Werewolf Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and have not yet generated any product revenue. If our product candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any product revenue. Our net loss was $16.7 million for the three months ended September 30, 2024. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $394.2 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase substantially as WTX-124 and WTX-330 advance through development, and any future product candidates advance through preclinical studies and into and through clinical trials, and as we expand our clinical, regulatory, quality and manufacturing capabilities and incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. If we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we will incur significant commercialization expenses for marketing, sales, manufacturing and distribution. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will need to develop commercial capabilities, and we may not be successful in doing so. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year.

Current wording

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and have not yet generated any product revenue. If our product candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any product revenue. Our net loss was $18.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $432.7 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase substantially as WTX-124 and WTX-330 advance through development, and any future product candidates advance through preclinical studies and into and through clinical trials, and as we expand our clinical, regulatory, quality and manufacturing capabilities and incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. If we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we will incur significant commercialization expenses for marketing, sales, manufacturing and distribution. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will need to develop commercial capabilities, and we may not be successful in doing so. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year.

Previous wording

As of September 30, 2024, we had cash and cash equivalents of $122.8 million. We expect that our cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2024 will allow us to complete the development of WTX-124 through dose escalation and expansion as a monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab and the development of WTX-330 through dose escalation and expansion as a monotherapy.

Current wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had cash and cash equivalents of $92.0 million. We expect that our cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, 2025 will allow us to complete the development of WTX-124 through dose escalation and expansion as a monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab and the development of WTX-330 through dose escalation and expansion as a monotherapy.

Previous wording

Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation may adversely affect our business or financial condition. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or TCJA, as amended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, significantly revised the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The TCJA, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including the reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21% and the limitation of the deduction for net operating losses to 80% of current year taxable income for losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 (though any such net operating losses may be carried forward indefinitely but no longer carried back). In addition, beginning in 2022, the TCJA eliminated the option to deduct research and development expenditures currently and generally requires corporations to capitalize and amortize them over five years or 15 years (for expenditures attributable to foreign research).

Current wording

Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation may adversely affect our business or financial condition. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the TCJA, as amended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, significantly revised the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The TCJA, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including the reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21% and, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, the limitation of the deduction for net operating losses to 80% of current year taxable income for losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 (though any such net operating losses may be carried forward indefinitely but no longer carried back). In addition, beginning in 2022, the TCJA eliminated the option to deduct research and development expenditures currently and generally requires corporations to capitalize and amortize them over five years or 15 years (for expenditures attributable to foreign research).

Previous wording

In addition to the CARES Act, as part of Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, economic relief legislation was enacted in 2020 and 2021 containing tax provisions. The Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, which was signed into law in August 2022, also introduced new tax provisions, including a one percent excise tax imposed on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded companies, which generally applies to any acquisition of stock by the publicly traded company (or certain of its affiliates) from a stockholder of the company in exchange for money or other property (other than stock of the company itself), subject to a de minimis exception. Thus, the excise tax could apply to certain transactions that are not traditional stock repurchases. Regulatory guidance under the TCJA and such additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen their impact on our business and financial condition. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the TCJA and additional tax legislation.

Current wording

In addition to the CARES Act, as part of Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, economic relief legislation was enacted in 2020 and 2021 containing tax provisions. The Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, which was signed into law in August 2022, also introduced new tax provisions, including a one percent excise tax imposed on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded companies, which generally applies to any acquisition of stock by the publicly traded company (or certain of its affiliates) from a stockholder of the company in exchange for money or other property (other than stock of the company itself), subject to a de minimis exception. Thus, the excise tax could apply to certain transactions that are not traditional stock repurchases. Regulatory guidance under the TCJA and such additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen their impact on our business and financial condition. Congress may also enact additional legislation, some of which could have an impact on us. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the TCJA and additional tax legislation.

