treated with enfortumab vedotin, updated results showed an overall response rate, or ORR, of 45% in 38 efficacy-evaluable patients, including one confirmed complete response and 16 partial responses with 13 confirmed. Stable disease was maintained in nine patients, and 12 patients experienced progressive disease. In addition, updated results showed a median duration of response of 11.1 months among the 14 patients with confirmed responses. Zelenectide pevedotin continued to show an emerging differentiated safety profile, particularly around adverse events of interest such as peripheral neuropathy, skin reactions and eye disorders. Notably, there were no treatment-related adverse events of peripheral neuropathy, skin reactions or eye disorders at or above Grade 3, and patients with pre-existing peripheral neuropathy were unlikely to develop worsening peripheral neuropathy during treatment with zelenectide pevedotin. In addition, low rates of treatment-related peripheral neuropathy, or TRPN, were observed following monotherapy treatment with zelenectide pevedotin. In 149 patients treated with zelenectide pevedotin, results showed TRPN in 28% of patients, nearly all of which were low grade. One Grade 3 event of neuralgia was reported in a patient treated with zelenectide pevedotin following prior therapy with enfortumab vedotin. Among zelenectide pevedotin patients with peripheral neuropathy at baseline, 80% did not develop TRPN during treatment. TRPN had completely resolved in 14% of zelenectide pevedotin patients and 26% had some resolution or improvement at the time of reporting, though post-treatment follow-up was limited. The median time to resolution or improvement of TRPN was 2.2 weeks for zelenectide pevedotin.

In January 2025, we also announced updated topline results from the ongoing Phase I trial evaluating 5 mg/m 2 weekly of zelenectide pevedotin plus 200 mg of pembrolizumab once every three weeks. In 22 previously untreated cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial cancer, results showed an ORR of 65% among all 20 efficacy-evaluable patients, and an ORR of 50% among patients with confirmed responses. Of the three unconfirmed responses, one patient remained on treatment. A median duration of response is not yet mature, with 12 patients still on treatment. The safety and tolerability profile continues to be broadly consistent with other Phase I zelenectide pevedotin monotherapy and combination cohorts. Adverse events of interest such as peripheral neuropathy, skin reactions and eye disorders were primarily low grade. All cases of Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events of interest were reversible, and there were no Grade 4 or Grade 5 treatment-related adverse events of interest.

Our ongoing Phase II/III registrational trial, Duravelo-2, is evaluating zelenectide pevedotin plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial cancer, or Cohort 1, as well as zelenectide pevedotin monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated metastatic urothelial cancer, or Cohort 2. In each cohort, two doses of zelenectide pevedotin, 5 mg/m 2 weekly and 6 mg/m 2 two weeks on, one week off, are initially being assessed before an optimized dosage is selected.

In addition to the above, in December 2024, we announced data showing the enhanced anti-tumor activity of zelenectide pevedotin monotherapy in breast cancer patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification at the 2024 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, or SABCS, and shared topline monotherapy data for zelenectide pevedotin in non-small cell lung cancer patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification.

Gene amplification is a common mechanism by which cancer cells gain function. We have identified that the NECTIN4 gene sits on a commonly amplified chromosomal site in cancer, creating more copies of the gene and often translating to more protein expression. As zelenectide pevedotin binds to Nectin-4, it was hypothesized that NECTIN4 gene amplification may predict response and could serve as a biomarker for therapy stratification. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of 38 heavily pretreated breast cancer patients enrolled in the Phase I/II clinical trial for zelenectide pevedotin, of which 32 were confirmed to have triple-negative breast cancer. The majority were treated with zelenectide pevedotin 5 mg/m 2 weekly.

Of the 38 breast cancer patients enrolled, 35 patients were efficacy-evaluable. Additionally, 23 breast cancer patient samples were available for NECTIN4 testing, of which eight demonstrated NECTIN4 gene amplification or harbored NECTIN4 polysomy. Results showed an ORR of 62.5% among eight breast cancer patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification or polysomy, with five partial responses, compared to an ORR of 14.3% among all efficacy-evaluable patients. Of the five partial responses, four were confirmed and one was unconfirmed. All responses were seen in patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification and/or polysomy. Of the 32 triple-negative breast cancer patients enrolled, 30 patients were efficacy evaluable. Additionally, 19 triple-negative breast cancer patient samples were available for NECTIN4 testing, of which seven demonstrated NECTIN4 gene amplification or harbored NECTIN4 polysomy. Results showed an ORR of 57.1% among triple-negative breast cancer patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification or polysomy, with four partial responses, compared to an ORR of 13.3% among all efficacy-evaluable triple-negative breast cancer patients. Of the four partial responses, three were confirmed and one was unconfirmed. All responses were seen in patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification and/or polysomy. All three patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification who responded to zelenectide pevedotin had prior treatment with sacituzumab govitecan.

In this study of heavily pretreated breast cancer patients, zelenectide pevedotin was generally well tolerated, and its safety and tolerability profile was consistent with data from other Phase I/II clinical trial cohorts. Low rates of treatment-related adverse events at or above Grade 3 and treatment-related serious adverse events at or above Grade 3 occurred. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fever, nausea and diarrhea. Treatment-related adverse events of interest, including peripheral neuropathy and skin reactions, were low grade.

We also conducted a post-hoc analysis of 40 pretreated patients with non-small cell lung cancer enrolled in the Phase I/II clinical trial for zelenectide pevedotin. The majority of patients received zelenectide pevedotin 5 mg/m 2 weekly. Of the 40 patients enrolled, 34 patients were efficacy-evaluable. Additionally, 19 patient samples were available for NECTIN4 testing, of which six demonstrated NECTIN4 gene amplification. Five out of six patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification were efficacy evaluable. Results showed an ORR of 40% among patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification, with two partial responses, compared to 8.8% among all efficacy-evaluable patients, with three partial responses. Of the three partial responses, two were confirmed and one was unconfirmed. Two out of three responses were seen in patients with NECTIN4 gene amplification. The safety and tolerability profile of zelenectide pevedotin was broadly consistent with data from other Phase I/II clinical trial monotherapy cohorts.

Based on the data from these studies, we plan to advance development of zelenectide pevedotin in broader indications outside of metastatic urothelial cancer utilizing a NECTIN4 gene amplification strategy to target patients who have the potential for significantly deeper responses. In January 2025, we announced that the FDA granted FTD to zelenectide pevedotin for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, NECTIN4 gene-amplified, advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Over the course of 2025, we plan to initiate

several additional Phase I/II clinical trials to assess zelenectide pevedotin in NECTIN4 gene-amplified breast cancer, lung cancer and multiple other cancers.

BT5528

BT5528 is a BTC molecule designed to target EphA2. The molecule is comprised of our EphA2 targeting Bicycle molecule, a valine-citrulline, or val-cit, cleavable linker and a cytotoxin MMAE payload.

