Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We are advancing an allogeneic CAR T platform of primarily early-stage product candidates and have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, securing related intellectual property rights, building our product manufacturing infrastructure, including a dedicated good manufacturing practices (GMP) manufacturing facility, manufacturing our clinical product candidates and conducting discovery, research and development activities for our programs. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2024, we reported a net loss of $257.6 million. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, we reported a net loss of $110.7 million. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.9 billion.

Current wording

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We are advancing an allogeneic CAR T platform of primarily early-stage product candidates and have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, securing related intellectual property rights, building our product manufacturing infrastructure, including a dedicated good manufacturing practices (GMP) manufacturing facility, manufacturing our clinical product candidates and conducting discovery, research and development activities for our programs. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2024, we reported a net loss of $257.6 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, we reported a net loss of $152.1 million. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $2.0 billion.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had $302.6 million in cash and cash equivalents and investments. Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may also need to raise additional capital sooner than we currently anticipate if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently plan. In any event, we will require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, we had $277.1 million in cash and cash equivalents and investments. Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may also need to raise additional capital sooner than we currently anticipate if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently plan. In any event, we will require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities.

Previous wording

More generally, approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new product candidates. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the autologous CAR T therapies that have previously been approved. For instance, allogeneic product candidates may result in graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) or chromosomal abnormalities not experienced with autologous products. Additionally, any Phase 2 trial results, such as in the ALPHA3 trial, may not be representative of Phase 1 results, which were based on limited patients and a patient population in an advanced stage or LBCL, and such Phase 2 trial results may not be accepted by the FDA as pivotal and sufficient for cema-cel approval, requiring us to open additional trials to establish that cema-cel is safe and effective. Even if we collect promising initial clinical data of our product candidates, longer-term data may reveal new adverse events or responses that are not durable. Unexpected clinical outcomes would significantly impact our business.

Current wording

More generally, approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new product candidates. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the autologous CAR T therapies that have previously been approved. For instance, allogeneic product candidates may result in graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) or chromosomal abnormalities not experienced with autologous products. Additionally, any Phase 2 trial results, such as in the ALPHA3 trial, may not be representative of Phase 1 results, which were based on limited patients and a patient population in an advanced stage of LBCL, and such Phase 2 trial results may not be accepted by the FDA as pivotal and sufficient for cema-cel approval, requiring us to open additional trials to establish that cema-cel is safe and effective. Even if we collect promising initial clinical data of our product candidates, longer-term data may reveal new adverse events or responses that are not durable. Unexpected clinical outcomes would significantly impact our business.

Previous wording

If unacceptable toxicities arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate a development program, a trial or certain arms of a trial, or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. For example, as a result of the Grade 5 SAE in the ALPHA3 trial described above, we have terminated the FCA arm of the ALPHA3 trial, and the trial will now move forward as a two arm trial under which patients will be randomized equally (1:1) into either the FC lymphodepletion arm or standard-of-care observation. Additionally, we have terminated all further development of ALLO-647. Any data safety monitoring board may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We have trained and expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR T cell product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for both our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Current wording

If unacceptable toxicities arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate a development program, a trial or certain arms of a trial, or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. For example, as a result of the Grade 5 SAE in the ALPHA3 trial described above, we have terminated the FCA arm of the ALPHA3 trial, and the trial will now move forward as a two arm trial under which patients will be randomized equally (1:1) into either the FC lymphodepletion arm or standard-of-care observation. Additionally, we have terminated all further development of ALLO-647. Any data safety monitoring board may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We have trained and expect to have to train medical personnel using

Previous wording

These and other risks associated with our collaborations with Servier and Cellectis, each based in France, our collaboration with Notch, based in Canada, and our joint venture for China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore with HBP, may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Current wording

These and other risks associated with our collaborations with Servier and Cellectis, each based in France, and our joint venture for China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore with HBP, may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Previous wording

Specifically, engineered T cells face significant competition from multiple companies. Success of other therapies could impact our regulatory strategy and delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section entitled “Business—Competition” included in our Annual Report.

Current wording

Success of other therapies, such as in vivo technologies, could impact our regulatory strategy and delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section entitled “Business—Competition” included in our Annual Report.