Previous wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history. We do not anticipate generating revenue from sales of products for the foreseeable future, if ever, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2023, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $96.6 million and $44.9 million, respectively. Under Section 382 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in the ownership of its equity by certain stockholders over a three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. As a result of our prior private placement financings or other transactions, we have experienced ownership changes on June 10, 2019, August 2, 2019 and August 31, 2022, and we may in the future experience ownership changes as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership for purposes of Section 382. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset U.S. federal taxable income are subject to limitations, which could result in increased future tax liability to us and could have an adverse effect on our future results of operations. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspension of the use of net operating losses, or for other unforeseen reasons, our existing net operating losses and other tax attributes could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. As described above in “Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation could adversely affect our business and financial condition,” the TCJA, as amended by the CARES Act, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and rules governing net operating loss carryforwards that may significantly impact our ability to utilize net operating losses to offset taxable income in the future. In addition, state net operating losses generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, we may be unable to use a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes.

Current wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history. We do not anticipate generating revenue from sales of products for the foreseeable future, if ever, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2024, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $126.8 million and $76.8 million, respectively. Under Section 382 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in the ownership of its equity by certain stockholders over a three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. As a result of our prior private placement financings or other transactions, we have experienced ownership changes on June 10, 2019, August 2, 2019 and August 31, 2022, and we may in the future experience ownership changes as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership for purposes of Section 382. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset U.S. federal taxable income are subject to limitations, which could result in increased future tax liability to us and could have an adverse effect on our future results of operations. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspension of the use of net operating losses, or for other unforeseen reasons, our existing net operating losses and other tax attributes could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. As described above in “Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation could adversely affect our business and financial condition,” the TCJA, as amended by the CARES Act, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and rules governing net operating loss carryforwards that may significantly impact our ability to utilize net operating losses to offset taxable income in the future. In addition, state net operating losses generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, we may be unable to use a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes.

Previous wording

We are not permitted to market any biological product in the United States until we receive approval of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, or a new drug application, or NDA, from the FDA. We have not previously submitted a BLA or an NDA to the FDA, or similar marketing application to comparable foreign regulatory authorities. A BLA or an NDA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the product candidate is safe, pure and potent for each desired indication. A BLA or an NDA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product, and the manufacturing facilities must complete a successful pre-license inspection.

Current wording

We are not permitted to market any biological product or drug product in the United States until we receive approval of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, or a new drug application, or NDA, from the FDA. We have not previously submitted a BLA or an NDA to the FDA, or similar marketing application to comparable foreign regulatory authorities. A BLA or an NDA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the product candidate is safe, pure and potent for each desired indication. A BLA or an NDA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product, and the manufacturing facilities must complete a successful pre-license inspection.

Previous wording

The risk of failure for our current and any future product candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our future product candidates will successfully complete preclinical studies, or if any of our current or future product candidates will complete clinical trials evaluating their safety and effectiveness in humans or will ultimately receive regulatory approval. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans for use in each target indication. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical or clinical trial process. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. In particular, while we have conducted certain preclinical studies of WTX-124 and WTX-330 and have entered early clinical stage development, we do not know whether either of these product candidates will perform in our clinical trials as it has performed in these prior preclinical studies. Similarly, there can be no assurance that interim or preliminary clinical data or results, including, without limitation, the preliminary Phase 1/1b clinical data reported for WTX-124 and initial safety and efficacy data reported for WTX-330, will be predictive of future clinical data or results, and there can be no assurance that success in early clinical trials will lead to success in later clinical trials. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

Current wording

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans for use in each target indication. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical or clinical trial process. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. In particular, while we have conducted certain preclinical studies of WTX-124 and WTX-330 and have entered early clinical stage development, we do not know whether either of these product candidates will perform in our clinical trials as it has performed in these prior preclinical studies. Similarly, there can be no assurance that interim or preliminary clinical data or results, including, without limitation, the Phase 1/1b clinical data reported for WTX-124 and Phase 1 clinical data reported for WTX-330, will be predictive of future clinical data or results, and there can be no assurance that success in early clinical trials will lead to success in later clinical trials. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

Previous wording

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted. For example, in December 2022 with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.