Schematic of BT5528

EphA2 is a member of the Ephrin superfamily of receptor tyrosine kinases regulating cell migration, adhesion, proliferation and differentiation. EphA2 is expressed at relatively low levels in normal adult tissues, but is overexpressed in numerous difficult-to-treat tumors including lung, breast, bladder, head and neck, gastric, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer. In both cell-derived and patient-derived preclinical models, we observed anti-tumor activity signals following administration of our EphA2 toxin conjugates, which correlated with EphA2 expression, as determined by FACS studies.

EphA2 has been pursued by other companies utilizing antibody drug conjugates, or ADCs. Significant safety concerns, including bleeding events and liver toxicity, were observed in preclinical studies and early clinical development, which resulted in the discontinuation of development. For example, in a Phase I clinical trial of MEDI-547, an EphA2-targeting ADC, an increase in the liver enzymes ALT and AST was observed in half of the dosed patients and bleeding events were observed in five out of six patients, in each case with in two to eight days following a single dose. The bleeding events observed in humans from the clinical trial were consistent with findings from the preclinical studies in other species, including primates.

We believe EphA2 is an attractive target for our BTC molecules due to the potential of Bicycle molecules to overcome the safety concerns observed with ADCs. In our preclinical PK and toxicokinetic studies, we observed a short systemic half-life and volume of distribution approximately equal to extracellular fluid. We observed that the accumulation of MMAE in the tumor tissue led to mitotic arrest of tumor cells and tumor regression was evident within days of administration. Due to the shorter half-life, improved penetration into solid tumors and kidney elimination, we believe that BT5528 could overcome the challenges faced by ADCs.

BT5528 was evaluated in preclinical studies in multiple species, including rodents and non-human primates. In our preclinical studies, BT5528 was not observed to have a significant effect on clotting parameters and did not exhibit abnormal liver function at tolerated doses. We also observed no bleeding events in primates at toxin equivalent doses over 150-fold higher than the clinical dose of an ADC with the same amino acid sequence and with the same linker-toxin combination and average drug/antibody ratio as MEDI-547 used in patients.

We are currently evaluating BT5528 in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trialto assess safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary clinical activityin patients with advanced solid tumors associated with EphA2 expression. BT5528 has been granted FTD for treatment of adult patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. In September 2024, we announced updated Phase I/II clinical results for BT5528 in advanced solid tumors, including metastatic urothelial cancer and ovarian cancer, at the ESMO Congress 2024, as described below.

Updated results from the ongoing Phase I/II clinical trial evaluating 6.5 mg/m 2 every two weeks and 5 mg/m 2 weekly of BT5528 monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors showed an ORR of 12% among 113 efficacy-evaluable patients with advanced solid tumors. Of these, the highest anti-tumor activity was in metastatic urothelial cancer, with a 34% ORR in all efficacy-evaluable patients enrolled in the dose escalation and expansion cohorts. Among patients receiving 6.5 mg/m 2 every two weeks, a 31% ORR was observed in the dose escalation and expansion cohort and a 45% ORR was observed in the expansion cohort only. A lower, but acceptable ORR of 27% was observed in patients receiving 5 mg/m 2 weekly. There were no objective responses observed in patients with ovarian cancer who received 5 mg/m2 weekly. However, five patients maintained stable disease at the time of data cut off. In addition, the updated results suggested a correlation between EphA2 expression and response. Among 14 patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who had available immunohistochemistry and response data, a 43% ORR was observed in EphA2-positive patients compared to a 20% ORR in EphA2-negative patients.

BT5528 showed an emerging differentiated safety profile, with none of the hemorrhage events or hematological toxicities that have been associated with other EphA2-targeting drug conjugates. Low rates of TRPN were observed following monotherapy treatment with BT228. In 74 patients treated with BT5528 at 6.5 mg/m 2 every two weeks, results showed TRPN in 19% of patients, nearly all of which were low grade, with no events at or above Grade 3. TRPN had completely resolved in 21% of BT5528 patients and 21% had some resolution or improvement at the time of reporting, though post-treatment follow-up was limited. The median time to resolution or improvement of TRPN was 1.7 weeks for BT5528.

We have begun assessing BT5528 at 6.5 mg/m 2 every two weeks in combination with nivolumab and are further evaluating BT5528 in certain other tumor indications. Results from the combination cohort are expected in 2025.

Bicycle Immune Cell Agonist

Approaches that activate cytotoxic T-cells and other types of cells used in a body’s immune response have been observed to improve outcomes in cancer. However, prolonged immune activation can be toxic and lead to T-cell exhaustion, which is a challenge amplified by the long half-life of antibodies and biologics that are often used in these treatment approaches. We believe the differentiated properties of Bicycle molecules may allow us to develop molecules with a pharmacodynamically distinct and improved profile over existing therapies.

We are aware of anti-CD137 antibodies undergoing clinical testing, including urelumab being developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which produced single agent responses but also severe liver toxicity, and utomilumab being developed by Pfizer, which exhibited minimal clinical activity with less toxicity. We are developing immune cell agonists, designed to trigger an immune response to tumors. We have identified potent Bicycle* agonists of CD137, a tumor necrosis factor receptor, or TNFR, family member. We believe that Bicycle molecules represent a differentiated approach to target CD137 that may confer several advantages over existing modalities due to the small size and PK characteristics of Bicycle molecules. Our Bicycle immune cell agonists are designed to circumvent the limitations of antibody and biologic therapies, such as liver toxicity and limited efficacy, and to better enable combination therapy. Bicycle *immune cell agonists can be formed by conjugating multiple copies of a CD137 Bicycle molecule to form multimers or by utilizing a bi-specific format in which CD137 Bicycle molecules are linked to Bicycle molecules that bind to tumor antigens, inhibit checkpoint proteins or otherwise activate the immune system. We believe we are currently the only company that has fully chemically synthetic multivalent or tumor-targeted CD137 agonists.

Properties of Bicycle Immune Cell Agonists

In order to agonize the CD137 receptor, cross-linking of a trimeric receptor is required. As a result, we are developing multivalent systemic and tumor-targeted molecules that cross-link the receptor into an active form in a tumor cell independent or dependent manner as shown in the image below.

Schematic of Proposed CD137 Bicycle Agonists

These Bicycle* *CD137 agonists feature the following favorable pharmacological characteristics for immuno-oncology therapeutics. We believe these characteristics have the potential to overcome the limitations of antibodies and fusion proteins.

Bicycle Tumor-Targeted Immune Cell Agonists

Our product candidate BT7480 is a Bicycle TICA molecule. A Bicycle TICA molecule links immune cell receptor binding Bicycle molecules to tumor antigen binding Bicycle molecules. We are evaluating BT7480, 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.

Background

We have linked immune cell receptor binding Bicycle molecules to tumor antigen binding Bicycle molecules* to form Bicycle TICA molecules. We have found this approach to be generalizable across tumor antigen and immune cell receptors. We constructed CD137-targeting Bicycle TICA molecules and observed that these bi-specific Bicycle molecules agonize the CD137 receptor only in the presence of cells that express the appropriate tumor antigen. Additionally, we have constructed Bicycle *TICA molecules with Bicycle molecules that bind to another member of the TNF family of T-cell costimulatory receptors TNFRSF4, also known as OX40.

