UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

Commission File Number 001-38841

Precision BioSciences, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (919) 314-5512

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.  Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files).  Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. YES ☐ NO ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2021, was $663.5 million.

The number of shares of Registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 8, 2022 was 61,038,270.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

Table of Contents

i

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements other than statements of present and historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including without limitation, statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy and approach, including related results, prospective products, planned preclinical studies and clinical trials, or discontinuance thereof, the status and results of our preclinical and clinical studies, including, the potential of our product candidates, if approved, to become best-in-class or first-in-class, expected release of interim data, expectations regarding our allogeneic chimeric antigen receptor T cell immunotherapy product candidates, expectations regarding the use and effects of ARCUS, including in connection with in vivo genome editing, potential new partnerships or alternative opportunities for our product candidates, capabilities of our manufacturing facility, potential new application filings and regulatory approvals, research and development costs, timing, expected results and likelihood of success, plans and objectives of management for future operations, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and variants thereof may be forward-looking statements. Without limiting the foregoing, in some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “aim,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “exploring,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “seeks,” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. No forward-looking statement is a guarantee of future results, performance, or achievements, and one should avoid placing undue reliance on such statements.

Forward-looking statements are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to us. Such beliefs and assumptions may or may not prove to be correct. Additionally, such forward-looking statements are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to various factors, including, but not limited to, those identified in Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and Part II. Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to:

ii

Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference herein completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements. All forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless otherwise stated or the context requires otherwise, references to “Precision,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our,” refer to Precision BioSciences, Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.

iii

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our common stock. Some of the principal risks and uncertainties include the following.

iv

PART I

Item 1. Business.

We are a clinical stage gene editing company dedicated to improving life by developing ex vivo allogeneic CAR T immunotherapies and in vivo therapies for genetic and infectious diseases with the application of our wholly owned proprietary ARCUS genome editing platform. The foundation of ARCUS is a natural homing endonuclease which allows us to replicate precise gene editing as it evolved in nature. ARCUS is designed to be precise in its specificity and versatile in its design for gene knock out as well as complex edits with gene insertion and gene repair. ARCUS is also unique in its relatively small size which potentially allows delivery to a wider range of cells and tissues using viral and non-viral gene delivery methods.

We believe our chimeric antigen receptor (“CAR”) T cells are the only allogeneic CAR T cells in human clinical trials made with a single gene editing step designed to specifically avoid the potentially deleterious effects of making multiple edits to T cells (as defined below). We are simultaneously conducting a Phase 1/2a clinical trial evaluating PBCAR0191 as a potential first-in-class and a Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating PBCAR19B as, if approved, a potential best-in-class CD19-targeting CAR T cell therapies in adult patients with relapsed or refractory (“R/R”), B-cell malignancies.

Made from donor-derived T cells modified using our ARCUS genome editing technology, PBCAR0191 recognizes the well characterized tumor cell surface protein CD19, an important and validated target in several B-cell cancers. PBCAR0191 is designed to avoid graft-versus-host disease (“GvHD”), a significant complication associated with donor-derived, cell-based therapies. We presented updated data from the PBCAR0191 study utilizing an enhanced lymphodepletion regimen in December 2021 at the 63rd American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) Annual Meeting.

PBCAR19B is a novel immune-evading stealth cell candidate employing a single-gene edit in an effort to knock-down beta-2 microglobulin (“β2m”) designed for evading T cell rejection, while also inserting a human leukocyte antigen E (“HLA-E”) transgene to further evade rejection from natural killer cells. We initiated a clinical trial of PBCAR19B in patients with R/R non-Hodgkin lymphoma (“NHL”) in mid-2021 and completed dosing at Dose Level one.  We plan to commence dosing at the next dose level with clinical trial material from an optimized manufacturing process once released and expect to provide a program update in mid-2022.

In January 2021, we closed a development and license agreement with Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) to discover and develop in vivo gene editing product candidates incorporating our ARCUS nucleases. Lilly has initially nominated Duchenne muscular dystrophy (“DMD”), a genetic disease affecting the muscles.  Lilly has also nominated a liver-directed target and a central nervous system (“CNS”) directed target and has the right to nominate up to three additional gene targets over the first four years of the agreement. We will be responsible for conducting certain pre-clinical research and IND-enabling activities with respect to such gene targets.

In April 2021, we entered into a program purchase agreement (the “Program Purchase Agreement”) with Les Laboratoires Servier (“Servier”), pursuant to which we reacquired all of our global development and commercialization rights previously granted to Servier pursuant to a development and commercial license agreement (as amended, the “Servier Agreement”), and mutually terminated the Servier Agreement.  This includes our two clinical stage CD19-targeting allogeneic CAR T candidates, PBCAR0191 and PBCAR19B stealth cell, as well as four additional product targets.

