MoonLake Immunotherapeutics

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless the context otherwise requires or where otherwise indicated, references to “MoonLake”, “we”, “us”, “our”, “our Company”, “the Company” and “our business” refer to MoonLake Immunotherapeutics and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company advancing therapies to address significant unmet needs in inflammatory skin and joint diseases. We are currently a single asset company focused on the development of SLK, a novel tri-specific IL-17A and IL-17F inhibiting Nanobody, that we exclusively licensed from MHKDG and that has the potential, based on response levels seen in clinical trials, to drive disease modification in dermatology and rheumatology patients.

SLK is a proprietary Nanobody that was discovered by Ablynx N.V., Belgium, a Sanofi company (“Ablynx”), and previously studied by MHKDG and Avillion LLP (“Avillion”) under a 2017 co-development agreement. The terms “Nanobody” and “Nanobodies” used herewith are registered trademarks of Ablynx. Nanobodies are able to bind selectively to a specific antigen with high affinity. Nanobodies have a fraction of the molecular weight compared to traditional antibodies. They offer a number of potential advantages over traditional monoclonal antibodies, including the potential to create multivalent molecules with enhanced ability to penetrate inflamed tissue, especially when containing an additional albumin binding domain such as SLK, an easier manufacturing process and a higher thermostability.

We currently develop SLK in inflammatory diseases in dermatology and rheumatology where the pathophysiology is known to be driven by IL-17A and IL-17F. This group of diseases comprises our current target diseases, hidradenitis suppurativa (“HS”), psoriatic arthritis (“PsA”), axial spondyloarthritis (“axSpA”), palmoplantar pustulosis (“PPP”), and several other inflammatory conditions, including psoriasis (“PsO”). Our current target diseases affect millions of people worldwide, and we believe there is a need for improved treatment options. We believe that SLK has a differentiated mechanism of action and that its purposefully designed molecular characteristics, including its small size and its albumin binding site, facilitate deep tissue penetration in the skin and joints. We envision SLK as a key therapeutic alternative in our initial target indications and potentially in multiple other IL-17 driven inflammatory conditions.

In May 2022, we initiated a Phase 2b trial of SLK in patients with moderate-to-severe HS (the MIRA trial (M1095-HS-201)), and in June 2023, we announced positive top-line results from this trial, which met its primary endpoint of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (“HiSCR”) 75. In October 2023, we announced positive 24-week top-line results showing that the maintenance treatment with SLK led to further improvements in HiSCR75 response rates and other clinically relevant outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe HS. In February 2024, we announced the successful outcome of our end-of-Phase 2 interactions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), as well as positive feedback from our interactions with the E.U. European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), with both regulatory bodies supporting our proposed approach for advancing our Phase 3 program of SLK in HS. In May 2024, we announced the screening of the first patients in the VELA-1 trial (M1095-HS-301) and VELA-2 trial (M1095-HS-302). We expect primary endpoint data from the VELA-1 and VELA-2 clinical trials as of mid-2025.

In December 2022, we initiated a Phase 2b trial in patients with active PsA (the ARGO trial (M1095-PSA-201)), and in November 2023, we announced positive top-line results from this trial, which met its primary endpoint of American College of Rheumatology (“ACR”) 50. In March 2024, we announced positive 24-week data from the ARGO trial in PsA showing that continued treatment with SLK led to significant improvements across all key outcomes. In June 2024, we announced the successful outcome of our end-of-Phase 2 interactions with the FDA, as well as positive feedback from our interactions with the EMA, with both regulatory bodies supporting our proposed approach for advancing our Phase 3 program of SLK in PsA. In November 2024, we announced the screening of the first patients in the IZAR-1 trial (M1095-PSA-301) and IZAR-2 trial (M1095-PSA-302).

In March 2024, we announced plans to initiate clinical studies of SLK in additional indications, including a Phase 3 trial in adolescent patients with HS (the VELA-TEEN trial (M1095-HS-304)), a Phase 2 trial in patients with PPP (the LEDA trial (M1095-PPP-201)), a Phase 2 trial in patients with axSpA (the S-OLARIS trial (M1095-axSpA-202)) and another Phase 2 trial applying novel imaging techniques in patients with PsA (the P-OLARIS trial (M1095-snSpA-202)). In January 2025, we

PART I

announced that first patients have been screened in the VELA-TEEN, the LEDA, and the S-OLARIS clinical trials. We expect patient enrollment for the P-OLARIS trial to commence in the first half of 2025.

SLK was also studied in a Phase 2b trial in PsO patients where it showed a significant improvement in the primary end point as compared with placebo and for which results were presented in peer-reviewed scientific publications and conferences. In addition to the three Phase 2b trials, Phase 1 single ascending and multiple ascending dosing trials were previously completed, bringing the total number of patients in completed SLK-related trials to more than 700.

We expect to submit a first Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for SLK in 2026 and, subject to FDA approval, a first commercial launch in the U.S. in 2027.

Our Vision and Our Strategy

Our vision is to elevate treatment goals for inflammatory skin and joint diseases. Our strategy is centered on developing SLK as, to our knowledge, the first ever Nanobody in clinical development for our selected indications. We seek to accomplish this strategy by:

•Completing the development of SLK in our current focus indications, HS, PsA, axSpA and PPP— We began the Phase 2b MIRA trial for HS and the Phase 2b ARGO trial for PsA in May 2022 and December 2022, respectively. We announced positive top-line results for the MIRA trial and the ARGO trial in June 2023 and November 2023, respectively. The clinical trials employ established therapeutic endpoints, such as response criteria defined by HiSCR and ACR, that reflect real-world improvement in patient outcomes. In February 2024 and June 2024, we announced the successful outcome of our end-of-Phase 2 interactions with the FDA, as well as positive feedback from our interactions with the EMA, with both regulatory bodies supporting our proposed approach for advancing our Phase 3 programs of SLK in HS and PsA, respectively. In May 2024, we announced the screening of the first patients in the Phase 3 VELA program in HS and expect primary endpoint data as of mid 2025. We commenced the Phase 3 IZAR program in PsA in November 2024, and expect primary endpoint data in the first half of 2026. In January 2025, we announced that patients have been screened in the Phase 3 VELA-TEEN trial and the Phase 2 LEDA and S-OLARIS trials, and we expect to initiate patient enrollment in the Phase 2 P-OLARIS trial in the first half of 2025.

•Strengthening the differentiation elements for future SLK patients — In parallel with our clinical trials, we conduct non-clinical research to continue refining our understanding of SLK/Nanobody biology and the potential impact in our selected therapeutic indications. This research will inform our clinical efforts and includes the study of SLK’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in a variety of cellular, deep-tissue, and disease models (in vitro and in vivo), including exploration of tissue penetration and targeting of SLK in disease models. We expect these studies to provide a more complete picture of IL-17A and IL-17F regulation. We expect this work to more clearly differentiate SLK, a Nanobody, from monoclonal antibody-based treatment options, including other IL-17A and IL-17F inhibitors. We also expect this work to contribute to the furthering of our intellectual property.

•Preparing for commercialization of SLK— We have started preparing the BLA to seek approval of SLK in the U.S. in HS and adolescent HS. We expect to submit the BLA in 2026 after completion of the VELA program, and, subject to FDA approval, we expect a commercial launch in the U.S. in 2027. We plan to further invest in our commercial capabilities. In 2024, we started hiring dedicated personnel to our marketing, access and pricing functions and intend to continue building out this team to prepare for commercial launches of SLK in our target indications. We also expect to establish a presence in the United States by early 2026 to build the sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to commercialize SLK.

•Building our manufacturing capabilities— We intend to continue investing in our manufacturing capabilities. Technology transfers for drug substance and drug product to commercial scale contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) have already been executed in 2022, but we may pursue additional technology transfers and process improvements. This was designed to allow us to scale up while SLK is in clinical development and advance potential commercial requirements. The improvement of our manufacturing capabilities will be important

PART I

in driving efficiency, maintaining high standards of quality control, and providing adequate access to our product candidates, if approved, for investigators, physicians, and patients. We also plan to start the stock-piling of drug substance as pre-launch inventory in 2025.

•Deepening our intellectual property portfolio to support our Nanobody technology and product candidates— We intend to continue extending our global intellectual property portfolio consisting of patents and patent applications, trade secrets, trademarks, and know-how to protect the product candidates developed from our Nanobody technology. We plan to expand our intellectual property portfolio as we continue to advance and develop existing product candidates.

•Broadening our portfolio — We believe that there are other indications beyond HS, PsA, axSpA and PPP where SLK has the potential to represent a differentiated therapeutic alternative and we may initiate clinical trials of SLK in such other indications. In addition, to further enhance our overall potential and provide increased optionality, we may supplement our current strategy with the in-licensing or acquisition of additional product candidates for clinical development (beyond SLK), rather than discovering such candidates ourselves. We believe that our management team is well-positioned to identify assets that have attractive risk/reward profiles and that can be rapidly advanced to market approval, supplemented by our expertise and capabilities.