In pre-clinical studies, we have observed that intermittent dosing of BCY12491, an EphA2/CD137 Bicycle* *TICA molecule, leads to a robust anti-tumor activity in syngeneic MC38 mouse model using humanized CD137 (huCD137) C57BL/6 mice. Administration of BCY12491 in six intravenous biweekly doses over a period of 17 days at 5 mg/kg led to substantial tumor regressions, including two out of six CRs. In addition, administration of BCY13626, a non-binding analog of BCY12491 had no impact on tumor growth rates.

Activity of EphA2 Bicycle** **TICA Molecule in vivo

We have also observed that intermittent dosing of Bicycle* *TICA molecule BCY12491 leads to an increase in immune cell infiltration and an increase in the expression of checkpoint inhibitor genes in tumors of a syngeneic MC38 mouse model using humanized CD137, or huCD137, C57BL/6 mice. In other pre-clinical studies, we have observed that when BCY12491 is dosed in combination with pembrolizumab, a PD1 checkpoint inhibitor, there is an increased antitumor effect as shown in the figure below. Administration of BCY12491 in eight intravenous doses at 5 mg/kg (dosed on days 0, 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22) in combination with 4 intraperitoneal doses of pembrolizumab at 3 mg/kg (dosed on days 0, 7, 14 and 21) lead to substantial tumor regressions, including ten out of ten CRs. We observed that dosing BCY12491 or pembrolizumab alone using the same dose and schedule led to only two and three out of ten complete regressions respectively.

Activity of EphA2 Bicycle TICA Molecule and PD1 Inhibitor in vivo

We believe that our ability to rapidly generate and test Bicycle** *TICA molecules and their simple molecular format may form the basis of additional programs in the future. In addition to the immune cell and tumor targets that we have already investigated, we are screening for Bicycle molecules that target NK cell receptors as well as additional immune cell and tumor specific antigens. We have identified Bicycle *TICA candidates that target and activate NK cells. We have observed that treatment of primary human NK cells in co-culture with target-positive tumor cells with NK TICAs results in increased NK cell mediated tumor cell killing and an increase in NK cell secreted pro-inflammatory cytokines.

BT7480

BT7480 is a Bicycle* TICA molecule that targets CD137 and Nectin-4. BT7480 exhibits potent CD137 agonism in an engineered CD137 reporter assay system that correlates with Nectin-4 surface expression on the co-cultured tumor cells. In addition, BT7480 induces robust production of interleukin-2, or IL-2, and interferon gamma, or IFNꝩ, in primary PBMC/tumor cell co-culture assays. This activity is strictly dependent on the tumor cells expressing Nectin-4 and on the ability of the Bicycle *TICA molecule to bind to both of its targets, Nectin-4 and CD137.

Additionally, we have observed that intermittent dosing of BT7480 leads to a robust anti-tumor activity in syngeneic MC38 mouse model, engineered to overexpress Nectin-4, using huCD137 C57BL/6 mice. Administration of BT7480 in six intravenous biweekly doses over a period of 17 days at 1.5 or 5 mg/kg led to substantial tumor regressions, including five out of six complete responses at 1.5 mg/kg and six out of six CRs at 5 mg/kg. In addition, animals that were complete responders in the experiment were subsequently re-challenged with the same tumor cell implantation and no tumor growth was observed, implying development of immunogenic memory.

We are evaluating BT7480 in a company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial. In September 2024, we announced updated Phase I/II clinical trial results for BT7480 in advanced solid tumors at the ESMO Congress 2024, as described below.

Initial data from the dose escalation portion of the Phase I/II clinical trial evaluating BT7480 in patients with advanced solid tumors showed an emerging differentiated safety and tolerability profile among 39 patients assigned to receive one of 10 different doses of BT7480, ranging from 0.002-3.5 mg/kg weekly, with a low number of severe adverse events. Low rates of adverse events at or above Grade 3 were observed, with 8% of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events at or above Grade 3 and 5% of patients experiencing treatment-related severe adverse events at or above Grade 3. No such events were observed among those patients receiving the highest dose of 3.5 mg/kg. The best overall response observed was stable disease in 13 patients, five of whom had non-small cell lung cancer. Stable disease was prolonged in three patients, two with non-small cell lung cancer and one with anal cancer. In addition, there were two unconfirmed partial responses, both in patients with cervical cancer. Preliminary biomarker analyses that support BT7480 dual targeting of CD137 and Nectin-4 as demonstrated by enhanced immune cell activation, aligned with the proposed mechanism of action of BT7480.

We are evaluating BT7480 in an ongoing company sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial as a monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab. Results from the combination cohort are expected in 2025.

Bicycle Radionuclide Conjugates

Radiopharmaceuticals are drugs that contain medical isotopes, which are unstable elements that emit radiation and can be used to diagnose and treat cancers. To create radiopharmaceuticals, radiation emitting medical isotopes are typically attached to targeting molecules, which are then administered via intravenous injection. Once administered, the radiopharmaceuticals are designed to target tumor antigens that are unique to, or preferentially expressed on, cancer cells throughout the body. We believe the advantages of Bicycle molecules for selectively delivering cytotoxic payloads are advantageous for delivering radionuclide payloads.

Schematic of Proposed Bicycle Radionuclide Conjugates

Bicycle molecules have ideal properties for radioisotope delivery due to their low molecular weight, high selectivity and high affinity for their intended target and rapid systemic clearance. Our strategy for radiopharmaceuticals involves (i) partnering with industry and academic leaders in the radiopharmaceutical field to build our understanding and deepen our knowledge base, (ii) pursuing novel targets with first-in-class potential by using early human imaging agents to direct indication selection for theranostics and build programs in a data-driven manner and (iii) studying our BRC molecules with a range of isotopes to select that which best aligns with target biology and indication. We plan to partner with various isotope suppliers and have signed a letter of intent with leading isotope technology company Eckert & Ziegler to put in place an agreement to supply a range of radioisotopes and develop and manufacture BRC molecules.

We are developing a pipeline of novel binders with optimized properties for radioisotope delivery. In October 2024, first human imaging data for a BRC molecule targeting MT1-MMP was presented by the German Cancer Consortium, or DKTK, at the European Association for Nuclear Medicine, or EANM, 2024 Congress. During an oral presentation, DKTK focused on a case study in a 65-year old male diagnosed with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma, the most common type of non-small cell lung cancer, in the lung and lymph nodes confirmed by endobronchial ultrasound biopsy. The patient received fluorine-18-labelled FDG-PET/CT imaging, and two weeks later received MT1-MMP PET/CT imaging up to one hour post injection of the gallium-68-labelled BRC tracer.