Current wording

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted. For example, in December 2022 with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan, or DAP, for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance.

Previous wording

Our lead product candidate, WTX-124, if approved, may face competition from other Interleukin-2, or IL-2, based cancer therapies. Proleukin (aldesleukin), a synthetic protein very similar to IL-2, is approved and marketed for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and melanoma. In addition, we are aware that a number of other companies have modified IL-2 programs in development for the treatment of cancer, including Anaveon AG, Anwita Biosciences, Inc., Ascendis Pharma A/S, Asher Biotherapeutics, Inc., Aulos Bioscience, Inc., BioNTech SE, Cue Biopharma, Inc., DEKA Biosciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Medicenna Therapeutics Corp., Mural Oncology PLC, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Synthekine, Inc., and Xilio Therapeutics, Inc.

Current wording

Our lead product candidate, WTX-124, if approved, may face competition from other Interleukin-2, or IL-2, based cancer therapies. Proleukin (aldesleukin) has been approved and is marketed for the treatment of both metastatic renal cell carcinoma and metastatic melanoma. In addition, we are aware of numerous clinical and preclinical IL-2 molecules using different platforms being developed for oncology indications, including programs from Anaveon AG, Anwita Biosciences, Inc., Ascendis Pharma A/S, Asher Biotherapeutics, Inc., Aulos Bioscience, Inc., BioNTech SE, Cue Biopharma, Inc., DEKA Biosciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Medicenna Therapeutics Corp., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Synthekine, Inc., and Xilio Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

There are no approved IL-12 therapies currently on the market for the treatment of cancer. However, if approved, WTX-330 may face competition from other IL-12 cytokine programs in clinical and preclinical development for oncology indications, including programs from Sanofi S.A. (Amunix), DEKA Biosciences, Inc., DragonFly Therapeutics, Inc., Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company), Turnstone Biologics Corp. (partnered with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited), Philogen S.p.A., OncoSec Medical Incorporated, Sonnet BioTherapeutics, Inc., Xilio Therapeutics, Inc. and Zymeworks Inc.

Current wording

There are no approved IL-12 therapies currently on the market for the treatment of cancer. However, if approved, WTX-330 may face competition from other IL-12 cytokine programs in clinical and preclinical development for oncology indications, including programs from Sanofi S.A. (Amunix), DEKA Biosciences, Inc., DragonFly Therapeutics, Inc., Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company), OncoSec Medical Incorporated, Philogen S.p.A., Sonnet BioTherapeutics, Inc., Turnstone Biologics Corp. (partnered with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited), Xilio Therapeutics, Inc., and Zymeworks Inc.

Previous wording

We have engaged CMOs to provide certain services to support our clinical and preclinical development. Pursuant to the terms of separate contract manufacturing services agreements, we have engaged one CMO to provide drug substance manufacturing process development and to manufacture WTX-124 and WTX-330 drug substance to cGMP specifications for use in the further manufacture of clinical supply, a second CMO to provide drug product manufacturing process development and to manufacture clinical supply of WTX-124 and WTX-330 vialled drug product to cGMP specifications, and additional CMOs to provide drug substance and drug product manufacturing for JZP898. To support the manufacture of drug substance and drug product, our CMOs will conduct substantial analytical testing of drug substance and vialled drug product. If our CMOs are unable to supply us with sufficient clinical grade quantities of WTX-124 or WTX-330, and we are unable to timely establish an alternate supply from one or more third-party contract manufacturers, we will experience delays in our development efforts as we seek to locate and qualify new manufacturers. In particular, any replacement of our CMOs could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements or capacity could be limited at each of the qualified replacements. Additionally, contract manufacturers may rely on single source suppliers for certain of the raw materials for our preclinical and clinical product supplies. If current or future suppliers are delayed or unable to supply sufficient raw materials to manufacture product for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, we may experience delays in our development efforts as materials are obtained or we locate and qualify new raw material manufacturers. Further, for our combination clinical trial of WTX-124 with pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, we will need to procure supply of pembrolizumab for use in the clinical trials. If we are unable to procure sufficient supply from third-party manufacturers or other sources, we may be required to purchase our supply of checkpoint inhibitors on the open market, which may result in significant additional expense.