Our Focus: Inflammatory Diseases Involving IL-17A and IL-17F

SLK is an inhibitor of IL-17A and IL-17F that modulates cytokine activity in a fashion that is founded in current understanding of the importance of IL-17 biology in inflammatory disease. IL-17 cytokines can potently promote inflammation and also play a role in protection against some infectious agents. The inflammatory effects of IL-17 can be targeted directly by blocking the cytokine or its receptor, or indirectly by blocking cytokines upstream of IL-17-producing cells. IL-17 contributes to various lesions that are produced by Th17 cells, one subset of helper T cells, by gamma delta (γδ) T cells, and by innate lymphoid cells. In healthy tissue, IL-17A is largely absent, but is significantly upregulated in inflamed lesions in our focus indications. While IL-17F is present in healthy and non-lesional tissue at detectably higher concentrations than IL-17A, it is also significantly upregulated in inflamed tissue in our focus indications. The current view is that IL-17F contributes to inflammatory conditions such as HS and PsA, which is why IL-17A and F inhibition could well exert an increased anti-inflammatory therapeutic potential compared to just IL-17A inhibition.

Millions of people worldwide suffer from diseases in which overexpression of IL-17A and IL-17F are potentially implicated in the pathophysiology and we believe there are limited treatment options. Well-known diseases include HS, PsA, PsO, and axSpA among others. HS has an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 2%, though we believe it is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated with limited effective treatment options available. PsA and axSpA have an estimated worldwide prevalence of up to 1.0% and PPP has an estimated worldwide prevalence of 0.3%. Finally, PsO has an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 3%. Other diseases, where IL-17A and IL-17F play a role, will represent additional pools of diagnosed patients.

Our Pipeline

We are developing a portfolio of therapeutic indications for SLK (Figure 1).

PART I

Figure 1 — Overview of development pipeline for SLK

Clinical Development of SLK

Phase 2b Clinical Trial in HS: The MIRA Trial

The MIRA trial is a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SLK, administered subcutaneously, in the treatment of adult patients with active moderate-to-severe HS. The trial recruited 234 patients, with the aim to evaluate two different doses of SLK (120mg and 240mg) with placebo control and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of the trial is the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR75, defined as a ≥75% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (“AN”) count with no increase in abscess or draining tunnel count relative to baseline. The trial also evaluated a number of secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving HiSCR50, the change from baseline in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (“IHS4”), the proportion of patients achieving a Dermatology Life Quality Index (“DLQI”) total score of ≤5, and the proportion of patients achieving at least 30% reduction from baseline in Numerical Rating Scale in the Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain (“PGA Skin Pain”).

In June 2023, the MIRA trial set a landmark milestone as the first placebo-controlled randomized trial in HS to use HiSCR75 as the primary endpoint which it met with a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with both SLK 120mg and 240mg achieving HiSCR75 compared to those on placebo at week 12. The primary analysis was based on a very stringent type of analysis for such trials, intent-to-treat non-responder imputation (“ITT-NRI”). Both doses performed similarly, with the 120mg dose providing the highest delta on HiSCR75 and HiSCR50. The 120mg dose achieved a 29 percentage points (“ppt”) delta to placebo on HiSCR75 (p=0.0002) and a 38 ppt delta to placebo on HiSCR50 (p<0.0001). The results suggest that, as early as week 12, SLK, relative to placebo, reaches the highest clinical activity among all other therapies tested in similarly stringent pivotal-like trials (Figure 2).

PART I

Figure 2 — Comparison of HiSCR75 and HiSCR50 deltas to placebo between the MIRA trial and other pivotal-like trials

In October 2023, 24-week results were presented, showing that ongoing treatment with SLK 120mg and 240mg dosed Q4W further increased HiSCR75 response rates compared to week 12. 57% of patients continuously treated with 120mg achieved a HiSCR75 response (more than 10 ppt improvement from week 12) and 38% achieved HiSCR90 (more than 14 ppt improvement versus week 12). The IHS4 score, which encompasses changes in all active HS lesions (nodules, abscesses, draining tunnels), decreased by 65% in patients treated with the 120mg maintenance dose.

Rates of complete resolution of inflammatory nodules and abscesses (AN 100) together with complete resolution of draining tunnels (DT 100) also increased between week 12 and 24 (31% and 49% of patients achieving this high level of response at week 24 with 120mg respectively, an increase of up to 15 ppt). Complete inflammatory remission (IHS4-100) was achieved in 1 in 4 patients (24%) treated with 120mg at week 24. Clinical responses translated to profound improvements in patient-reported outcomes at 24 weeks including quality of life, pain, and patient global impression of severity. 43% of patients reached self-reported absent or minimal disease activity on the PGI-S scale.

Results obtained with placebo patients re-randomized to SLK 120mg or 240mg in Part B, after the primary analysis, replicated the dose responses observed in Part A. Difficult-to-treat subgroup analysis (e.g., in Hurley stage III patients or those previously exposed to biologics) confirms the advantage of the 120mg dose. Similarly, PK analysis support the use of the monthly maintenance 120mg dose. For patients who were inadequate responders to adalimumab at week 12 switching to SLK resulted in HiSCR75 response rates similar to responses in those randomized to SLK at baseline. SLK provided better durability of response compared to that observed with adalimumab in other studies.

The safety profile of SLK was consistent with that observed in previous studies. Overall, SLK continues to show a favorable safety profile, in line with the known profile of IL-17 inhibitors. Based on the efficacy and safety results, Q4W maintenance dosing of SLK 120mg has been confirmed as the optimal dose, in terms of speed and depth of response, and overall benefit-risk profile, for progression into Phase 3 development.

Phase 3 Clinical Trials in HS: The VELA Program

The VELA program is expected to enroll 800 patients across VELA-1 and VELA-2. Both global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are identical in design to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SLK, administered subcutaneously, in adult patients with active moderate-to-severe HS. Similar to the design of the Phase 2 MIRA trial, the primary endpoint is the

PART I

percentage of participants achieving HiSCR75. The trials will also evaluate a number of secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving HiSCR50, the change from baseline in IHS4, the proportion of patients achieving a DLQI total reduction of ≥4, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% reduction from baseline in Numerical Rating Scale in the PGA Skin Pain and complete resolution of Draining Tunnels.

From week 16, all patients will receive the 120mg dose of SLK through to 52 weeks, followed by an open-label extension for up to two years (Figure 3). The VELA program will use a protocol design consistent with the Phase 2 MIRA trial, which identified the optimal dose of SLK for HS. The topline primary endpoint readout (week 16) from the VELA program is expected as of mid-2025.

.

Figure 3 — Design of the Phase 3 VELA program in HS.

Phase 3 Clinical Trial in Adolescent HS: VELA-TEEN

The Phase 3 VELA-TEEN trial is an open-label, single-arm trial designed to evaluate SLK 120mg administered subcutaneously once every two weeks until week six and once every four weeks from week eight onwards. The trial aims to enroll 35 adolescents, aged 12-17, with moderate-to-severe HS, from U.S. sites experienced in clinical trials and pediatric dermatology. The primary trial phase will be 24 weeks with a primary endpoint evaluating the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of SLK. VELA-TEEN will also evaluate several secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving the higher clinical response measure of the HiSCR75, in addition to HiSCR50. Other outcomes are the change from baseline in the IHS4, which includes the quantitative measure of draining tunnels, and the proportion of patients achieving a meaningful reduction of the CDLQI and the PGA Skin Pain. Topline data for the primary and secondary endpoints, including the higher clinical response level of HiSCR75, are anticipated in 2026.

Phase 2b Clinical Trial in PsA: the ARGO Trial

The ARGO trial is a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SLK, administered subcutaneously, in the treatment of adult patients with active PsA. The trial was designed to evaluate different doses of SLK, with placebo control and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of the trial is the percentage of participants achieving ≥50% improvement in signs and symptoms of disease from baseline, compared to placebo, as measured by ACR50 response. The trial also evaluates a number of secondary endpoints, including improvement compared to placebo in ACR20, complete skin clearance as measured by at least a 100% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI100), physical function as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, enthesitis as measured by the Leeds Enthesitis Index and pain as measured by the Patients Assessment of Arthritis Pain. Important composite scores, such as ACR50+PASI100, measuring both joint and skin improvement in the same patients were also studied.

In November 2023, the ARGO trial, which enrolled 207 patients, met its primary endpoint with a statistically significant greater proportion of patients treated with either SLK 60mg or 120mg (with induction) achieving an ACR50 response compared to those on placebo at week 12. Specifically, for the 60mg and 120mg doses with induction, respectively, 46% and 47% of patients treated with SLK achieved ACR50 (p<0.01 versus placebo); 78% and 72% of patients achieved ACR20; and 29% and 26% achieved ACR70. The primary analyses were based on a very stringent type of analysis for such trials, ITT-NRI. As expected, the 60mg dose without induction did not reach statistical significance, confirming the 60mg and 120mg

PART I

with induction as the potential dose regimens to carry forward into Phase 3. All key secondary endpoints were met for the 60mg and 120mg doses with induction. The key secondary endpoint PASI90 was met for all doses with induction. 77% of patients achieved a PASI90 response at week 12 to the 60mg dose (ITT-NRI, p<0.001 versus placebo). For this dose, 58% of patients achieved complete skin clearance (PASI100) at week 12. PASI responses across dose arms were consistent with the previously reported Phase 2b data of SLK in moderate-to-severe plaque-type PsO, with the 120mg dose achieving the highest responses for PASI100 (close to 60% of patients at week 12, ITT-NRI) in patients with more severe skin lesions (PASI score ≥ 10 at baseline). Up to 33% of patients achieved both ACR50 and PASI100 at week 12 (Figure 4). Other clinically relevant secondary endpoints, such as Minimal Disease Activity (MDA), the modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI), the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and the patient self-reported Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12), each show promising levels of response at week 12. Adalimumab was used as an active reference to validate responses across arms (not powered for statistical comparisons to active treatment). SLK 60mg and 120mg (with induction) numerically outperformed adalimumab on the primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints, with the observed deltas further supporting the potential for SLK as a future leading therapy.