Both scans revealed multiple lymph node metastases and bone metastases in the sternum. MT1-MMP imaging demonstrated tracer uptake in the primary tumor in the lung and lymph node and bone metastases, consistent with FDG imaging. Additionally, the MT1-MMP BRC tracer showed renal excretion, with all other organs showing only negligible tracer uptake. Clear imaging contrast was also observed at early time points.

In addition, at the EANM 2024 Congress, we presented preclinical data demonstrating the suitability of Bicycle molecules to deliver indium to tumorsin vivo due to their favorable properties, including specific tumor uptake, rapid tumor penetration and rapid renal elimination. Imaging showed how the biodistribution profile of BRC molecules can be optimized to maintain high tumor uptake and retention while significantly reducing kidney uptake and retention. Altogether, we believe the data presented at EANM validates the potential of MT1-MMP as a novel target in the treatment of cancer, demonstrate the translatability of BRC preclinical data and highlight the potential of Bicycle molecules for targeted radionuclide therapy. We have selected tumor antigen EphA2 as our second BRC molecule target. We plan to generate additional human imaging data for BRC molecules targeting MT1-MMP and EphA2 in 2025, which we expect to further inform our drug discovery efforts, and we are targeting our first radiotherapeutic program to begin clinical trials in 2026.

Our Collaborations

We have entered into several collaborations, including those briefly described below, which are predominantly focused on indications beyond our internal focus in oncology to leverage the broad applicability of Bicycle molecules. Our strategic collaborations are based on the ability of Bicycle molecules to address a wide variety of targets and we are working with collaborators with deep therapeutic expertise outside of oncology to enable us to more efficiently develop novel medicines for patients. For additional information on these collaboration agreements, see Note 9. “Significant agreements” of our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Bayer

On May 4, 2023, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Bayer Consumer Care AG, or Bayer, pursuant to which we and Bayer will perform research and discovery activities under a mutually agreed upon research plan during a research term up to a specified number of years per target program to generate radiopharmaceutical compounds incorporating optimized Bicycle constructs directed to two specified targets, under the oversight of a joint research committee. In addition, Bayer has a one-time right to expand the collaboration to include a third target program, and with respect to each of the up to three target programs, Bayer has an option, exercisable within a specified period of time following the effective date of the agreement, to generate, develop and commercialize non-radiopharmaceutical compounds directed to the applicable target, either by itself or in collaboration with us. Bayer also has certain limited target substitution rights, in certain cases subject to specified additional payments. For each collaboration program, Bayer may elect, at its sole discretion, to progress compounds arising from activities under the research programs into further preclinical development of potential products directed to the target of such collaboration program. On a target-by-target basis, if Bayer elects to progress development candidates directed to such target into further clinical development, Bayer will be required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and seek regulatory approval in certain major markets for products directed to the applicable target.

Novartis

On March 27, 2023, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Novartis Pharma AG, or Novartis, pursuant to which the parties will perform research and discovery activities under a mutually agreed upon research plan during a research term of up to a specified number of years per target program to generate compounds incorporating optimized Bicycle constructs directed to two specified targets, under the oversight of a joint steering committee. We granted Novartis a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable (subject to certain restrictions) license under our intellectual property solely for Novartis to perform its research activities under each collaboration program during the research term. For each collaboration program, Novartis may elect to progress compounds arising from activities under the research programs, or Licensed Compounds, into further preclinical development of potential products directed to the target of such collaboration program. At a specified point, we will grant Novartis an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, license under certain of our intellectual property to develop, manufacture, and

commercialize such Licensed Compound, subject to certain limitations. Novartis may extend the initial research term by one year by electing to make an additional payment. On a target-by-target basis, if Novartis elects to progress development candidates directed to such target into further clinical development, Novartis will be required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and seek regulatory approval in certain major markets for products containing Licensed Compounds directed to the applicable target.

Ionis

On July 9, 2021, we and Ionis entered into a collaboration and license agreement, or the Ionis Collaboration Agreement. Pursuant to the Ionis Collaboration Agreement, we granted to Ionis a worldwide exclusive license under our relevant technology to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize products incorporating Bicycle* *peptides directed to the protein coded by the gene TFRC1 (transferrin receptor), or TfR1 Bicycle molecules, intended for the delivery of oligonucleotide compounds directed to targets selected by Ionis for diagnostic, therapeutic, prophylactic and preventative uses in humans. Ionis will maintain exclusivity to all available targets unless it fails to achieve specified development diligence milestone deadlines. If Ionis fails to achieve one or more development diligence milestone deadlines, we have the right to limit exclusivity to certain specific collaboration targets, subject to the payment by Ionis of a low-single-digit million dollar amount per target as specified in the Ionis Collaboration Agreement. Each party was responsible for optimization of such TfR1 Bicycle molecules and other research and discovery activities related to TfR1 Bicycle molecules, as specified by a research plan which was completed as of December 31, 2024, and thereafter Ionis is responsible for all future research, development, manufacture and commercialization activities. We performed research and discovery activities including a baseline level of effort for a period of three years. We have retained certain rights, including the right to use TfR1 Bicycle molecules for all non-oligonucleotide therapeutic purposes.

Genentech

On February 21, 2020, we entered into a Discovery Collaboration and License Agreement with Genentech, or the Genentech Collaboration Agreement. The collaboration is focused on the discovery and development of Bicycle peptides directed to biological targets selected by Genentech and aimed at developing up to four potential development candidates against multiple I-O targets suitable for Genentech to advance into further development and commercialization. The initial discovery and optimization activities are focused on utilizing our phage screening technology to identify product candidates aimed at two I-O targets, or Genentech Collaboration Programs, which may also include additional discovery and optimization of Bicycle molecules as a targeting element for each Genentech Collaboration Program, or each a Targeting Arm. Genentech also had the option to nominate up to two additional I-O targets, or each an Expansion Option, which may also include an additional Targeting Arm for each Expansion Option, as additional Genentech Collaboration Programs. Genentech exercised the Expansion Options in October 2021 and June 2022, respectively. Genentech exercised its right to select a Targeting Arm for one of the initial Genentech Collaboration Programs at the inception of the arrangement and for the first Expansion Option in October 2021.

We also granted Genentech a non-exclusive research license under our intellectual property solely to enable Genentech to perform any activities under the agreement. After we perform the initial discovery and optimization activities in accordance with an agreed research plan and achieve specified criteria, Genentech will have the option to have us perform initial pre-clinical development and optimization activities for each Genentech Collaboration Program, or the LSR Go Option. Upon completion of such initial pre-clinical development and optimization activities for each Genentech Collaboration Program, Genentech will have the option to obtain an exclusive license to exploit any compound developed under such Genentech Collaboration Program for each of the initial two Genentech Collaboration Programs and each of the two Expansion Option Genentech Collaboration Programs, or the Dev Go Option. Genentech terminated the collaboration activities for one of the initial Genentech Collaboration Programs in June 2023. In January 2024, the joint research committee reached a decision to discontinue research activities associated with the first Expansion Option program and in January 2025, Genentech terminated the collaboration activities for the second Expansion Option program. The remaining Genentech Collaboration Program remains ongoing.