Current wording

We have engaged CMOs to provide certain services to support our clinical and preclinical development. Pursuant to the terms of separate contract manufacturing services agreements, we have engaged one CMO to provide drug substance manufacturing process development and to manufacture WTX-124 and WTX-330 drug substance to cGMP specifications for use in the further manufacture of clinical supply and a second CMO to provide drug product manufacturing process development and to manufacture clinical supply of WTX-124 and WTX-330 vialled drug product to cGMP specifications. To support the manufacture of drug substance and drug product, our CMOs will conduct substantial analytical testing of drug substance and vialled drug product. If our CMOs are unable to supply us with sufficient clinical grade quantities of WTX-124 or WTX-330, and we are unable to timely establish an alternate supply from one or more third-party contract manufacturers, we will experience delays in our development efforts as we seek to locate and qualify new manufacturers. In particular, any replacement of our CMOs could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements or capacity could be limited at each of the qualified replacements. Additionally, contract manufacturers may rely on single source suppliers for certain of the raw materials for our preclinical and clinical product supplies. If current or future suppliers are delayed or unable to supply sufficient raw materials to manufacture product for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, we may experience delays in our development efforts as materials are obtained or we locate and qualify new raw material manufacturers. Further, for our combination clinical trial of WTX-124 with pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, we will need to procure supply of pembrolizumab for use in the clinical trials. If we are unable to procure sufficient supply from third-party manufacturers or other sources, we may be required to purchase our supply of checkpoint inhibitors on the open market, which may result in significant additional expense.

Previous wording

Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. We have also adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets. However, we cannot provide assurance that these agreements and policies will not be breached by our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors and that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed to publicly or to competitors.

Current wording

Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. We have also adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets. However, we cannot provide assurance that these agreements and policies will not be breached by our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors and that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed publicly or to competitors.

Previous wording

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Generally, conducting preclinical and clinical trials and other development activities in the United States is not considered an act of infringement. If WTX-124, WTX-330, JZP898, WTX-712, WTX-518 or another product candidate we develop in the future is approved by the FDA, a third party may then seek to enforce its patent by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. For example, we have received, and we may in the future receive, correspondence from third parties or their legal counsel disclosing that such third party owns patents that may encompass one or more of our product candidates. It is also possible that a third party may file a lawsuit against us alleging infringement of its patents. The outcome of any such proceeding is uncertain and would likely result in the expenditure of significant financial resources and the diversion of management’s time and resources, which could harm our business. While we do not believe that any claims that could otherwise have a materially adverse effect on the commercialization of our product candidates are valid and enforceable, we may be incorrect in this belief, or we may not be able to prove it in litigation. In this regard, patents issued in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. There may be issued third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Patent applications can take many years to issue. There may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Moreover, we may fail to identify relevant patents or incorrectly conclude that a patent is invalid, not enforceable, exhausted, or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Generally, conducting preclinical and clinical trials and other development activities in the United States is not considered an act of infringement. If WTX-124, WTX-330, JZP898, WTX-712, WTX-518, WTX-921 or another product candidate we develop in the future is approved by the FDA, a third party may then seek to enforce its patent by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. For example, we have received, and we may in the future receive, correspondence from third parties or their legal counsel disclosing that such third party owns patents that may encompass one or more of our product candidates. It is also possible that a third party may file a lawsuit against us alleging infringement of its patents. The outcome of any such proceeding is uncertain and would likely result in the expenditure of significant financial resources and the diversion of management’s time and resources, which could harm our business. While we do not believe that any claims that could otherwise have a materially adverse effect on the commercialization of our product candidates are valid and enforceable, we may be incorrect in this belief, or we may not be able to prove it in litigation. In this regard, patents issued in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. There may be issued third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Patent applications can take many years to issue. There may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Moreover, we may fail to identify relevant patents or incorrectly conclude that a patent is invalid, not enforceable, exhausted, or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercia…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Presently we have certain intellectual property rights, under patents and patent applications that we own or will own and under the Harpoon Agreement, related to WTX-124, WTX-330, JZP898, WTX-712, WTX-518 and other product candidates we may develop in the future. Our development of additional product candidates may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, while we have patent rights directed to certain INDUKINE constructs we may not be able to obtain intellectual property to broad INDUKINE polypeptides or engineered INDUKINE constructs.