Figure 4 — Patients reaching both ACR50 and PASI100 in the ARGO trial at week 12.

The safety profile of SLK in the ARGO trial was consistent with previously reported studies with no new safety signals. Overall, SLK continued to show a favorable safety profile.

The results suggest that, as early as week 12, SLK reaches levels of clinical response at or above those seen with other therapies tested in similarly stringent trials.

In March 2024, the ARGO trial demonstrated that the primary endpoint, ACR50, continued to improve from week 12 and exceeded 60% by week 24. The more rigorous ACR70 outcome was achieved by approximately 40% of patients by week 24. In addition, by week 24, over 80% and 60% of patients treated with SLK achieved PASI 90 and 100, respectively. Both doses of SLK yielded similar results. The responses surpassed those for adalimumab, the active reference arm in the study, and were also higher when indirectly compared to competitors using the same active reference arm as a standard.

Treatment with SLK resulted in unprecedented improvements in composite scores that reflect responses in different domains simultaneously. ACR50+PASI90 up to 59%, ACR 50+PASI 100 up to 52%, ACR 70+PASI 100 up to 48% and MDA up to 61% response. In all composite scores, SLK showed 16-29 ppt differences to the reference adalimumab arm, comparatively higher to competitors using the same reference arm. While the 60mg dose was found to be sufficient to reach high levels of

PART I

response in the general trial population, the 120mg dose was found to improve responses further in specific patient sub-groups, which suggests two doses being carried over to Phase 3.

The safety profile of SLK was consistent with previous trials with no new safety signals detected. The discontinuation rate of the second part of ARGO remained low at 5%, in line with other SLK trials. Overall, SLK continues to show a favorable safety profile.

Phase 3 Clinical Trials in PsA: The IZAR Program

The IZAR program is expected to enroll approximately 1,500 adult patients across IZAR-1 and IZAR-2. Both are global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SLK compared with placebo in patients with active PsA, with a primary endpoint of superiority to placebo in ACR50 response at week 16. IZAR-1 is expected to enroll biologic-naïve patients and include an evaluation of radiographic progression, while IZAR-2 is expected to enroll patients with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNF-IR) — reflecting patients commonly seen in clinical practice — and will be the first PsA trial to include risankizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits IL-23, as an active reference arm. Both trials are also designed to assess a range of secondary endpoints reflecting the multiple disease manifestations characteristic of PsA. These include skin and nail outcomes, multidomain outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures such as pain and quality of life assessments.

The IZAR program will assess 60mg and 120mg doses of SLK (Figure 5). The readout of the primary endpoint for both IZAR-1 and IZAR-2 is anticipated in the first half of 2026.

Figure 5 — Design of the Phase 3 IZAR program in PsA.

Additional Phase 2 Clinical Trial in PsA: The P-OLARIS Trial

The P-OLARIS trial is an open-label imaging Phase 2 trial designed to explore the effects of SLK 60mg administered subcutaneously in 30 patients with seronegative spondyloarthritis which includes PsA. The primary endpoint is the change from baseline (CfB) in [68Ga]-FAPI-46 SUVmax signal per lesion at Week 12, as detected by FAPI-PET/low-dose CT scan. In addition, several other endpoints will be assessed including clinical disease activity scores and patient-related outcomes. The trial also features a peripheral blood and tissue biomarker program. We expect the P-OLARIS trial to provide a more complete picture of SLK's benefit in patients with active PsA and thereby more clearly differentiate SLK, a Nanobody, from monoclonal antibody-based treatment options, including other IL-17A and IL-17F inhibitors. We expect to start enrollment of patients in the first half of 2025 and the topline primary endpoint readout in the first half of 2026.

Phase 2 Clinical Trial in PPP: The LEDA Trial

The LEDA trial is a Phase 2 trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SLK 120mg administered subcutaneously in adult patients with PPP. The primary endpoint of the trial is percent change from baseline in Palmoplantar Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (ppPASI) with important secondary endpoints including ppPASI75 (at least 75% improvement in the ppPASI). The LEDA trial features an innovative translational research program using peripheral blood and tissue biomarkers as trial controls.

PART I

The trial design has been informed by previous successful studies of SLK, including the landmark Phase 2 MIRA trial in HS, which identified the optimal dosing and demonstrated the potential of SLK to target deep tissue inflammation effectively. The topline primary endpoint readout is expected during 2025.

Phase 2 Clinical Trial in axSpA: the S-OLARIS Trial

The S-OLARIS trial is an open-label imaging Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial aiming to investigate SLK 60mg administered subcutaneously in approximately 25 patients with active axSpA. The primary endpoint is the change from baseline (CfB) at week 12 in the uptake of 18F-NaF in the sacroiliac joints and spine using PET in combination with MRI imaging. Throughout the trial, several other endpoints will be assessed including established clinical disease activity outcomes (e.g., ASAS), scores related to physical function, spinal mobility, and enthesitis as well as patient reported outcomes. The trial also includes an exploratory peripheral blood and tissue biomarker program. The topline primary endpoint readout is expected in early 2026.

Phase 2b Clinical Trial in Psoriasis

In May 2021, data for the Phase 2b trial of SLK in PsO was published. This trial was conducted by Avillion under a 2017 co-development agreement with MHKDG. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial was designed to assess efficacy, safety and tolerability of SLK in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type PsO, over a total period of 52 weeks (inclusive of a 40-week follow-up assessment). In all cases, patients were administered SLK via subcutaneous injection.

The primary objective of the trial was to evaluate the efficacy of four dose regimens of SLK compared to placebo on achievement of an Investigator’s Global Assessment (“IGA”) score of 0 or 1 after 12 weeks of treatment in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque-type PsO. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of four dose regimens of SLK compared to placebo during a 12-week treatment period on secondary endpoints: PASI 75, PASI 90, PASI 100, change in mean PASI and shift in IGA, to assess the dose-regimen efficacy relationship for SLK after 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks of treatment, to evaluate the longer-term efficacy of SLK at week 24 and at weeks 36 and 48, and to assess the safety and tolerability of SLK. Other exploratory objectives were also considered.

Primary and secondary end-points, associated with the described objectives were achieved. Doses up to 120 mg showed rapid and significant differences in PASI 100 compared with placebo (Figure 2). In the highest dosage group, nearly six out of ten patients (57%) achieved total skin clearance (PASI 100 response) after 24 weeks. Rapid response was demonstrated with one of three patients already achieving nearly clear skin (PASI 90 response) by week four. Analysis of an individualized dosing scheme including off-drug periods in controlled patients revealed durable responses over one year. SLK was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to the active control, secukinumab, and an overall Candida infection rate of 2.9% from week 0 to week 12 and 6.4% in the period from week 12 to week 52 across all doses.

Ongoing and Planned Clinical Development

Subject to positive results of the LEDA and the S-OLARIS trials, we plan to initiate Phase 3 clinical trials in PPP and axSpA in 2026. Building on the strong data generated with SLK to date, we believe that there are other indications beyond HS, PsA, axSpA and PPP where SLK has the potential to represent a differentiated therapeutic alternative and we may initiate clinical trials of SLK in such other indications.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities and currently have no plans to establish any. We partner with third-party CMOs for both drug substance and finished drug product, through established contracts.

Our current drug substance supplier is Richter BioLogics GmbH & Co. KG (“RHB”) based in Bovenau, Germany. Effective July 1, 2021, we entered into a contract manufacturing agreement with RHB with respect to the manufacture of SLK. We may terminate the contract manufacturing agreement for convenience in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Either

PART I

party may also terminate the contract manufacturing agreement with respect to an uncured breach by the other party in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The agreement includes confidentiality and intellectual property provisions to protect our proprietary rights related to our product candidates.

MHKDG produced the drug product supply for our Phase 2 clinical trials, the MIRA trial and the ARGO trial. In 2022, we successfully transferred the drug product process to Vetter Pharma International GmbH as part of our strategy to ensure sufficient supply for potential commercialization following all regulatory and related requirements.

In May 2023, we entered into a collaboration agreement with SHL Medical to develop an autoinjector for clinical and potential subsequent commercial supply of SLK. We plan to conduct necessary pharmacokinetic and human factor studies in 2025 to launch SLK with the autoinjector as an approved device for administration of SLK.