Intellectual Property

Overview

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including our Bicycle platform. This includes seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties, which are directed to the use of our Bicycle platform, composition of matter of bicyclic peptides identified through use of the platform and further chemical optimization, conjugates comprising such bicyclic peptides, methods of using our product candidates, and other inventions that are important to our business.

We also rely on trade secrets and know-how that may be important for the development of our business. This includes aspects of our proprietary technology platform and our continuing technological innovation to develop, maintain, and strengthen our position in the field of peptide, peptidomimetic, and small molecule-based therapeutics. We additionally may rely on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, defend and enforce our patents; prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others.

Our ability to stop third parties from making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable licenses, patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. In some cases, these rights may need to be enforced by third-party licensors. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same. For more information, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

We seek to protect our proprietary position in a variety of ways, including by pursuing patent protection in certain jurisdictions where it is available. For example, we file U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development of our business. We also intend to seek patent protection or rely upon trade secret rights to protect other technologies that may be used to discover and validate targets and that may be used to identify and develop novel products. We seek protection, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements. We are a party to various other license agreements that give us rights to use specific technologies in our research and development.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application related to the patent. A U.S. patent also may be accorded a patent term adjustment, or PTA, under certain circumstances to compensate for delays in obtaining the patent caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. In some instances, such a PTA may result in a U.S. patent term extending beyond 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application related to the U.S. patent. In addition, in the United States, the term of a U.S. patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available, however there is no guarantee

that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

We own various trademark registrations and applications, and unregistered trademarks, including our name and our corporate logo. All other trade names, trademarks and service marks of other companies appearing in this report are the property of their respective holders. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this report may be referred to without the ®, ™ or © symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend to use or display other companies' trademarks and trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Company-Owned Intellectual Property

As of December 31, 2024, our patent portfolio included 10 patent families directed to novel scaffolds, linkers and payloads, 10 patent families directed to our platform technology, 48 patent families directed to bicyclic peptides and related conjugates, and 21 patent families directed to later inventions relating to such bicyclic peptides and related conjugates, such as methods of making or using certain bicyclic peptide conjugates for treating various indications.

We own at least 11 patent families relating to our product candidate zelenectide pevedotin, including patent families directed to its composition of matter, methods of use for treating cancer, synthetic routes to zelenectide pevedotin and methods of identifying patients suitable to receive zelenectide pevedotin. The issued patents in these families, and the pending patent applications if issued, are expected to expire between 2039 and 2044, not including any patent term extensions and/or patent term adjustments.

We own at least eight patent families relating to our product candidate BT5528, including patent families directed to its composition of matter, methods of use for treating cancer and methods of identifying patients suitable to receive BT5528. The issued patents in these families, and the pending patent applications if issued, are expected to expire between 2038 and 2044, not including any patent term extensions and/or patent term adjustments.

We own at least 10 patent families relating to product candidate BT7480, including patent families directed to its composition of matter and the composition of matter of its constituent bicyclic peptides, methods of use for treating cancer, combinations with other active agents, and the methods of identifying patients suitable to receive BT7480. The issued patents from these families, and the pending patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2038 and 2044, not including any patent term extensions and/or patent term adjustments.

In total, as of December 31, 2024, we owned about 481 patents in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and Singapore. In addition, as of December 31, 2024, we had about 529 patent applications pending in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions, such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore and Taiwan, as well as pending international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT. These patents, as well as any patents that may be issued from these patent applications, are generally expected to have terms that will expire at various dates between February 2029 and December 2044, not including any patent term extensions and/or patent term adjustments.

In total, as of December 31, 2024, we owned 106 trademark registrations across six territories (United Kingdom, European Union, United States, Japan, Hong Kong and Australia), as well as a number of pending applications for new trademarks.

Trade Secret Protection

Finally, we may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. We anticipate relying on trade secrets to protect the know-how behind our Bicycle platform. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. 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. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For further information, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

There are a number of currently marketed products and product candidates in preclinical research and clinical development by third parties for the various oncology applications that we are targeting. For example, a number of multinational companies as well as biotechnology companies are developing programs for the targets that we are exploring for our BTC programs, including, but not limited to, Pfizer Inc. (formerly Seagen, acquired by Pfizer Inc. in December 2023) which has a marketed Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate, Eli Lilly and Company, Corbus Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., Innate Pharma SA and Mabwell Therapeutics, Inc. Furthermore, many companies are developing programs for CD137 or CD137 bi-specific antibodies or antibody fragments as well as radiopharmaceutical therapies. In addition, we are aware that technologies for drug discovery, including peptide-based medicines, continue to advance rapidly, which may compete with our own screening technology or render it obsolete.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we may be in discovering product candidates, obtaining approval for drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ drugs may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any drug we may commercialize and may render our product candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our product candidates. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

Sales and Marketing

Subject to receiving marketing approval, we intend to pursue the commercialization of our product candidates either by building internal sales and marketing capabilities or through opportunistic collaborations with others.

We plan to build our marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

Manufacturing

Each of our Bicycle molecules is entirely synthetic. We believe the synthetic nature of our product candidates allows for a more cost effective and scalable manufacturing process compared to biologics. In addition, this property of Bicycle molecules allows for the manufacturing of product candidates of consistent pharmaceutical quality with

favorable stability characteristics. Based on our experience, we believe that the manufacturing of Bicycle molecules can be made to be well controlled, reproducible and scalable.

We operate an outsourced model for the manufacture of our product candidates, and contract with multiple good manufacturing practice, or GMP, licensed pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing organizations, both for the synthesis of each drug substance component, and the formulation and packaging of finished drug product candidates. We selected these organizations based on their experience, capability, capacity and regulatory status. Projects are managed by a specialist team of our internal staff, which is designed to promote compliance with the technical aspects and regulatory requirements of the manufacturing process. We do not own or operate GMP manufacturing facilities, nor do we currently plan to build our own GMP manufacturing capabilities for production of clinical or commercial supply.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Review and Approval of Drugs in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs and devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. The failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of letters, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice or other governmental entities. In addition, an applicant may need to recall a product.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

Practices, or cGMP, requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated drug or drug product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to a proposed clinical trial and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA can place an IND on full or partial clinical hold at any point in development, and depending upon the scope of the hold, clinical trial(s) may not restart until resolution of the outstanding concerns to the FDA’s satisfaction.

In addition, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct a continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the applicant must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Review of an NDA by the FDA

Assuming successful completion of required clinical testing and other requirements, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug product for one or more indications. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to substantial user fees, and the sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to annual program user fees. These fees are typically increased annually.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of an NDA within 60 days of its receipt and informs the sponsor whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within 10 months from the date of filing, and most applications for “priority review” products are meant to be reviewed within six months of filing. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including drug component manufacturing (such as active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the

product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the product is a new molecular entity. REMS can include medication guides, physician communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU may include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The FDA may require a REMS before approval or post-approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product.