Previous wording

If we license products or new technologies or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our agreements with Cellectis, Servier, Notch, Antion, and Foresight Diagnostics require significant research and development that may not result in the development and commercialization of product candidates. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.

Current wording

If we license products or new technologies or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our agreements with Cellectis, Servier, Roche (formerly, Notch), Antion, and Foresight Diagnostics require significant research and development that may not result in the development and commercialization of product candidates. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.

Previous wording

We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, including our acquisition of CAR T cell assets from Pfizer, licenses with Cellectis, Servier, Notch, Antion, our strategic collaboration with Foresight Diagnostics, and our joint venture with HBP and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including:

Current wording

We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, including our acquisition of CAR T cell assets from Pfizer, licenses with Cellectis, Servier, Roche (formerly, Notch), Antion, our strategic collaboration with Foresight Diagnostics, and our joint venture with HBP and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including:

Previous wording

Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of the third parties with whom we work. Such threats are prevalent and are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. These threats come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors. Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we, and the third parties with whom we work, may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce and distribute our product candidates. We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to social-engineering attacks (including through deep fakes, which may be increasingly more difficult to identify as fake, and phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service credential stuffing attacks, credential harvesting, adware, ransomware, supply chain attacks, personnel misconduct or error, attacks enhanced or facilitated by AI, and other similar threats. Our information technology systems and data, and those of the third parties with whom we work, may also be subject to failure or disruption from software bugs, server malfunction, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, telecommunications failures, natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, and floods, and other similar issues.

Current wording

“hackers,” “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors. Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we, and the third parties with whom we work, may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce and distribute our product candidates. We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to social-engineering attacks (including through deep fakes, which may be increasingly more difficult to identify as fake, and phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service credential stuffing attacks, credential harvesting, adware, ransomware, supply chain attacks, personnel misconduct or error, attacks enhanced or facilitated by AI, and other similar threats. Our information technology systems and data, and those of the third parties with whom we work, may also be subject to failure or disruption from software bugs, server malfunction, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, telecommunications failures, natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, and floods, and other similar issues.

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including substantial leadership departures, personnel cuts, and policy changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. In addition, there have recently been terminations of large numbers of federal employees at various federal agencies, including the FDA. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing could result in delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review IND submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it and/or employee terminations or resignations could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other federal agencies to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns and/or employee terminations or resignations or could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations, or to timely obtain patent protection in the U.S. to protect our technology.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including substantial leadership departures, personnel cuts, and policy changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities, including the current government shutdown which began on October 1, 2025 and is ongoing. In addition, there have recently been terminations of large numbers of federal employees at various federal agencies, including the FDA. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing could result in delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review IND submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all. If the current shutdown continues for an extended period of time, or if a subsequent prolonged government shutdown occurs, it and/or employee terminations or resignations could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other federal agencies to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns and/or employee terminations or resignations or could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations, or to timely obtain patent protection in the U.S. to protect our technology.

Previous wording

Cellectis’ TALEN technology, which we use in our oncology programs, and Arbor’s CRISPR technology, which we use in our AID program, both involve relatively new approaches to gene editing, using sequence-specific DNA-cutting enzymes, or nucleases, to perform precise and stable modifications in the DNA of living-cells and organisms, and we have very little experience with Arbor’s CRISPR technology. Cellectis and Arbor have not created nucleases for all gene sequences that we may seek to target, and they may not agree to or have difficulty creating nucleases for other gene sequences that we may seek to target, which could limit the usefulness of this technology. Cellectis and Arbor are our sole sources for this technology, including for certain tools such as nucleases and vectors. If Cellectis or Arbor were to be unwilling or unable to supply these tools, our ability to develop gene-edited product candidates could be materially and adversely impacted, leading to delays in our development programs and potential failure to commercialize certain product candidates.