Intellectual Property

As of December 31, 2024, we have the exclusive license to a patent family directed to Il-17 Nanobodies, including SLK, and methods of making and using the same derived from International Patent Application PCT/EP2012/058313, published as WO 2012/156219, entitled “Amino Acid Sequences Directed Against IL-17A, IL-17F and/or IL17-A/F and Polypeptides Comprising the Same”. Applications in this family have been filed in the United States, the European Patent Office (EPO), the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, and South Africa. To date, 24 patents have issued and several applications are pending. Three patents have been issued in the United States in this family thus far (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,017,568, 10,829,552 and 11,773,159), all three providing protection until May 2032, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity and other governmental fees. There are several non-U.S. patents that have been granted or are pending in this family, all of which are expected to have similar expiration dates, absent any extensions that may be available through supplementary protection certificates or similar mechanisms. Additional data exclusivity rights may be applicable.

As of December 31, 2024, our patent portfolio also includes two patent families owned by us directed to uses of Nanobodies, including SLK. One family is derived from International Patent Application PCT/IB2023/054122, published as WO2023/203549, titled “Methods of Achieving Safe and Sustained Control of IL-17-Dependent Conditions in Subjects Responsive to Treatment with an Anti-IL 17A/F Nanobody”. The second family is derived from International Patent Application PCT/IB2024/053796, published as WO2024/218708, and titled “Biomarker-Based Treatment and Diagnostic Methods for IL-17-Dependent Conditions”. The pending patent applications from these families, if issued, have expected expiry dates of no earlier than between 2043 and 2044, not including any patent term extensions and/or patent term adjustments.

The Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) License Agreement

On April 29, 2021, we entered into a license agreement with MHKDG (the “License Agreement”). The License Agreement is a sublicense of a license agreement between MHKDG and Ablynx, dated September 3, 2008 (the “Initial License Agreement”), pursuant to which MHKDG developed SLK, and subsequently acquired exclusive right and title to SLK, including the right to further develop and commercialize (and grant sublicenses to further develop and commercialize) SLK. Pursuant to the License Agreement, we acquired (i) a royalty- and milestone-bearing exclusive (even as to MHKDG), sublicensable right and license under MHKDG’s controlled patents, materials, and exclusive know-how to develop, manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, export and import and otherwise commercialize SLK on a world-wide basis, (ii) a royalty- and milestone-bearing non-exclusive, sublicensable, right and sublicense under Ablynx’s and certain others’ controlled patents, materials, and know-how to develop, manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, export and import and otherwise commercialize SLK on a world-wide basis, in each case subject to certain restrictions and compliance with the terms and conditions of the Initial License Agreement; and (iii) a royalty- and milestone-bearing non-exclusive, sublicensable right and sublicense under Research Cooperation Technologies (“RCT”) patents and know-how related to the manufacturing process using the underlying yeast strain Pichia pastoris, to develop, manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, export and import and otherwise commercialize SLK on a world-wide basis, in each case subject to certain restrictions and compliance with the terms and conditions of the underlying license granted to MHKDG from RCT. Under the terms of the License Agreement, we

PART I

have the first right to file, prosecute and maintain the licensed patents as well as the first right to attempt to resolve any third party infringement.

The License Agreement includes a development plan, subject to specified periodic updates, which describes the plan for developing the licensed products in the initial target indications of HS and PsA, including the plan for conducting clinical trials to obtain regulatory approval in the major European markets, Japan, and the United States (the “Major Markets”). In accordance with the foregoing, we, among other requirements, are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop one licensed product in at least two indications, including initiating certain Phase 2 trials for the licensed product within a specified period following conclusion of the License Agreement, and launching and commercializing the same in each of the Major Markets within a certain period following receipt of regulatory approval in such respective markets.

The aggregate purchase price in respect of the License Agreement was $29.9 million and consisted of an upfront cash payment by us to MHKDG and an issuance of equity by us to MHKDG, representing a 9.9% ownership stake in our subsidiary, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics AG, a Swiss stock corporation (Aktiengesellschaft) registered with the commercial register of the Canton of Zug, Switzerland under the number CHE-433.093.536 (“MoonLake AG”), following such issuance. Subject to the terms of the License Agreement, milestone cash payments of up to EUR 307.1 million ($319.3 million using a December 31, 2024 exchange rate) are potentially payable, of which EUR 7.5 million ($8.0 million using the then applicable exchange rate) has been recognized as R&D expense to date. Future milestones will become payable upon regulatory filing acceptances in the US, in the European Union (“EU”) and Japan, first commercial sales in these geographies, and meeting certain annual thresholds in global net sales. In addition, the License Agreement requires us to pay royalties within the range of low to mid-teen percent of net sales. Our obligation to pay royalties are on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis and continue from the date of first commercial sale of a licensed product in a country until the later of (i) ten years from such first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country or (ii) the expiration or invalidation of the last remaining valid claim of a licensed patent covering such licensed product.

Unless sooner terminated, the term of the License Agreement continues until the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term. Either party may terminate the License Agreement due to a material breach by the other party (subject to a cure period). We may terminate the License Agreement (i) at our convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice to MHKDG following receipt by MHKDG of the required upfront payment or (ii) upon 90 days’ prior written notice to MHKDG if we have reasonable belief that the medical risk/benefit of SLK is unfavorable in light of the welfare of patients and not suitable for further development or commercialization. Obligations accrued prior to termination, such as milestone payments, will persist.

Concurrently with the License Agreement, on April 29, 2021, we also executed a Side Letter to the License Agreement with MHKDG, which provides that upon the termination of the Initial License Agreement, under the terms of the Initial License Agreement, for any reason, the License Agreement will be automatically assigned to Ablynx. Upon assignment to Ablynx, any intellectual property licensed to us by MHKDG, and the obligations and liability associated therewith, under the License Agreement, shall continue, provided that the continuing obligations and liability of MHKDG under the License Agreement shall be limited to only that intellectual property owned or held by MHKDG following termination of the Initial License Agreement.

On May 12, 2023, we entered into an agreement with RCT and MHKDG, effective as of June 1, 2023, pursuant to which we were granted a royalty-bearing, nonexclusive, sublicensable right and license under RCT’s patents and know-how related to a manufacturing process using an underlying yeast strain, Pichia pastoris, to develop, manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, and import and otherwise commercialize SLK on a world-wide basis, subject to certain restrictions. This agreement replaces our sublicense for similar rights under the License Agreement with MHKDG.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our

PART I

product candidates. Generally, before a new therapeutic product can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating a biological product candidate’s quality, safety, purity and potency, or a small molecule drug candidate’s quality, safety and efficacy, must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. For biological product candidates, potency is similar to efficacy and is interpreted to mean the specific ability or capacity of the product, as indicated by appropriate laboratory tests or by adequately controlled clinical data obtained through the administration of the product in the manner intended, to effect a given result.

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-marketing may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications from the sponsor, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our company and our products or product candidates.

U.S. Biologics Regulation

In the United States, biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”), and the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”), and other federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or following approval may subject an applicant to administrative action and judicial sanctions. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•completion of preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies performed in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) regulation;

•submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made;

•approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), or ethics committee at each clinical site before the trial is commenced;

•manufacture of the proposed biologic candidate in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMPs”);

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements to establish the safety, purity and potency of the proposed biologic product candidate for its intended purpose;

•preparation of and submission to the FDA of a BLA, after completion of all pivotal clinical trials;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;

•a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of a BLA to file the application for review;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s continued safety, purity and potency, and of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with GCPs; and

•FDA review and approval of a BLA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States.

Preclinical and Clinical Development

Prior to beginning any clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol or protocols for preclinical studies and clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product, chemistry, manufacturing and controls information, and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA,

PART I

within the 30-day period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

In addition to the IND submission process, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials and clinical study results to public registries.

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

•Phase 1. The investigational product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness.

•Phase 2. The investigational product is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.

•Phase 3. The investigational product is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate, and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensure, including that the study was conducted in

PART I

accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and use of proper procedures for obtaining informed consent from subjects, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the FDA deems such inspection necessary. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies.

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated and sponsored by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial pediatric study plan within sixty days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after the filing date, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process may also be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the Complete Response letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the Complete Response letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse

PART I

approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. The fast track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once a BLA is submitted, the product may be eligible for priority review. A fast track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

Additionally, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, the FDA may require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

In 2017, the FDA established a new regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation as part of its implementation of the 21 st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”). The RMAT designation program is intended to fulfill the Cures Act requirement that the FDA facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of, any drug that meets the following criteria: (i) the drug qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (ii) the drug is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (iii) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides all the benefits of breakthrough therapy designation, including more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and eligibility for rolling review and priority review.

PART I

Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. When appropriate, the FDA can permit fulfillment of post-approval requirements for an RMAT that has received accelerated approval through: the submission of clinical evidence, preclinical studies, clinical trials, patient registries or other sources of real world evidence such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory datasets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with the therapy prior to approval.

A product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product, including involvement of senior managers.

Any marketing application for a biologic submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation and/or breakthrough therapy designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if there is evidence it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. For original BLAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (as compared to ten months under standard review).