The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation and priority review designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application under rolling review does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, a product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting adverse reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that is expected to lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a

new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a product, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a product.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit and to provide regular updates to the FDA on the progress of such studies. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase IV or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Development and Readiness Pilot (CDRP) Program

In October 2022, the FDA announced a two-year opportunity for a limited number of applicants to participate in the CDRP program to facilitate expedited development CMC development of products under an IND, where warranted, based on the anticipated clinical benefit of earlier patient access to the products. The FDA has implemented this pilot program to facilitate CMC readiness for selected Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, regulated products with accelerated clinical development timelines. To accelerate CMC development and facilitate CMC readiness, the pilot features increased communication between the FDA and sponsors and explores the use of science- and risk-based regulatory approaches, such as those described in FDA guidance, as applicable.

Project Optimus

Project Optimus is an initiative of the Oncology Center of Excellence at the FDA. This project focuses on dose optimization and dose selection in oncology drug development, and whether the current paradigm based on cytotoxic chemotherapeutics leads to doses and schedules of molecularly targeted therapies that provide more toxicity without additional efficacy, among other things. In Project Optimus, drug developers have the opportunity to meet with the FDA’s Oncology Review Divisions early in their development programs, well before conducting trials intended for registration, to discuss dose-finding and dose optimization. The program thus allows sponsors to develop strategies for dose finding and dose optimization that leverages nonclinical and clinical data in dose selection, including randomized evaluations of a range of doses in trials, with the objective of performing these studies as early as possible in the development program to bring new therapies to patients.

Project Frontrunner

Project Frontrunner is an Oncology Center of Excellence initiative to encourage drug sponsors to consider when it may be appropriate to first develop and seek approval of new cancer drugs for advanced or metastatic disease, in an earlier clinical setting rather than the usual approach to develop and seek approval of a new drug for treatment of patients who have received numerous prior lines of therapies or have exhausted available treatment options. The goals of Project Frontrunner are to develop a framework for identifying candidate drugs that are appropriate to initially develop for the treatment of early metastatic disease (e.g., first or second line setting), taking into account clinical, scientific, regulatory and operational considerations; facilitate engagement with drug sponsors during drug development to develop and implement strategies to support approvals in early clinical setting; and to engage and collaborate with internal and external stakeholders on related research, policy and educational initiatives.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase IV clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the NDA holder and any third-party manufacturers that the NDA holder may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs generally may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, which regulates the distribution of drugs at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states, which additionally limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Companion Diagnostics

We may employ companion diagnostics to help us to 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 can identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA and, as such, require either clearance or approval prior to commercialization. The level of risk combined with available controls to mitigate risk determines whether a companion diagnostic device requires Premarket Approval Application, or PMA, approval or is cleared through the 510(k) premarket notification process. For a novel therapeutic product for which a companion diagnostic device is essential for the safe and effective use of the product, the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or 510(k)-cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic. The use of the companion diagnostic device will be stipulated in the labeling of the therapeutic product.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference-listed drug, or RLD.

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of this provision, a new chemical entity, or NCE, is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, which states the proposed generic drug will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. An applicant who submits a section 505(b)(2) NDA, which is for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved drug products and where at least one or more of the investigations relied upon by the applicant for approval were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted, also must certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired (other than method of use patents involving indications for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval).

If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). A company must request orphan product designation before submitting an NDA. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will be receiving orphan product exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. Competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity and may obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication. If a drug or drug product designated as an orphan product ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

European Union/Rest of World Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials, commercial sales and distribution of medicinal products. Even if FDA approval of a particular product is obtained, it must still obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials.

Clinical Trials in the EU

In the European Union, or EU, clinical trials are governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or CTR, which entered into application on January 31, 2022 repealing and replacing the former Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20, or CTD.

The CTR is intended to harmonize and streamline clinical trial authorizations, simplify adverse-event reporting procedures, improve the supervision of clinical trials and increase transparency. Specifically, the Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU Member States, introduces a streamlined application procedure through a single-entry point, the "EU portal", the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application; as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors. A harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials has been introduced and is divided into two parts. Part I assessment is led by the competent authorities of a reference Member State selected by the trial sponsor and relates to clinical trial aspects that are considered to be scientifically harmonized across EU Member States. This assessment is then submitted to the competent authorities of all concerned Member States in which the trial is to be conducted for their review. Part II is assessed separately by the competent authorities and Ethics Committees in each concerned EU Member State. Individual EU Member States retain the power to authorize the conduct of clinical trials on their territory.

The extent to which on-going clinical trials will be governed by the CTR will depend on the duration of the individual clinical trial. For clinical trials in relation to which an application for approval was made on the basis of the CTD before January 31, 2023, the CTD will continue to apply on a transitional basis until January 31, 2025. All ongoing trials are now subject to the provisions of the CTR.

In all cases, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with the guidelines on cGMP and in a GMP licensed facility, which can be subject to GMP inspections.

EU Review and Approval Process

In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after a related marketing authorization, or MA, has been granted. To obtain an MA for a product in the EU, an applicant must submit a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or one of the procedures administered by the competent authorities of EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). An MA may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EEA (which is comprised of the 27 EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) products designated as orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs, and (iv) products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, authorization through the centralized procedure is optional on related approval.

Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, conducts the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the centralized procedure is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product targeting an unmet medical need is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts a request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops). The CHMP can, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized MA procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU Member State in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the Heads of Medicines Agencies’ Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human, or CMDh, for review. The subsequent decision of the European Commission is binding on all EU Member States.

The mutual recognition procedure allows companies that have a medicinal product already authorized in one EU Member State to apply for this authorization to be recognized by the competent authorities in other EU Member States. Like the decentralized procedure, the mutual recognition procedure is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU Member States of the MA of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU

Member States. The holder of a national MA may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU Member State requesting that this authority recognize the MA delivered by the competent authority of another EU Member State.

An MA has, in principle, an initial validity of five years. The MA may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State in which the original MA was granted. To support the application, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the Common Technical Document providing up-to-date data concerning the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least nine months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year renewal period for the MA. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (for a centralized MA) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that target unmet medical needs. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicinal product will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. Benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

In the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The European Commission may grant a conditional MA for a medicinal product if it is demonstrated that all of the following criteria are met: (i) the benefit-risk balance of the medicinal product is positive; (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data post-authorization; (iii) the medicinal product fulfils an unmet medical need; and (iv) the benefit of the immediate availability to patients of the medicinal product is greater than the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once any pending studies are provided, the conditional MA can be converted into a traditional MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA and approved by the European Commission, the MA will cease to be renewed.

An MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. Like a conditional MA, an MA granted in exceptional circumstances is reserved to medicinal products intended to be authorized for treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not subsequently required to provide the missing data. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually, and the MA will be withdrawn if the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

Pediatric* *Development in the EU

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that all MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP,

agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the medicinal product for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures provided in the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all EU Member States and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for a six-month extension to the Supplementary Protection Certificate, or SPC, if any is in effect at the time of authorization or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of orphan market exclusivity.