In August 2021, we entered into a development and license agreement with iECURE, a mutation-agnostic in vivo gene editing company striving to cure devastating diseases with high unmet need, under which iECURE plans to advance our PBGENE-PCSK9 candidate through preclinical activities as well as a Phase 1 clinical trial for the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia (“FH”) as partial consideration for a license to our PCSK9-directed ARCUS nuclease to develop gene-insertion therapies for four other rare genetic diseases, including ornithine transcarbamylase (“OTC”) deficiency, Citrullinemia Type 1, phenylketonuria (“PKU”), and another program focused on liver disease. We retain rights to PBGENE-PCSK9, including all products developed for genetic indications with increased risk of severe cardiovascular events such as FH.

In September 2021, we entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “Tiziana Agreement”) with Tiziana Life Sciences (“Tiziana”) to evaluate foralumab, a fully human anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody (“mAb”), as a lymphodepleting agent in conjunction with our allogeneic CAR T cells for the potential treatment of cancers. This agreement reflects our ongoing pursuit of a potential best-in-class allogeneic CAR T cell therapy.

1

In November 2021, we announced that we will not continue development of PBCAR20A based on data observed to date in a heterogeneous R/R NHL population previously treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, as treatment with PBCAR20A did not result in compelling response rates in a Phase 1/2a clinical study. While this study provided important information regarding allogeneic CAR T dosing and lymphodepletion regimens, we intend to focus our clinical efforts in R/R lymphoma on CD19 targeting programs, as we believe CD19 is a more robust antigenic target in R/R heterogeneous NHL populations. All subjects enrolled in the study and evaluated for treatment with PBCAR20A had acceptable tolerability with no GvHD, no Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome, and no Grade ≥ 3 neurotoxicity.

In December 2021, we announced that we entered into an agreement with a syndicate of investors led by ACCELR8 to separate our wholly owned Elo Life Systems subsidiary (the “Elo Transaction”) and create an independent food and agriculture business (“New Elo”). The transaction enables us to focus exclusively on human therapeutics.

Looking ahead to the remainder of 2022 and beyond, we aim to further evaluate ARCUS clinically with the goal of positively impacting human health. In mid-2022, we plan to provide updates on PBCAR0191, PBCAR19B, and PBCAR269A, our allogeneic CAR T therapy product candidate designed to target B-cell maturation antigen (“BCMA”) for the treatment of R/R multiple myeloma in combination with nirogacestat, a gamma secretase inhibitor (“GSI”) developed by SpringWorks Therapeutics (“SpringWorks”). In the in vivo gene editing pipeline, we expect to submit three Investigational New Drug applications (“INDs”) or Clinical Trial Applications (“CTAs”) in the next three years, including trials to evaluate: PBGENE-PCSK9 for the treatment of FH, PBGENE-PH1 for the treatment of primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (“PH1”) and PBGENE-HBV for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (“HBV”).

Our Pipeline

Ex vivo Allogeneic CAR T Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy is a type of cancer treatment that uses the body’s immune system to fight the disease. CAR T is a form of immunotherapy in which a specific type of immune cell, called a “T cell”, is genetically engineered to recognize and kill cancer cells. Current commercially available CAR T therapies are autologous, meaning the T cells used as the starting material for this engineering process are derived directly from the patient. As a consequence, the therapy is highly personalized, difficult to scale, and expensive. Because of the patient’s illness, their cells may also not be suitable starting material for manufacturing. Our allogeneic approach uses donor‑derived T cells with a single gene edit using ARCUS and are designed for safe delivery to patients with certain cancers. We believe that this donor-derived approach will allow us to consistently produce a potent product by selecting donors with high quality T cells and will lessen the product-to-product variability seen in autologous therapies. We are able to produce allogeneic CAR T cells at a larger scale in a cost-effective manner and have the potential to overcome the “one patient: one product” burden of autologous CAR T cell therapies.

Leveraging the unique gene editing capabilities of ARCUS, we have developed a one-step cell engineering process for allogeneic CAR T cells that is designed to maintain naïve and central memory T cell phenotypes throughout the CAR T manufacturing process, which we believe to be important for an optimized CAR T therapy. We believe our CAR T cells are the only allogeneic CAR T cells in human clinical trials made with a single gene editing step to specifically avoid the potentially deleterious effects of making multiple edits to T cells.

With our decision early in the development of our ex vivo platform to invest in process development, we continue to scale and improve our manufacturing process and are currently producing allogeneic CAR T cells at large scale for clinical trials in accordance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”).