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shorten.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a product candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or 200,000 or more individuals in the United States for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that product candidate. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusive approval (or exclusivity), which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or if the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the product was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan drug designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

PART I

There is some uncertainty with respect to the FDA’s interpretation of the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. Historically, exclusivity was specific to the orphan indication for which the drug was approved. As a result, the scope of exclusivity was interpreted as preventing approval of a competing product. However, in 2021, the federal court in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra suggested that orphan drug exclusivity covers the full scope of the orphan-designated “disease or condition” regardless of whether a drug obtained approval for a narrower use.

Regulation of Diagnostic Tests

Our product candidates may require use of a diagnostic to identify appropriate patient populations for our product candidates. These diagnostics, often referred to as companion diagnostics, are medical devices, often in vitro devices, which provide information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding drug. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, and premarket approval (“PMA”). We expect that any companion diagnostic developed for our drug candidates will utilize the PMA pathway.

PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA application typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the Quality System Regulation, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. FDA review of an initial PMA may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

On August 6, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance, for novel drugs such as our product candidates, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding drug or biologic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product labeling. The guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a drug generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a drug or biologic are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. As part of

PART I

the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. After a BLA is approved for a biological product, the product also may be subject to official lot release. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety,purity, and potency or effectiveness of biologics. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved BLA. Biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

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

•restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of a product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical studies;

•refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of existing product approvals;

•product seizure or detention, or refusal of the FDA to permit the import or export of products;

•consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs;

•mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;

•the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar”, to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

PART I

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA.

The FDA has issued guidance documents intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe the FDA’s interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCIA.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

A reference biologic is granted twelve years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of (i) one year after the first commercial marketing, (ii) 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, (iii) 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologics’ patents if an application has been submitted, or (iv) 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In July 2018, the FDA announced an action plan to encourage the development and efficient review of biosimilars, including the establishment of a new office within the agency that will focus on therapeutic biologics and biosimilars. On December 20, 2020, Congress amended the PHSA as part of the COVID-19 relief bill to further simplify the biosimilar review process by making it optional to show that conditions of use proposed in labeling have been previously approved for the reference product, which used to be a requirement of the application. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and impact of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty. As discussed below, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) is a significant new law that intends to foster generic and biosimilar competition and to lower drug and biologic costs.

Patent Term Extension

In the U.S., after a BLA is approved, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory process. The allowable patent term extension is typically calculated as one-half the time between, the latter of the effective date of an IND and issue date of the patent for which extension is sought, and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between BLA submission

PART I

date and the BLA approval date up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue licensure with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of product licensure. Only one patent applicable to a licensed biological product is eligible for extension and only those claims covering the product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Some, but not all, foreign jurisdictions possess patent term extension or other additional patent exclusivity mechanisms that may be more or less stringent and comprehensive than those of the U.S.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”); the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”); the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and similar foreign, federal and state fraud, abuse and transparency laws.

The AKS prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase or recommendation of an item or service for which payment may be made under any federal healthcare program. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand, and prescribers and purchasers on the other. The government often takes the position that to violate the AKS, only one purpose of the remuneration need be to induce referrals, even if there are other legitimate purposes for the remuneration. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from AKS prosecution, but they are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration, such as consulting agreements, that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order

to have committed a violation.

Civil and criminal false claims laws, including the FCA, and civil monetary penalty laws, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment of federal government funds, including in federal healthcare programs, that are false or fraudulent. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for engaging in a variety of different types of conduct that caused the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs. Under the AKS, for example, a claim resulting from a violation of the AKS is deemed to be a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and making false statements relating to healthcare matters. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the healthcare fraud statute implemented under HIPAA or specific intent to violate the statute in order to have committed a violation.

The FDCA addresses, among other things, the design, production, labeling, promotion, manufacturing, and testing of drugs, biologics and medical devices, and prohibits such acts as the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded drugs or devices. The PHSA also prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of unlicensed or mislabeled biological products.

The U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the Centers for Medicaid &Medicare Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or

PART I

other transfers of value to various healthcare professionals including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, certified nurse-midwives, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning on January 1, 2023, California Assembly Bill 1278 requires California physicians and surgeons to notify patients of the Open Payments database established under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act.

We are also subject to federal price reporting laws and federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Federal price reporting laws require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/ or discounts on approved products. Federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

We are also subject to additional similar U.S. state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, which, in some cases, differ from each other in significant ways, and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal, and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. For example, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations imposes data privacy, security, and breach notification obligations on certain health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates and their covered subcontractors that perform certain services that involve using, disclosing, creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting individually identifiable protected health information (“PHI”) for or on behalf of such covered entities. These requirements imposed by HIPAA and the HITECH Act on covered entities and business associates include entering into agreements that require business associates protect PHI provided by the covered entity against improper use or disclosure, among other things; following certain standards for the privacy of PHI, which limit the disclosure of a patient’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition or information about a patient’s receipt of health care if the information identifies, or could reasonably be used to identify, the individual; ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all PHI created, received, maintained, or transmitted in electronic form, to identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats or impermissible uses or disclosures to the security and integrity of such PHI; and reporting of breaches of PHI to individuals and regulators.

Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. A covered entity or business associate is also liable for civil money penalties for a violation that is based on an act or omission of any of its agents, which may include a downstream business associate, as determined according to the federal common law of agency. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties applicable to covered entities and business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. To the extent that we submit electronic healthcare claims and payment transactions that do not comply with the electronic data transmission standards established under HIPAA and HITECH, payments to us may be delayed or denied.

PART I

In addition, state health information privacy laws, such as California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Washington’s My Health My Data Act, govern the privacy and security of health-related information, specifically, may apply even when HIPAA does not and impose additional requirements.

Even when HIPAA and state health information privacy laws do not apply, according to the FTC and state Attorneys General, violating consumers’ privacy rights or failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and state consumer protection laws.

In addition, certain state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CCPA”), govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA in various ways. Numerous other states have passed similar laws, but many differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. The CCPA applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees, and imposes obligations on certain businesses that do business in California, including to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices, and affords rights to California residents in relation to their personal information. Health information falls under the CCPA’s definition of personal information where it identifies, relates to, describes, or is reasonably capable of being associated with or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household - unless it is subject to HIPAA - and is included under a new category of personal information, “sensitive personal information,” which is offered greater protection. The numerous other comprehensive privacy laws that have passed or are being considered in other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials; but others exempt covered entities and business associates subject to HIPAA altogether, further complicating compliance efforts, and increasing legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties upon whom we rely.

Additionally, our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be subject to laws and evolving regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, controlling for data bias, and antidiscrimination.

Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow it to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on its investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological product for which we obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any product, if approved, depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement, if any, for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding whether to cover any of our product candidates, if approved, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations.

PART I

As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in

determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

•a covered benefit under its health plan;

•safe, effective and medically necessary;

•cost-effective; and

•neither experimental nor investigational.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical or biological products, medical devices and medical services, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product that receives approval. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. The IRA provides CMS with significant new authorities intended to curb drug costs and to encourage market competition. For the first time, CMS will be able to directly negotiate prescription drug prices and to cap out-of-pocket costs. Each year, CMS will select and negotiate a preset number of high-spend drugs and biologics that are covered under Medicare Part B and Part D that do not have generic or biosimilar competition. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs subject to price negotiations. These price negotiations occurred in 2024. In January 2025, CMS announced a list of 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. The IRA also provides a new “inflation rebate” covering Medicare patients that took effect in 2023 and is intended to counter certain price increases in prescriptions drugs. The inflation rebate provision requires drug manufacturers to pay a rebate to the federal government if the price for a drug or biologic under Medicare Part B and Part D increases faster than the rate of inflation. To support biosimilar competition, beginning in October 2022, qualifying biosimilars may receive a Medicare Part B payment increase for a period of five years. Separately, if a biologic drug for which no biosimilar exists delays a biosimilar’s market entry beyond two years, CMS will be authorized to subject the biologics manufacturer to price negotiations intended to ensure fair competition. Notwithstanding these provisions, the IRA’s impact on commercialization and competition remains largely uncertain.

In addition, net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we may commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price, and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.

Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a

PART I

particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of reform proposals to change the healthcare system. There is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by federal and state legislative initiatives, including those designed to limit the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government-funded health care programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

The ACA, which was enacted in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions of particular import to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including, but not limited to, those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, the IRA among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including automatic aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of on average 2% per fiscal year as part of the federal budget sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional action is taken by Congress. In addition, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Medicare Act (as amended by the ACA) to increase the point-of-sale discounts that manufacturers must agree to offer under the Medicare Part D coverage discount program from 50% to 70% off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state measures designed to, among other things, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, in May 2019, CMS adopted a final rule allowing Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs, permitting Medicare Part D plans to apply certain utilization controls to new starts of five of the six protected class drugs, and requiring the Explanation of Benefits for Part D beneficiaries to disclose drug price increases and lower cost therapeutic alternatives, which went into effect on January 1, 2021. In response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

PART I

Notwithstanding the IRA, continued legislative and enforcement interest exists in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, we expect regulators to continue pushing for transparency to drug pricing, reducing the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, reviewing the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reforming government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Individual states in the U.S. have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare 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 healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for its drugs or put pressure on its drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other Government Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, export and import, advertising, marketing and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization, approval as well as post-approval monitoring and reporting of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, including requirements to conduct additional clinical trials, product licensing, safety reporting, post-authorization requirements, marketing and promotion, interactions with healthcare professionals, pricing and reimbursement may vary widely from country to country. No action can be taken to market any product in a country until an appropriate approval application has been approved by the regulatory authorities in that country. The current approval process varies from country to country, and the time spent in gaining approval varies from that required for FDA approval. In certain countries, the sales price of a product must also be approved. The pricing review period often begins after market approval is granted. Even if a product is approved by a regulatory authority, satisfactory prices may not be approved for such product, which would make launch of such products commercially unfeasible in such countries.

Regulation in the European Union

European Data Laws

The collection and use of personal health data and other personal data in the EU is governed by the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”), which came into force in May 2018, and related data protection laws in individual EU Member States. The GDPR imposes a number of strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to process, including collecting, analyzing and transferring, personal data of individuals, in particular with respect to health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR includes requirements relating to the legal basis of the processing (such as consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates), the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data, the personal data breaches which may have to be notified to the national data protection authorities and data subjects, the measures to be taken when engaging processors, and the security and confidentiality of the personal data. EU Member States may also impose additional requirements in relation to health, genetic and biometric data through their national legislation.

PART I

In addition, the GDPR imposes specific restrictions on the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) that are not considered by the European Commission (“EC”) to provide an adequate level of data protection. Appropriate safeguards are required to enable such transfers. Among the appropriate safeguards that can be used, the data exporter may use the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”). When relying on SCCs, data exporters are also required to conduct a transfer risk assessment to verify if anything in the law and/or practices of the third country may impinge on the effectiveness of the SCCs in the context of the transfer at stake and, if so, to identify and adopt supplementary measures that are necessary to bring the level of protection of the data transferred to the EU standard of essential equivalence. Where no supplementary measure is suitable, the data exporter should avoid, suspend or terminate the transfer. With regard to the transfer of data from the EEA to the United States, on July 10, 2023, the EC adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. On the basis of the new adequacy decision, personal data can flow from the EEA to U.S. companies participating in the framework. With regard to the transfer of data from the EU to the United Kingdom (“UK”), personal data may freely flow from the EEA to the UK since the UK is deemed to have an adequate data protection level. However, the adequacy decisions include a ‘sunset clause’ which entails that the decisions will automatically expire four years after their entry into force, unless renewed.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EU Member States may result in significant monetary fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater, other administrative penalties and a number of criminal offenses for organizations and, in certain cases, their directors and officers, as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose personal data was processed. Data protection authorities from the different EU Member States may still implement certain variations, enforce the GDPR and national data protection laws differently, and introduce additional national regulations and guidelines, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data in the EU. Furthermore, there are specific requirements relating to processing health data from clinical trials, including public disclosure obligations provided in the EU Clinical Trials Regulation No. 536/2014 (“the Clinical Trials Regulation or CTR”), EMA disclosure initiatives and voluntary commitments by industry. Failure to comply with these obligations could lead to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, harm to our reputation, and adversely impact our business and operating results.

Additionally, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the EEA, companies also have to comply with the UK’s data protection laws (including the UK GDPR (as defined in section 3(10) (as supplemented by section 205(4)) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the “DPA 2018”)), the DPA 2018, and related data protection laws in the UK). Separate from the fines that can be imposed by the GDPR, the UK regime has the ability to fine up to the greater of £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. Companies are subject to specific transfer rules under the UK regime which broadly mirror the GDPR rules. On February 2, 2022, the UK Secretary of State laid before the UK Parliament the international data transfer agreement (“IDTA”) and the international data transfer addendum to the EC’s standard contractual clauses for international data transfers (“Addendum”) and a document setting out transitional provisions. The IDTA and Addendum came into force on March 21, 2022 and replaced the old SCCs for the purposes of the UK regime. Regarding transfers from the UK to the EEA, personal data may flow freely since the EEA is deemed to have an adequate data protection level for purposes of the UK regime. With regard to the transfer of personal data from the UK to the United States, the UK government has adopted an adequacy decision for the United States, the UK-US Data Bridge, which came into force on October 12, 2023. The UK-US Data Bridge recognizes the United States as offering an adequate level of data protection where the transfer is to a U.S. company participating in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and the UK Extension.

Drug and Biologic Development Process

Regardless of where they are conducted, all clinical trials included in applications for marketing authorization (“MA”) for human medicines in the EU/EEA must have been carried out in accordance with EU regulations. This means that clinical trials conducted in the EU/EEA have to comply with EU clinical trial legislation but also that clinical trials conducted outside the EU/EEA have to comply with ethical principles equivalent to those set out in the EEA, including adhering to international good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki.

The conduct of clinical trials in the EU is governed by the CTR, which entered into force on January 31, 2022. The CTR replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (“Clinical Trials Directive”) and introduced a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU.

PART I

Under the former regime, which will expire after a transition period of three years as outlined below in more detail, before a clinical trial can be initiated, it must be approved in each EU member state where there is a site at which the clinical trial is to be conducted. The approval must be obtained from two separate entities: the National Competent Authority (the “NCA”) and one or more Ethics Committees. The NCA of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial will be conducted must authorize the conduct of the trial, and the independent Ethics Committee must grant a positive opinion in relation to the conduct of the clinical trial in the relevant EU member state before the commencement of the trial. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be submitted to or approved by the relevant NCA and Ethics Committees. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the NCA and to the Ethics Committees of the EU Member State where they occur.

A more unified procedure will apply under the new CTR. A sponsor will be able to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial through a centralized EU clinical trials portal (“the Clinical Trials Information System or CTIS”). One national regulatory authority (the reporting EU Member State proposed by the applicant) will take the lead in validating and evaluating the application and will consult and coordinate with the other concerned EU Member States. If an application is rejected, it may be amended and resubmitted through the EU clinical trials portal. If an approval is issued, the sponsor may start the clinical trial in all concerned Member States. However, a concerned EU Member State may in limited circumstances declare an “opt-out” from an approval and prevent the clinical trial from being conducted in such Member State. The CTR also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting, and introduces enhanced transparency requirements such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial results to the EU Database. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. EU Member States will work in the CTIS immediately after the system has gone live. Since January 31, 2023, submission of initial clinical trial applications via CTIS is mandatory and CTIS serves as the single-entry point for submission of clinical trial-related information and data. By January 31, 2025, all ongoing trials approved under the former Clinical Trials Directive will need to comply with the CTR and have to be transitioned to CTIS. On July 19, 2023, the EC published guidance concerning the steps to be taken in this transition. This guidance provides, among other things, that (i) documentation which was previously assessed will not be reassessed, (ii) templates that were developed and endorsed by the EU Clinical Trials Expert Group to provide compliance with the CTR do not need to be updated and (iii) there is no need to retrospectively create a site suitability form, which are only necessary for new trial sites.

Under both the former regime and the new CTR, national laws, regulations, and the applicable GCP and Good Laboratory Practice standards must also be respected during the conduct of the trials, including the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, (“ICH”), guidelines on Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

During the development of a medicinal product, the EMA and national regulators within the EU provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (the “CHMP”), on the recommendation of the Scientific Advice Working Party (“SAWP”). A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure, but is significantly reduced for designated orphan medicines. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical studies, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. Advice is not legally binding with regard to any future Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”), of the product concerned.

Drug Marketing Authorization

In the EEA, after completion of all required clinical testing, pharmaceutical products may only be placed on the market after obtaining a MA. To obtain an MA of a drug under European Union regulatory systems, an applicant can submit an MAA through, amongst others, a centralized or decentralized procedure.

To be used or sold in the UK, a drug must have an effective MA obtained by a centralized application through EMA or a national application. National applications are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916). Applications are made electronically through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) Submissions Portal. The process from application to authorizations generally takes up to 210 days, excluding time taken to provide any additional information or data required by the MHRA.

PART I

On August 30, 2023, the MHRA published detailed guidance on its recently announced new International Reliance Procedure (IRP) for MAAs. The IRP applies since January 1, 2024 and replaces existing EU reliance procedures to apply for authorizations from seven international regulators (e.g. Health Canada, Swiss Medic, FDA, EMA, among others). The IRP allows medicinal products approved in other jurisdictions that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update a MA in the UK. Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA that is issued by the EC following the scientific assessment of the application by the EMA, that is valid for all EU Member States as well as in the three additional EEA Member States (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein). The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific medicinal products, including for medicines developed by means of certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, or tissue engineered medicines) and medicinal products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases (HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and viral diseases). For medicinal products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA before May 20, 2004 and indicated for the treatment of other diseases, medicinal products that constitute significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovations or for which the grant of a MA through the centralized procedure would be in the interest of public health at EU level, an applicant may voluntarily submit an application for a MA through the centralized procedure.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP, established at the EMA, is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a drug. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure, the timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA’s CHMP is, in principle, 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA. However, this timeline excludes clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP, so the overall process typically takes a year or more, unless the application is eligible for an accelerated assessment. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. Upon request, the CHMP can reduce the time frame to 150 days if the applicant provides sufficient justification for an accelerated assessment. The CHMP will provide a positive opinion regarding the application only if it meets certain quality, safety and efficacy requirements. This opinion is then transmitted to the EC, which has the ultimate authority for granting MA within 67 days after receipt of the CHMP opinion.