Current wording

Cellectis’ TALEN technology, which we use in our oncology programs, and Arbor’s CRISPR technology, which we use in our AID program, both involve relatively new approaches to gene editing, using sequence-specific DNA-cutting enzymes, or nucleases, to perform precise and stable modifications in the DNA of living-cells and organisms, and we have very little experience with Arbor’s CRISPR technology. Cellectis and Arbor have not created nucleases for all gene sequences that we may seek to target, and they may not agree to or have difficulty creating nucleases for other gene sequences that we may seek to target, which could limit the usefulness of this technology. Cellectis and Arbor are our sole sources for this technology, including for certain tools such as nucleases and vectors. If Cellectis or Arbor were to be unwilling or unable, including due to the Factor Litigation (as defined below), to supply these tools, our ability to develop gene-edited product candidates could be materially and adversely impacted, leading to delays in our development programs and potential failure to commercialize certain product candidates.

Previous wording

In addition, the gene-editing industry is rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies that render our technology obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates. As competitors use or develop new technologies, any failures of such technology could adversely impact our program. We also may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, and competitive pressures may force us to implement new technologies at a substantial cost, and which would delay our development programs. In addition, our competitors may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to enjoy technological advantages and may in the future allow them to implement new technologies before we can. We cannot be certain that we will be able to implement technologies on a timely basis or at a cost that is acceptable to us. If we are unable to maintain technological advancements consistent with industry standards, our operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Current wording

In addition, the gene-editing industry is rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies that render our technology obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates. As competitors use or develop new technologies, any failures of such technology could adversely impact our program. We also may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, and competitive pressures or the Factor Litigation may force us to implement new technologies at a substantial cost, and which would delay our development programs. In addition, our competitors may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to enjoy technological advantages and may in the future allow them to implement new technologies before we can. We cannot be certain that we will be able to implement technologies on a timely basis or at a cost that is acceptable to us. If we are unable to maintain technological advancements consistent with industry standards, our operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. For additional details on the Factor Litigation, see “Risk Factors – Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our product discovery and development efforts and our ability to commercialize our product candidates.”

Previous wording

Our ALPHA3 clinical trial is now proceeding exclusively with a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of FC without ALLO-647, and there is uncertainty regarding whether FC alone will achieve sufficient lymphodepletion to support the efficacy of our allogeneic CAR T therapy, cema-cel. Previously, the FCA regimen was anticipated to enhance CAR T cell expansion and persistence by reducing host immune system interference; however, the FCA arm was terminated following a Grade 5 SAE. Although initial MRD conversion data from the FC arm suggests potential efficacy, this preliminary data is limited, and derived from a small patient cohort. Therefore, there remains a risk that the FC lymphodepletion regimen alone may not sufficiently suppress the patient’s immune system to allow adequate expansion, persistence, and efficacy of the CAR T cells, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical outcomes. If the FC regimen proves inadequate, we may be required to amend the study design to enhance lymphodepletion, which could significantly delay the completion of the trial. This risk, and any resulting delays, could materially impact our clinical trial success, regulatory approval prospects, and overall business and financial performance.

Current wording

Although initial MRD conversion data from the FC arm suggests potential efficacy, this preliminary data is limited, and derived from a small patient cohort. Therefore, there remains a risk that the FC lymphodepletion regimen alone may not sufficiently suppress the patient’s immune system to allow adequate expansion, persistence, and efficacy of the CAR T cells, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical outcomes. If the FC regimen proves inadequate, we may be required to amend the study design to enhance lymphodepletion, which could significantly delay the completion of the trial. This risk, and any resulting delays, could materially impact our clinical trial success, regulatory approval prospects, and overall business and financial performance.

Previous wording

We rely on an agreement with Cellectis for exclusive rights to use TALEN technology for 15 select cancer targets, including BCMA, FLT3, CD70, DLL3, Claudin 18.2 and other targets included in our pipeline. We also rely on Cellectis, through our agreement with Servier, for exclusive rights to UCART19, ALLO-501 and cema-cel. Any other gene-editing technology used to research and develop product candidates directed at targets not covered by our existing agreements with Cellectis and Servier will require significant investment and time for advancement. In addition, the Cellectis gene-editing technology may fail to produce viable product candidates. Moreover, both Servier and Cellectis may terminate our respective agreements in the event of a material breach of the agreements, or upon certain insolvency events. Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and any failure by those parties to resolve such matters may have an adverse impact on us. There is an ongoing arbitration between Cellectis and Servier regarding this dispute under which Cellectis is seeking to terminate the Cellectis-Servier Agreement, which would automatically terminate our sublicense from Servier. Although both the Cellectis-Servier Agreement and our Servier sublicense provide that in the event of termination of the