PBCAR0191. We are conducting our Phase 1/2a clinical trial of PBCAR0191 in adult patients with R/R NHL or R/R B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (“B-ALL”). Currently, we are pursuing a potential first-in-class allogeneic CAR T strategy with PBCAR0191 in patients with lymphoma. The FDA has granted PBCAR0191 orphan drug designation for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (“ALL”) and Fast Track Designation for treatment of B-ALL.

Updated Data from Phase 1/2a Trial of PBCAR0191 in R/R NHL and R/R B-ALL

In December 2021, we reported updated data from the PBCAR0191 clinical trial utilizing an enhanced lymphodepletion (“eLD”) regimen of fludarabine (30 mg/m²/day × 4 days) and cyclophosphamide (1000 mg/m²/day × 3 days) targeting CD19 for the treatment of R/R NHL or R/R B-ALL, which included 22 (17 NHL, 5 B-ALL) heavily pre-treated R/R subjects with predominantly advanced or aggressive B-cell malignancies who were evaluable as of November 16, 2021. Evaluable subjects received a median 5 lines of prior treatment, including 27% (6/22) who previously received a CD19-directed autologous CAR T.

2

For patients that received treatment of PBCAR0191 following eLD as of November 16, 2021:  

Most notably, a potential signal for PBCAR0191 was observed among six subjects who relapsed after previously receiving an autologous CAR T:

Currently, there are no FDA approved therapeutics for lymphoma patients who have relapsed following autologous CAR T therapy. PBCAR0191 has the potential to be developed as a salvage treatment for this growing population with high unmet need. We are actively enrolling additional NHL patients in this relapse setting to further evaluate this observed activity.

In parallel to our development of PBCAR0191, we are also working towards developing a candidate with an allogeneic CAR T profile that has the potential to displace CD19 directed autologous CAR T with unique attributes of ARCUS, which is designed to make complex gene edits in a single step with a single dose, potentially reducing translocation safety concerns. We have developed a second-generation “stealth cell” CAR T construct, which we believe has the potential to overcome certain limitations of rejection of allogeneic CAR T cells by the patient’s immune system. Rejection of allogeneic CAR T cells could limit the efficacy of a CAR T therapy if the cells do not persist long enough in the patient to eradicate the tumor.

PBCAR19B. PBCAR19B is an anti-CD19 CAR T candidate built on the stealth cell platform utilizing a single-step gene edit in an effort to minimize the risk of chromosome abnormalities. The stealth cell differs from the first-generation CAR Ts in that it has two additional modifications aimed at avoiding rejection. The stealth cell technology is a modified CAR T vector that is designed to suppress expression of a gene called β2m, in CAR T cells using a short-hairpin RNA, or shRNA, and enable expression of a transgenic HLA-E molecule on the cell surface. β2m is a component of the major histocompatibility complex type 1 (“MHC-I”), a cell surface receptor which enables alloreactive T cell recognition and activation. Suppression of β2m expression leads to reduced cell-surface expression of major histocompatibility complex components HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-C. In preclinical studies, we and others have observed that suppression or elimination of β2m reduces the rejection of CAR T cells by alloreactive T cells from an unrelated individual. However, we have found that reduction of cell-surface HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-C expression provokes rejection of the CAR T cells by NK cells. Decreased expression of HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-C therefore necessitates an additional modification to enable overexpression of HLA-E, a non-classical MHC-I that inhibits cytotoxic killing by NK cells by interacting with inhibitory receptors on the NK cell surface (Gornalusse et al, 2017; Lanza et al, 2019). Thus, the “stealth cell” is designed to avoid rejection by both alloreactive cytotoxic T cells and NK cells, which we believe has the potential to increase the ability of these cells to expand, persist, and mediate anti-tumor activity in unrelated recipients as summarized in the figure below.

3

We initiated a clinical trial of PBCAR19B in patients with R/R NHL in mid-2021 Flat doses of PBCAR19B CAR T cells following a standard lymphodepletion (“sLD”) regimen of fludarabine (30 mg/m2/day × 3 days) and cyclophosphamide (1000 mg/m2/day × 3 days) are administered starting at Dose Level 1 (2.7 × 10⁸ CAR T cells). We plan to commence dosing at the next dose level with clinical trial material from an optimized manufacturing process once released and expect to provide a program update in mid-2022.