Decentralized Authorization Procedure

Medicines that fall outside the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure have three routes to authorization: (i) they can be authorized under the centralized procedure if they concern a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if their authorization would be in the interest of public health; (ii) they can be authorized under a decentralized procedure where an applicant applies for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU member state; or (iii) they can be authorized in an EU member state in accordance with that state’s national procedures and then be authorized in other EU countries by a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national MA (mutual recognition procedure).

The decentralized procedure permits companies to file identical MA applications for a medicinal product to the competent authorities in various EU Member States simultaneously if such medicinal product has not received marketing approval in any EU Member State before. This procedure is available for pharmaceutical products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. The competent authority of a single EU Member State, the reference EU member state, is appointed to review the application and provide an assessment report. The competent authorities of the other EU Member States, the concerned member states, are subsequently required to grant a MA for their territories on the basis of this assessment. The only exception to this is where the competent authority of an EU Member State considers that there are concerns of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the EC, whose decision is binding for all EU Member States.

PART I

Risk Management Plan

All new MAAs must include a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. RMPs are continually modified and updated throughout the lifetime of the medicine as new information becomes available. An updated RMP must be submitted: (i) at the request of EMA or a national competent authority, or (ii) whenever the risk-management system is modified, especially as the result of new information being received that may lead to a significant change to the benefit-risk profile or as a result of an important pharmacovigilance or risk-minimization milestone being reached. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Since October 20, 2023, all RMPs for centrally authorized products are published by the EMA, subject only to limited redactions.

MA Validity Period

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may subsequently be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the EC or the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with only one additional five-year renewal. Applications for renewal must be made to the EMA at least nine months before the five-year period expires.

Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid. For the UK, the period of three years during which the drug has not been marketed in Great Britain will be restarted from the date of conversion to a Great Britain MA. Conversion refers to the procedure by which, as of January 1, 2021, MAs granted on the basis of a centralized procedure in the EU are only valid in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain, whereas, prior EU authorizations have all been automatically converted into UK MAs effective in Great Britain only.

On the other hand, for the EU, in the case the drug has been marketed in the UK, the placing on the UK market before the end of the period starting when the UK left the EU on January 31, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020 (the Brexit Transition Period) will be taken into account. If, after the end of the Brexit Transition Period, the drug is not placed on any other market of the remaining member states of the EU, the three year period will start running from the last date the drug was placed on the UK market before the end of the Brexit Transition Period.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

In the EU, medicinal products, including advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) are subject to extensive pre-and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EU and national levels. ATMPs comprise gene therapy products, somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products, which are genes, cells or tissues that have undergone substantial manipulation and that are administered to human beings in order to cure, diagnose or prevent diseases or regenerate, repair or replace a human tissue. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, the Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”) is responsible in conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation of ATMPs. The CHMP and CAT are also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs. These guidelines provide additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs. Although such guidelines are not legally binding, compliance with them is often necessary to gain and maintain approval for product candidates.

In addition to the mandatory RMP, the holder of a MA for an ATMP must put in place and maintain a system to ensure that each individual product and its starting and raw materials, including all substances coming into contact with the cells or tissues it may contain, can be traced through the sourcing, manufacturing, packaging, storage, transport and delivery to the relevant healthcare institution where the product is used.

Data and Market Exclusivity

PART I

As in the United States, it may be possible to obtain a period of market and / or data exclusivity in the EU that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic, hybrid or biosimilar product (even if the pharmaceutical product has already received a MA) and prohibiting another applicant from relying on the MA holder’s pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data in support of another MA for the purposes of submitting an application, obtaining MA or placing the product on the market. Innovative medicinal products, referred to as New Chemical Entities (“NCEs”) approved in the EU qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of marketing exclusivity.

An additional non-cumulative one-year period of marketing exclusivity is possible if during the data exclusivity period (the first eight years of the 10-year marketing exclusivity period), the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications that are deemed to bring a significant clinical benefit compared to existing therapies.

The data exclusivity period begins on the date of the product’s first MA in the EU. After eight years, a generic product application may be submitted, and generic companies may rely on the MA holder’s data. However, a generic product cannot launch until two years later (or a total of 10 years after the first MA in the EU of the innovator product), or three years later (or a total of 11 years after the first MA in the EU of the innovator product) if the MA holder obtains MA for a new indication with significant clinical benefit within the eight-year data exclusivity period. Additionally, another noncumulative one-year period of data exclusivity can be added to the eight years of data exclusivity where an application is made for a new indication for a well-established substance, provided that significant pre-clinical or clinical studies were carried out in relation to the new indication. Another year of data exclusivity may be added to the eight years, where a change of classification of a pharmaceutical product has been authorized on the basis of significant pre-trial tests or clinical trials (when examining an application by another applicant for or holder of market authorization for a change of classification of the same substance the competent authority will not refer to the results of those tests or trials for one year after the initial change was authorized).

Products may not be granted data exclusivity since there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to include an NCE. Even if a compound is considered to be a NCE and the MA applicant is able to gain the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the medicinal product if such company can complete a full MAA with their own complete database of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical studies and clinical trials and obtain MA of its product.

On April 26, 2023, the EC submitted a proposal for the reform of the European pharmaceutical legislation. The current draft envisages e.g., a shortening of the periods of data exclusivity, however, there is currently neither a final version of this draft nor a date for its entry into force. While the European Parliament adopted its approving position on the reform on April 10, 2024, no further required legislative steps have been taken since.

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

The criteria for designating an orphan medicinal product in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the United States. The EMA grants orphan drug designation if the medicinal product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union (prevalence criterion). In addition, Orphan Drug Designation can be granted if, for economic reasons, the medicinal product would be unlikely to be developed without incentives and if there is no other satisfactory method approved in the European Union of diagnosing, preventing, or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed medicinal product is a significant benefit to patients affected by the condition. An application for orphan drug designation (which is not a MA, as not all orphan-designated medicines reach the authorization application stage) must be submitted first before an application for MA of the medicinal product is submitted. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the MA is submitted, and sponsors must submit an annual report to EMA summarizing the status of development of the medicine. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Designated orphan medicines are eligible for conditional MA.

The EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”) reassesses the orphan drug designation of a product in parallel with the review for a MA; for a product to benefit from market exclusivity it must maintain its orphan drug designation at the time of MA review by the EMA and approval by the EC. Additionally, any MA granted for an orphan

PART I

medicinal product must only cover the therapeutic indication(s) that are covered by the orphan drug designation. Upon the grant of a MA, orphan drug designation provides up to ten years of market exclusivity in the orphan indication.

During the 10-year period of market exclusivity, with a limited number of exceptions, the regulatory authorities of the EU Member States and the EMA may not accept applications for MA, accept an application to extend an existing MA or grant a MA for other similar medicinal products for the same therapeutic indication. A similar medicinal product is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in a currently authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan medicinal product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity for an orphan-designated condition when the results of specific studies are reflected in the Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”) addressing the pediatric population and completed in accordance with a fully compliant Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, i.e. the condition prevalence or financial returns criteria under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products. When the period of orphan market exclusivity for an indication ends, the orphan drug designation for that indication expires as well. Orphan exclusivity runs in parallel with normal rules on data exclusivity and market protection. Additionally, a MA may be granted to a similar medicinal product (orphan or not) for the same or overlapping indication subject to certain requirements.

In the UK, following the post-Brexit transition period, a system for incentivizing the development of orphan medicines was introduced. Overall, the requirements for orphan designation largely replicate the requirements in the EU and the benefit of market exclusivity has been retained. Products with an orphan designation in the EU can be considered for an orphan MA in Great Britain, but a UK-wide orphan MA can only be considered in the absence of an active EU orphan designation. The MHRA will review applications for orphan designation at the time of a MA, and will offer incentives, such as market exclusivity and full or partial refunds for MA fees to encourage the development of medicines in rare diseases.

Pediatric Development

In the EU, companies developing a new medicinal product are obligated to study their product in children and must therefore submit a PIP, together with a request for agreement to the EMA. The EMA issues a decision on the PIP based on an opinion of the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”). Companies must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with the PIP approved by the EMA, unless a deferral (e.g. until enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults is available) or waiver (e.g. because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults) has been granted by the EMA. The MAA for the medicinal product must include the results of all pediatric clinical trials performed and details of all information collected in compliance with the approved PIP, unless a waiver or a deferral has been granted, in which case the pediatric clinical trials may be completed at a later date. Medicinal products that are granted a MA on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the approved PIP are eligible for a six month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the approved PIP are developed and submitted. An approved PIP is also required when a MA holder wants to add a new indication, medicinal form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized and covered by intellectual property rights.