Current wording

We rely on an agreement with Cellectis for exclusive rights to use TALEN technology for 15 select cancer targets, including BCMA, FLT3, CD70, DLL3, Claudin 18.2 and other targets included in our pipeline. We also rely on Cellectis, through our agreement with Servier, for exclusive rights to UCART19, ALLO-501 and cema-cel. Any other gene-editing technology used to research and develop product candidates directed at targets not covered by our existing agreements with Cellectis and Servier will require significant investment and time for advancement. In addition, the Cellectis gene-editing technology may fail to produce viable product candidates. Moreover, both Servier and Cellectis may terminate our respective agreements in the event of a material breach of the agreements, or upon certain insolvency events. Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and any failure by those parties to resolve such matters may have an adverse impact on us. There is an ongoing arbitration between Cellectis and Servier regarding this dispute under which Cellectis is seeking to terminate the Cellectis-Servier Agreement, which would automatically terminate our sublicense from Servier. Although both the Cellectis-Servier Agreement and our Servier sublicense provide that in the event of termination of the Cellectis-Servier Agreement, Cellectis agrees to enter into good faith negotiations with us for a direct license on terms substantially similar in scope and grant, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain such a direct license. If our agreements were terminated and we were unable to obtain a new license or we lose access to the Cellectis TALEN technology as a result of the Factor Litigation, we would be required to seek other gene editing technology, obtain a license from Factor or abandon our cema-cel or ALLO-316 programs, any one of which could materially impact our business and financial position. Further, alternative gene editing technology may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all, and advancing other gene editing technology would require significant resources. For additional details on the Factor Litigation, see “Risk Factors – Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our product discovery and development efforts and our ability to commercialize our product candidates.”

Previous wording

If the FDA or European Commission grant accelerated approval for our product candidates, as a condition for accelerated approval, the FDA or the European Commission may require us to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug or biologic may be subject to withdrawal procedures by the FDA that are more accelerated than those available for regular approvals. The FDA or European Commission may ultimately refuse to grant accelerated approval for our product candidates and require a Phase 3 clinical trial prior to approval, particularly since our product candidates represent a novel treatment. In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications that we are studying. This may result in the FDA, the European Commission, or other regulatory agencies requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is superior to the new products.

Current wording

European Commission may ultimately refuse to grant accelerated approval for our product candidates and require a Phase 3 clinical trial prior to approval, particularly since our product candidates represent a novel treatment. In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications that we are studying. This may result in the FDA, the European Commission, or other regulatory agencies requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is superior to the new products.

Previous wording

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others. We depend substantially on our license agreements with Pfizer, Servier and Cellectis. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. For example, we are dependent on our license with Cellectis for gene-editing technology that is necessary to produce certain of our engineered T cells. In addition, we are reliant on Servier in-licensing from Cellectis some of the intellectual property rights they are licensing to us, including certain intellectual property rights relating to ALLO-501 and cema-cel. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors. For instance, Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in ALL, and any failure by those parties to resolve such matters may have an adverse impact on us. In the future, we may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates.

Current wording

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others. We depend substantially on our license agreements with Pfizer, Servier and Cellectis. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. For example, we are dependent on our license with Cellectis for gene-editing technology that is necessary to produce certain of our engineered T cells. In addition, we are reliant on Servier in-licensing from Cellectis some of the intellectual property rights they are licensing to us, including certain intellectual property rights relating to ALLO-501 and cema-cel. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors. For instance, Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its termination of development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in ALL. There is an ongoing arbitration between Cellectis and Servier regarding this dispute under which Cellectis is seeking to terminate the Cellectis-Servier Agreement, which would automatically terminate our sublicense from Servier. Although both the Cellectis-Servier Agreement and our Servier sublicense provide that in the event of termination of the Cellectis-Servier Agreement, Cellectis agrees to enter into good faith negotiations with us for a direct license on terms substantially similar in scope and grant, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain such a direct license. If our agreements were terminated and we were unable to obtain a new license, we would be required to seek other gene editing technology or abandon our cema-cel or ALLO-316 programs, both of which could materially impact our business and financial position. Further, alternative gene editing technology may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all, and advancing other gene editing technology would require significant resources. In the future, we may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates.