Manufacturing Regulation in the EU

In addition to an MA, various other requirements apply to the manufacturing and placing on the EU market of medicinal products. The manufacturing of medicinal products in the EU requires a manufacturing authorization and import of medicinal products into the EU requires a manufacturing authorization allowing for import. The manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including EU cGMP standards. Similarly, the distribution of medicinal products within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of EU Member States. Marketing authorization holders and/or manufacturing and import authorization, or MA holders and/or distribution authorization holders may be subject to civil, criminal or administrative sanctions, including suspension of manufacturing authorization, in case of non-compliance with the EU or EU Member States’ requirements applicable to the manufacturing of medicinal products.

Data and Market* *Exclusivity in the EU

The EU provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity related to MAs. Upon receiving an MA, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

In the EU, there is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided in support of an application for MA. Guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product.

Orphan Designation in the EU

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan medicinal product by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish that: (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions; (ii) either (a) such conditions affect not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product; and (iii) there exists no

satisfactory authorized method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition that has been authorized in the EU, or even if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 sets out further provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product. An application for the designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product must be submitted at any stage of development of the medicinal product but before filing of an MAA. An MA for an orphan medicinal product may only include indications designated as orphan. For non-orphan indications treated with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, a separate marketing authorization has to be sought.

Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such as fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Upon grant of a marketing authorization, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of 10 years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The period of market exclusivity may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria on the basis of which it received orphan medicinal product designation, including where it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, an MA may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period if: (i) if the applicant consents to a second original orphan medicinal product application; (ii) if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities; or (iii) if the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the register of orphan products.

Post-Approval* *Requirements in the EU

Where an MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EU, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk- minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. General requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products, such as direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products are established in EU law. However, the details are governed by regulations in individual EU Member States and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, which may require

approval by the competent national authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU.

Regulation of Companion Diagnostics in the EU

In the EEA, companion diagnostics are deemed to bein vitro diagnostic medical devices, or IVDs, and are governed by Regulation 2017/746, or IVDR, which entered into application on May 26, 2022, repealing and replacing Directive 98/79/EC. The IVDR defines a companion diagnostic as a device which is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding medicinal product to: (a) identify, before and/or during treatment, patients who are most likely to benefit from the corresponding medicinal product; or (b) identify, before and/or during treatment, patients likely to be at increased risk of serious adverse reactions as a result of treatment with the corresponding medicinal product.

The IVDR and its associated guidance documents and harmonized standards govern, among other things, device design and development, preclinical and clinical or performance testing, premarket conformity assessment, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, claims, sales and distribution, export and import and post-market surveillance, vigilance, and market surveillance. IVDs, including companion diagnostics, must conform with the general safety and performance requirements, or GSPR, of the IVDR. Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix the CE mark to devices, without which they cannot be marketed or sold in the EEA. To demonstrate compliance with the GSPR laid down in Annex I to the IVDR, and obtain the right to affix the CE mark, IVD manufacturers must conduct a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of IVD and its classification. Apart from low risk IVDs (Class A which are not sterile), in relation to which the manufacturer may issue an EU Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its products with the GSPRs, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a Notified Body, which is an organization designated by a Competent Authority of an EEA country to conduct conformity assessments. Depending on the relevant conformity assessment procedure, the Notified Body audits and examines the technical documentation and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of the medical devices. The Notified Body issues a CE Certificate of Conformity following successful completion of a conformity assessment procedure conducted in relation to the medical device and its manufacturer and their conformity with the GSPRs. This Certificate and the related conformity assessment process entitles the manufacturer to affix the CE mark to its medical devices after having prepared and signed a related EC Declaration of Conformity.

Companion diagnostics must undergo a conformity assessment by a Notified Body. If the related medicinal product has, or is in the process of, been authorised through the centralized procedure for the authorization of medicinal products, the notified body will, before it can issue a CE Certificate of Conformity, be required to seek a scientific opinion from the EMA on the suitability of the companion diagnostic for use in relation to the medicinal product concerned. For medicinal products that have or are in the process of authorisation through any other route provided in EU legislation, the Notified Body must seek the opinion of the national competent authority of an EU Member State.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of products will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such products. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of

the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by the Affordable Care Act, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, and by other healthcare legislative reforms that may be enacted or adopted in the future, particularly in light of the recent U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with our product candidates. Companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for our product candidates will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates or products to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. The European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. In addition, some EU Member States may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular medicinal product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, process is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

Other Healthcare Laws and Regulations

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted regulatory approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, health information privacy and security, price reporting and physician sunshine laws. Some of our pre-commercial activities are subject to some of these laws.

The federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute, or Anti-Kickback Statute, prohibits any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer or a party acting on its behalf, from, among other things, knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, soliciting, receiving, offering, or providing any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or recommendation or arranging of, any good or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Moreover, 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 civil False Claims Act.

The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Persons and entities can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, any of our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and other third-party payor reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny under this law. Penalties for federal civil False Claims Act violations may include up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus significant mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, False Claims Act violations may also implicate various federal criminal statutes.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the Anti-Kickback Statute a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Additionally, to the extent that any of our product candidates, if approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of certain healthcare providers, healthcare clearinghouses and health plans, known as covered entities, that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity or another business associate, and their covered subcontractors. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state and foreign laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. For further information concerning the data privacy and security laws we may be subject to and our processing of personal data, see the risk factor titled “We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations, rules, contractual obligations, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our (and third parties’ with whom we work) actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions, litigation, fines and penalties, disruptions of our business operations, reputational harm, loss of revenue or profits, and other adverse business consequences.”

The U.S. federal transparency requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, ACA, including the provision commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposed, among other things, annual reporting requirements for covered manufacturers for certain payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians, as defined by such law, other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistant and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

In addition, we may be subject to certain analogous state and foreign laws of each of the above federal healthcare laws. In some instances, such laws may be broader in scope than its federal counterpart, such as certain state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. In addition, certain states and local jurisdictions also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation or other remuneration to physicians and other healthcare professionals.

Because we intend to commercialize products that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we intend to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal control to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject. Although the development and implementation of compliance programs designed to establish internal control and facilitate compliance can mitigate the risk of investigation, prosecution, and penalties assessed for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and individual imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Healthcare Reform

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. The ACA, which was signed into law in 2010, is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

There have been judicial, executive branch and Congressional challenges and amendments to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the IRA into law which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional healthcare reform measures of the new Trump administration or future legal challenges will impact the ACA and our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year that became effective on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will stay in effect through 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024.

In addition, the IRA will, among other things, (i) allow HHS to negotiate the price of certain drugs and biologics covered that have been on the market for at least seven years under Medicare, and subject 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) impose 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. These provisions began to take effect progressively starting in 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon prices of the first 10 drugs that were subject to price negotiations, which take effect in January 2026. HHS will select up to 15 additional products covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare drug price negotiation program. 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.