In the UK, the MHRA has published guidance on the procedures for UK Pediatric Investigation Plans (“PIPs”) which, where possible, mirror the submission format and requirements of the EU system. EU PIPs remain applicable for Northern Ireland and EU PIPs agreed by the EMA prior to January 1, 2021 have been adopted as UK PIPs.

PRIME Designation

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The Priority Medicines (“PRIME”), scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small-and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for

PART I

earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies on the basis of compelling non-clinical data and tolerability data from initial clinical trials. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, once a candidate medicine has been selected for the PRIME scheme, a dedicated contact point and rapporteur from the CHMP or from CAT are appointed facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting with the CHMP/CAT rapporteur initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts to provide guidance on the overall development plan and regulatory strategy. PRIME eligibility does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that any such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval.

Post-Approval Regulation

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the EC and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the EU Member States. This oversight applies both before and after grant of manufacturing licenses and MAs. It includes control of compliance with EU good manufacturing practices rules, manufacturing authorizations, pharmacovigilance rules and requirements governing advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, recordkeeping, importing and exporting of medicinal products.

Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to comply with EU laws and the related national laws of individual EU Member States governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of MA, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties.

These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The holder of a MA for a medicinal product must also comply with EU pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines, which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products. These pharmacovigilance rules can impose on holders of MAs the obligation to conduct a labor intensive collection of data regarding the risks and benefits of marketed medicinal products and to engage in ongoing assessments of those risks and benefits, including the possible requirement to conduct additional clinical studies or post-authorization safety studies to obtain further information on a medicine’s safety, or to measure the effectiveness of risk-management measures, which may be time consuming and expensive and could impact our profitability. MA holders must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of Periodic Safety Update Reports (“PSURs”), in relation to medicinal products for which they hold MAs. The EMA reviews PSURs for medicinal products authorized through the centralized procedure. If the EMA has concerns that the risk benefit profile of a product has varied, it can adopt an opinion advising that the existing MA for the product be suspended, withdrawn or varied. The agency can advise that the MA holder be obliged to conduct post-authorization Phase IV safety studies. If the EC agrees with the opinion, it can adopt a decision varying the existing MA. Failure by the MA holder to fulfill the obligations for which the EC’s decision provides can undermine the ongoing validity of the MA.

More generally, non-compliance with pharmacovigilance obligations can lead to the variation, suspension or withdrawal of the MA for the product or imposition of financial penalties or other enforcement measures.

The manufacturing process for pharmaceutical products in the European Union is highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC (repealed by Directive 2017/1572 on January 31, 2022), Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing

PART I

Practice (“GMP”). These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the European Union with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the European Union. Amendments or replacements of at least Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 are part of the reform proposal for European pharmaceutical legislation. Similarly, the distribution of pharmaceutical products into and within the European Union is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU Member States. The manufacturer or importer must have a qualified person who is responsible for certifying that each batch of product has been manufactured in accordance with GMP, before releasing the product for commercial distribution in the European Union or for use in a clinical trial. Manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic inspections by the competent authorities for compliance with GMP.

Sales and Marketing Regulations

The advertising and promotion of our products is also subject to EU laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other national legislation of individual EU Member States may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products and may differ from one country to another. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s SmPC as approved by the competent regulatory authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the MA granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved SmPC and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the European Union could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on its promotional activities with healthcare professionals. EU regulation with regards to dispensing, sale and purchase of medicines has generally been preserved in the UK following Brexit, through the HMRs. However, organizations wishing to sell medicines online need to register with the MHRA. Following Brexit, the requirements to display the common logo no longer apply to UK-based online sellers, except for those established in Northern Ireland.

Anti-Corruption Legislation

In the EU, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct both at EU level and in the individual EU Member States. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of the EU Member States. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States also must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians must often be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his/her regulatory professional organization, and/or the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the individual EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. In the UK, the pharmaceutical sector is recognized as being particularly vulnerable to corrupt practices, some of which fall within the scope of the Bribery Act 2010. Due to the Bribery Act 2010’s far-reaching territorial application, the potential penalized act does not have to occur in the UK to become within its scope. If the act or omission does not take place in the UK, but the person’s act or omission would constitute an offense if carried out there and the person has a close connection with the UK, an offense will still have been committed. The Bribery Act 2010 is comprised of four offenses that cover (i) individuals, companies and partnerships that give, promise or offer bribes, (ii) individuals, companies and partnerships that request, agree to receive or accept bribes,(iii) individuals, companies and partnerships that bribe foreign public officials and (iv) companies and partnerships that fail to prevent persons acting on their behalf from

PART I

paying bribes. The penalties imposed under the Bribery Act 2010 depend on the offence committed, harm and culpability and penalties range from unlimited fines to imprisonment for a maximum term of ten years and in some cases both.

Regulations in the UK and Other Markets

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and EU laws now only apply to the UK in respect of Northern Ireland as laid out in the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland and as amended by the Windsor Framework sets out a long-term set of arrangements for the supply of medicines into Northern Ireland.

The EU and the UK have agreed on a trade and cooperation agreement (“TCA”), which includes provisions affecting the life sciences sector (including on customs and tariffs). There are some specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, including the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP issued documents. The TCA does not, however, contain wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations and product standards.

The UK government has adopted the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (the “MMDA”) to enable the UK’s regulatory frameworks to be updated following the UK’s departure from the EU. The MMDA introduces regulation-making, delegated powers covering the fields of human medicines, clinical trials of human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. The MHRA has since been consulting on future regulations for medicines and medical devices in the UK. The MMDA supplements the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (the “Regulations”), which are based on the EU Medical Devices Directive as amended to reflect the United Kingdom’s post-Brexit regulatory regime. Notably, the Regulations do not include any of the revisions that have been made by the EU Medical Devices Regulation (EU) 2017/745, which has gained full application in all EU Member States since May 26, 2021 but is not applicable in the UK as “retained law”. Additionally, the MHRA launched a comprehensive consultation in 2021 with proposals to amend the regulatory framework for medical devices in the United Kingdom. The stated objectives of the proposals include expansion of the scope of the Regulations (for example, by expanding the in vitro diagnostic medical device definition to include software and other products, including products without an intended medical purpose but with similar functioning and risk profiles) and potentially through use of internationally recognized definitions (for example, by excluding products that contain viable biological substances and excluding food), remove trade barriers, further the availability of medical devices and improve the favorability of the UK market. The consultation period closed on November 25, 2021 and on June 26, 2022, the MHRA published a response to its consultation, which sets out the proposed new UK regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices. The proposals are intended to improve patient safety and public health through appropriate regulatory oversight, improve the traceability of medical devices, improve the regulation of the rules governing software and AI as medical devices and introduce alternative routes to market to ensure the UK aligns with any superior international best practices. Core aspects of the new framework are expected to apply from July 1, 2025 with appropriate transitional measures and the introduction of secondary legislation.

For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, local, state and federal laws, including in the United States and Israel, regarding such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous or biohazardous substances, we could be liable for damages, environmental remediation, and/or governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws

PART I

and occupational health and safety laws that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future.

Human Capital

Our Employees

We have grown to a team of approximately 100 employees as of December 31, 2024. Our employees are based in the following countries: Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Belgium. Our highly qualified and experienced team includes scientists, physicians and professionals across clinical development, regulatory affairs, manufacturing, medical affairs, commercialization, finance and other important functions that are critical to our success. We also leverage certain external experts in drug development and corporate functions to provide flexibility for our business needs.

We expect to continue to hire additional employees in 2025 and beyond to expand our expertise and bandwidth across functions. We expect to establish a presence in the United States by early 2026. We continue to evaluate our business needs and opportunities.

Our Culture

We believe that the success of our human capital management investments is evidenced by our low employee turnover, a metric which is regularly reviewed by our board of directors (the “Board of Directors”) as part of its oversight of our human capital strategy.

Employee Engagement, Talent Development & Benefits.

We believe that our future success largely depends upon our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with competitive salaries, bonuses, and opportunities for equity ownership.

Employee and Visitor Safety Protocols

We strive to follow applicable health and safety guidelines to protect the well-being of our employees and visitors.

Inclusion

Much of our success is rooted in our commitment to inclusion and equal employment opportunity. We value diversity at all levels. We believe that our business benefits from the different perspectives a diverse workforce brings, and we pride ourselves on having a strong, inclusive and positive culture based on our shared mission and values.

Our Corporate Information

We were originally incorporated on August 13, 2020 in the Cayman Islands as a special purpose acquisition company under the name Helix Acquisition Corp., and our subsidiary, MoonLake AG, was incorporated in Switzerland in 2021. In connection with the consummation of the Business Combination (as defined in Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations), we changed our name from Helix Acquisition Corp. to MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. Our principal executive office is located in Dorfstrasse 29, 6300, Zug, Switzerland.

Available Information

Our website address is www.moonlaketx.com. The contents of, or information accessible through, our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports, available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. The reference to

PART I

our website address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on or available through our website, and you should not consider such information to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PART I