Previous wording

Third parties may assert that we or our collaboration partners infringe their patents or are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us and/or our collaboration partners. For example, in July 2024 Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. and Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. (collectively, Roche) filed lawsuits in Federal District Courts in California and Delaware against Foresight Diagnostics Inc. (Foresight Diagnostics), who is our collaboration partner, as well as Stanford University and three of Foresight’s founders, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and breach of contract relating to Foresight Diagnostics’ PhasED-Seq Circulating Tumor DNA Platform which is being used as part of our ALPHA3 clinical trial to identify MRD+ patients. As part of the lawsuit, Roche seeks to obtain ownership of certain Stanford patents covering the PhasED-Seq technology that are licensed to Foresight Diagnostics. Foresight Diagnostics has stated that it believes that Roche’s allegations are meritless and that it intends to vigorously defend against the case. In August 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation indicating that Roche and Foresight have entered into a term sheet to resolve the litigation for all parties. The term sheet obligates the parties to negotiate and finalize a definitive settlement agreement by August 29, 2025. The parties have asked the Court to stay the litigation pending final resolution. If Roche obtains an injunction or otherwise prevails in its lawsuits, we may be required to seek alternative means for gaining access to the PhasED-Seq MRD assay or find an alternative MRD assay to use in the ALPHA3 trial, either of which may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all, and/or could significantly delay or prevent the completion of the trial or our plans to commercialize cema-cel as part of a 1L consolidation strategy, if approved, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

Current wording

Third parties may assert that we or our collaboration partners infringe their patents or are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us and/or our collaboration partners. These risks are illustrated by two recent lawsuits. In July 2024 Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. and Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. (collectively, the Roche Parties) filed lawsuits in Federal District Courts in California and Delaware against Foresight Diagnostics Inc. (Foresight Diagnostics), who is our collaboration partner, as well as Stanford University and three of Foresight’s founders, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and breach of contract relating to Foresight Diagnostics’ PhasED-Seq Circulating Tumor DNA Platform which is being used as part of our ALPHA3 clinical trial to identify MRD+ patients. Although Foresight announced on August 29, 2025 that it had entered into a limited licensing agreement with the Roche Parties related to Foresight’s patented PhasED-Seq™ technology, and that the agreement closes the litigation between the parties, with all claims against Foresight, its founders, and Stanford University dismissed with prejudice, if such settlement had not been entered into we may have been required to seek alternative means for gaining access to the PhasED-Seq MRD assay or find an alternative MRD assay to use in the ALPHA3 trial, either of which may not have been available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all, and/or could have significantly delayed or prevented the completion of the trial or our plans to commercialize cema-cel as part of a 1L consolidation strategy, if approved, which could have materially adversely affected our business, operating results and financial condition. Additionally, on September 26, 2025, Factor Bioscience Inc. (Factor) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Cellectis S.A., and its affiliate Cellectis, Inc., alleging that Cellectis’s TALEN-based gene-editing technology infringed three of Factor’s U.S. patents relating to gene-editing techniques (Factor Litigation). Among other things, Factor alleges that Cellectis copied Factor’s patented mRNA TALEN technology, passed off as Cellectis’s own and entered into license agreements with several licensors, including us, to capitalize on such infringement. Factor’s complaint also names AstraZeneca PLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively, AstraZeneca) as defendants, and alleges direct infringement by AstraZeneca of certain of Factor’s patents by using Cellectis’s allegedly infringing TALEN technology. Cellectis notified us of the patent infringement action on October 6, 2025, and informed us that it disputes Factor’s claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. Although we are not a party to this litigation, we rely on the TALEN gene-editing technology licensed from Cellectis to engineer certain of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Parties who may make claims against us or our collaboration partners may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business and may impact our reputation. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign any of our alleged infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Current wording

Parties, such as Factor, who may make claims against us or our collaboration partners may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business and may impact our reputation. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign any of our alleged infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Previous wording

We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. We may fail to acquire such rights or obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights.

Current wording

We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify, such as the intellectual property that is the subject of the Factor Litigation. We may fail to acquire such rights or obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights.

Previous wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the 2013 case, Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.

Current wording

Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the 2013 case, Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.