Current wording

Presently we have certain intellectual property rights, under patents and patent applications that we own or will own and under the Harpoon Agreement, related to WTX-124, WTX-330, JZP898, WTX-712, WTX-518, WTX-921 and other product candidates we may develop in the future. Our development of additional product candidates may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, while we have patent rights directed to certain INDUKINE constructs we may not be able to obtain intellectual property to broad INDUKINE polypeptides or engineered INDUKINE constructs.

Previous wording

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the UK as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland is currently subject to EU rules. The UK and EU have however agreed to the Windsor Framework which fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK. Once implemented, the changes introduced by the Windsor Framework will see the MHRA be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing authorizations, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Current wording

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the U.K. as a result of the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The U.K. is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). At the same time, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the U.K. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area, or EEA, member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the U.K. for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Previous wording

In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may however have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term.

Current wording

In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. On April 10, 2024, the European Parliament adopted a position on the proposal requesting several amendments to the package. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may, however, have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term.

Previous wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. Generally, a product with orphan drug designation only becomes entitled to orphan drug exclusivity if it receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, in which case the FDA or the EMA will be precluded from approving another marketing application for the same product for that indication for the applicable exclusivity period. The applicable exclusivity period is seven years in the United States and ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

Current wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. Generally, a product with orphan drug designation only becomes entitled to orphan drug exclusivity if it receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, in which case the

Previous wording

The FDA may further re-evaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, it will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA or Congress may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

Current wording

The FDA and Congress may further re-evaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021. In Catalyst Pharms, Inc. v. Becerra, or Catalyst, the court held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the approved “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of the Catalyst court order, it will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug is approved. More recently, however, on February 14, 2025, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. fully embraced the reasoning of the Catalyst decision in another decision challenging the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. On April 17, 2025, the FDA appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The implications of this decision, and its impact on the FDA’s implementation of the Orphan Drug Act, are unclear at this point.

Previous wording

Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use. In addition, under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA and the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, companies may also promote information that is consistent with the prescribing information and proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug. We may engage in these discussions and communicate with healthcare providers, payors and other constituencies in compliance with all applicable laws, regulatory guidance and industry best practices. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products.

Current wording

Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. The final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading and scientifically sound and to include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use of the approved product. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products.

Previous wording

More recently, in March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. While this guidance is currently only in draft form and will not be legally binding even when finalized, we will need to consider the FDA’s guidance closely if we seek accelerated approval for any of our products. Accordingly, even if we do receive accelerated approval, we may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and receiving accelerated approval does not provide assurance of ultimate full FDA approval.

Current wording

More recently, in March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe FDA’s views on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval.

Previous wording

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care.

Current wording

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, issued a final rule to rescind it. With the issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries’ access to evidence-based care.

Previous wording

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which has been delayed until January 1, 2032 by the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.

Current wording

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Seven states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Vermont) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada.

Previous wording

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Current wording

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. There have been various decisions by the courts considering these cases since they were filed. The HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and various federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. Most of these cases are now on appeal, and oral arguments took place on October 30, 2024. In April 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard argument in an additional three cases. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Previous wording

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Current wording

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. This may be increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval.