In addition, in December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA Regulation, was adopted in the EU. The HTA Regulation is intended to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The HTA Regulation has applied from January 12, 2025 although it will enter into force iteratively and initially apply to new active substances to treat cancer and to all advanced therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs, it will then be expanded to orphan medicinal products in January 2028, and to all centrally authorized medicinal products as of 2030. Selected high-risk medical devices will also be assessed under the HTA Regulation as of 2026. The HTA Regulation is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EU. Pricing and reimbursement decisions, based on these assessments, remain the responsibility of individual Member States.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

As a result of the United Kingdom’s, or U.K., withdrawal from the EU on January 31, 2020 (commonly referred to as Brexit), the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is now the U.K.’s standalone regulator for medicinal products and medical devices. The U.K. is no longer subject to EU regulations (Northern Ireland continues to follow certain limited EU regulatory rules, including in relation to medical devices, but not in relation to medicinal products).

The U.K. regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is governed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, as amended, which isderived from the CTD, as implemented into U.K. national law through secondary legislation. On January 17, 2022, the MHRA launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the U.K. legislation for clinical trials. The U.K. government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023 confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation, and such changes were laid before Parliament on December 12, 2024. These resulting legislative amendments will, if implemented in their current form, bring the U.K. regulations into closer alignment with the EU CTR. In October 2023, the MHRA announced a new Notification Scheme for clinical trials which enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to initial clinical trial applications for Phase 4 and low-risk Phase 3 clinical trial applications.

Marketing authorizations in the U.K. are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916), as amended. Since January 1, 2021, an applicant for the EU centralized procedure marketing authorization can no longer be established in the U.K. As a result, since this date, companies established in the U.K. cannot use the EUcentralized procedure. In order to obtain an MA to commercialize products in the U.K., an applicant must be established in the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures. Applications are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916) and are made electronically through the MHRA Submissions Portal. The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, a 150-day assessment (subject to clock-stops) and a rolling review procedure. The rolling-review procedure permits the separate or joint submission of quality, non-clinical, and clinical data to the MHRA which can be reviewed on a rolling basis. After an application under rolling-review procedure has been validated, the decision should be received within 100 days (subject to clock-stops).

In addition, since January 1, 2024, the MHRA may rely on the International Recognition Procedure, or IRP, when reviewing certain types of MAAs. Pursuant to the IRP, the MHRA will take into account the expertise and decision-making of trusted regulatory partners (e.g., the regulatory in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, the U.S. and the EU). The MHRA will conduct a targeted assessment of IRP applications but retain the authority to reject applications if the evidence provided is considered insufficiently robust. The IRP allows medicinal products approved by such trusted regulatory partners that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update a MA in the U.K. Applications should be decided within a maximum of 60 days if there are no major objections identified that cannot be resolved within such 60 day period and the approval from the trusted regulatory partner selected has been granted within the previous 2 years or if there are such major objections identified or such approval hasn’t been granted within the previous 2 years within 110 days. Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals.

All existing EU marketing authorizations for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into U.K. marketing authorization, effective in Great Britain only, free of charge on January 1, 2021, unlessthe marketing authorization holder opted-out of this possibility. Northern Ireland remained within the scope of EU authorizations in relation to centrally authorized medicinal products until January 1, 2025. On January 1, 2025, a new arrangement as part of the so-called “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated in Northern Ireland under

the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. Pursuant to the Windsor Framework holders of Great Britain marketing authorizations converted into U.K. marketing authorizations on January 1, 2025 unless the entities holding such marketing authorizations also held a Northern Ireland marketing authorization that they failed to cancel before December 31, 2024. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labelling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a U.K.-wide licensing process for medicines.

There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation for medicinal products in the U.K. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding marketing authorization application. The criteria are essentially the same as those in the EU, but have been tailored for the market. This includes the criterion that prevalence of the condition in the U.K., rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Upon the grant of a marketing authorization with orphan status, the medicinal product will benefit from up to 10 years of market exclusivity from similar products in the approved orphan indication. The start of this market exclusivity period will be set from the date of first approval of the product in the U.K.

Employees and Human Capital

As of December 31, 2024, we had 305 full-time or part-time employees, including 113 with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these employees, 235 employees are engaged in research and development activities and 70 employees are engaged in general and administrative activities. Our employees are primarily based at the locations of our office and laboratory facilities: 188 are located in the United Kingdom and 117 are located in the United States. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider the relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, developing, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees to support the continued growth of our company and progress the development of our product candidates. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of equity-based compensation awards.

Compensation and Benefits

We believe our employees are our most valuable assets and are key to achieving our goals. We focus our efforts on attracting and retaining a diverse, high-performing workforce through offering competitive and fair compensation packages that are based on robust industry market data. Our total compensation package includes competitive base pay, annual bonus, equity participation, and a broad range of benefits, including retirement planning, healthcare and insurance benefits, paid time off, enhanced paid family and medical leave, flexible working, and various health and wellness programs. We also run recognition programs that highlight employees who exhibit exceptional performance and demonstrate our company values.

We ensure that our compensation programs are designed to be equitable and fair, and routinely analyze data to ensure that our programs are administered in a fair and equitable way.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

We believe a diverse workforce is critical to our success and we are fundamentally committed to creating and maintaining a work environment in which employees are treated fairly, with dignity, decency, respect and in accordance with all applicable laws. We understand that varied perspectives lead to the best ideas and outcomes. We believe that by creating a workplace where every individual can feel welcome and valued, we will be better able to achieve our corporate objectives. All employees must adhere to a code of business conduct and ethics and our employee handbook, which combined, define standards for appropriate behavior and all employees are annually trained to help prevent, identify, report, and stop any type of discrimination and harassment. Our processes in recruitment, hiring, development, training, compensation, and advancement are based on qualifications, performance, skills, and experience without regard to gender, race, or ethnicity.

We have formed a cross-functional DEI employee network that continues to work with human resources and our leadership to develop the DEI strategy.

Career Development

We invest heavily in our employees’ personal and professional development. We offer a vast array of learning and development opportunities including online and classroom training and learning, technical training, mentoring and coaching programs, training academies and management and leadership development programs.

We are committed to developing the next generation of talent and have active internship partnerships with local universities in both the United States and United Kingdom.

Corporate Information

In 2009, we were incorporated as a limited liability company under the laws of England and Wales. In 2017, we effected a reorganization to create a new holding company which, in connection with our IPO, was re-registered as a public limited company named Bicycle Therapeutics plc. Bicycle Therapeutics plc is the parent company of three wholly owned subsidiaries, two of which are based in Cambridge, United Kingdom and one of which is based in Massachusetts, United States, that carry on our business.

The U.K. subsidiaries are BicycleTx Limited and BicycleRD Limited, and the U.S. subsidiary is Bicycle Therapeutics Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at Blocks A & B, Portway Building, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6GS, United Kingdom, and our phone number is +44 1223 261503.

Available Information

Our website address is http://www.bicycletherapeutics.com. We make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at www.sec.gov. The information found on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.