Previous wording

In the United States, there are numerous federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information that may be applicable to our current and future activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The FTC and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the FTC has been particularly focused on the unpermitted processing of health and genetic data through its recent enforcement actions and is expanding the types of privacy violations that it interprets to be “unfair” under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as well as the types of activities it views to trigger the Health Breach Notification Rule (which the FTC also has the authority to enforce). The agency is also in the process of developing rules related to commercial surveillance and data security that may impact our business. We will need to account for the FTC’s evolving rules and guidance for proper privacy and data security practices in order to mitigate our risk for a potential enforcement action, which may be costly. If we are subject to a potential FTC enforcement action, we may be subject to a settlement order that requires us to adhere to very specific privacy and data security practices, which may impact our business. We may also be required to pay fines as part of a settlement (depending on the nature of the alleged violations). If we violate any consent order that we reach with the FTC, we may be subject to additional fines and compliance requirements.

Current wording

In the United States, there are numerous federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information that may be applicable to our current and future activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The FTC and state Attorneys General are all aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the FTC has been particularly focused on the unpermitted processing of health and genetic data through its recent enforcement actions and is expanding the types of privacy violations that it interprets to be “unfair” under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as well as the types of activities it views to trigger the Health Breach Notification Rule (which the FTC also has the authority to enforce). The agency is also in the process of developing rules related to commercial surveillance and data security that may impact our business. We will need to account for the FTC’s evolving rules and guidance for proper privacy and data security practices in order to mitigate our risk for a potential enforcement action, which may be costly. If we are subject to a potential FTC enforcement action, we may be subject to a settlement order that requires us to adhere to very specific privacy and data security practices, which may impact our business. We may also be required to pay fines as part of a settlement (depending on the nature of the alleged violations). If we violate any consent order that we reach with the FTC, we may be subject to additional fines and compliance requirements.

Previous wording

In addition to California, at least eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws that take effect in 2024 and beyond, including New Hampshire and New Jersey. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state recently passed a health privacy law that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

Current wording

In addition to California, at least 18 other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2023 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2024 and beyond. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state recently passed a health privacy law that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

Previous wording

In October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which serves as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the European Union to the United States. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business.

Current wording

In October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which serves as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the European Union to the United States. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, or there are other developments involving the arrangements that underly this framework, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business.

Previous wording

As of September 30, 2024, we had 45 employees. We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical development, regulatory affairs, finance and, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities to devote time to managing these growth activities. To manage these growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our inability to effectively manage the expansion of our operations may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our potential ability to generate revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

Current wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had 46 employees. Over the next few years, assuming we are able to raise sufficient capital, we expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical development, regulatory affairs, finance and, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities to devote time to managing these growth activities. To manage these growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our inability to effectively manage the expansion of our operations may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our potential ability to generate revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

Previous wording

Our stock price is likely be volatile. For example, from January 1, 2023, until November 1, 2024, our stock price has ranged from $1.57 to $8.19. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell their common stock at an attractive price or at all. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

Current wording

Our stock price is likely to be volatile. For example, from January 1, 2024, until May 2, 2025, our stock price has ranged from $0.60 to $8.19. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell their common stock at an attractive price or at all. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

Previous wording

•general political and economic conditions; and

Current wording

•general political and economic conditions, including the imposition of new or revised global trade tariffs; and

Previous wording

We are evaluating these rules and regulations and cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur or the timing of such costs. These rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If, notwithstanding our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards, we fail to comply, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed.

Current wording

We are continually evaluating these rules and regulations and cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur or the timing of such costs. These rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If notwithstanding our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards, we fail to comply, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed.

Previous wording

In the past, we have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. All material weaknesses previously identified were fully remediated in the first quarter of 2024.

Current wording

In the past, we have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. All material weaknesses previously identified have been fully remediated.