PBCAR269A. PBCAR269A is an investigational allogeneic CAR T immunotherapy targeting BCMA for the treatment of R/R multiple myeloma. BCMA is a protein that is expressed on the surface of mature B cells called “plasma cells” that are responsible for the disease and is a validated CAR T cell target. Among 14 patients that have been evaluated for clinical activity and safety across four dose levels, including Dose Level 1= 0.6×10⁶ cells/kg; Dose Level 2 = 2×10⁶ cells/kg; Dose Level 3 = 6×10⁶ cells/kg; and Dose Level 4 = 960 x10⁶ cells flat dose, of PBCAR269A monotherapy following sLD, we have observed no Grade ≥ 3 CRS or ICANS and a dose-dependent increase in PBCAR269A peak expansion as of December 11, 2021. Overall, PBCAR269A monotherapy response observed in the Phase 1/2a trial was not comparable with autologous CAR T profiles. Therefore, we are continuing to enroll subjects with PBCAR269A in combination with nirogacestat in pursuit of a potential therapeutic index comparable with or better than autologous CAR T. An update on this combination program is expected to be presented in mid-2022.

CD19 Combination with Foralumab. In September 2021, we announced an exclusive license agreement with Tiziana to evaluate foralumab, an investigational, novel, fully human anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, as an agent to induce tolerance of allogeneic CAR T cells to potentially improve the clinical outcome of CAR T cell therapy. The Cluster of Differentiation 3 (“CD3”) is a receptor on effector T cells and an anti-CD3 antibody, such as foralumab, has the potential to eliminate or tolerize patient effector T cells. Our manufacturing process, which uses ARCUS to knock out the T cell receptor alpha chain (“TRAC”) gene and implements a CD3-depletion step, produces allogeneic CAR T candidates that are >99.9% CD3-negative. We believe including an anti-CD3 antibody, such as foralumab, in the lymphodepletion regimen may prevent CAR T cell rejection by eliminating the anti-CAR T response and enable the CAR T cells to expand, proliferate, and persist to maximize long term clinical benefits. Foralumab may be used in combination with any PBCAR therapy. We will investigate foralumab first in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T and plan to submit an IND amendment in 2022 to enable combination studies.

In vivo Gene Correction

Our goal with our in vivo gene editing programs is to cure genetic diseases by correcting the DNA errors responsible for causing them. In vivo gene corrections are gene corrections that take place in a living organism. Our ARCUS platform is designed to enable safe, specific and efficient gene editing. Since ARCUS can be delivered via adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) or lipid nanoparticles (“LNP”), it has potential utility in treating diseases in the liver as well as many genetic diseases that affect tissues beyond the liver. In addition, the unique enzymology of ARCUS enables it to efficiently knock out genes as well as make complex gene insertion and gene repair edits. We believe these unique attributes of ARCUS support its potential differentiation for in vivo use and its potential to treat a broader range of genetic diseases than other editing technologies.

We have advanced a deep portfolio of diverse programs toward preclinical efficacy and toxicity studies. We have generated a significant large animal dataset and have observed high-efficiency in vivo genome editing in non-human primates (“NHPs”) in our preclinical studies, as highlighted in our July 2018 publication in Nature Biotechnology. We believe this is the first peer-reviewed publication of in vivo genome editing data in NHPs. In our preclinical studies, we observed the high-efficiency editing of the PCSK9 gene in NHPs using ARCUS and, even at the highest dose, the treatment was observed to be well-tolerated. As published in Molecular Therapy in June 2021, “Long-term Stable Reduction of Low-density Lipoprotein in Nonhuman Primates Following In Vivo Genome Editing,” PBGENE-PCSK9 is supported by extensive NHP data over a three-year period, which demonstrates a long-term, stable edit accompanied by up to an 82% reduction from baseline in PCSK9 levels and up to a 62% reduction in low-density lipoprotein (“LDL”) levels.

We expect that three of our preclinical programs will advance to IND or CTA submission in the next three years:

PBGENE-PCSK9. As part of an agreement to expedite development, iECURE expects to advance our PBGENE-PCSK9 candidate for FH through preclinical activities as well as a Phase 1 clinical trial with CTA submission expected as early as the end of 2022.

PBGENE-PH1. Pre-clinical research continues to progress for our wholly owned in vivo gene correction program applying ARCUS to knock out the HAO1 gene as a potential one-time treatment for PH1. In September 2021, we presented NHP data, showing on average, a 98.0% reduction in HAO1 mRNA and a 97.9% reduction in the encoded protein after a single administration of an AAV vector encoding ARCUS. We have initiated IND-enabling activities and expect to submit an IND/CTA in 2023 for PBGENE-PH1 delivered by LNP.

4

PBGENE-HBV. Our gene editing program for chronic HBV applies ARCUS to knock out persistent covalently closed circular DNA (“cccDNA”) and potentially reduce viral persistence. Previously reported preclinical data has shown that ARCUS efficiently targeted and degraded HBV cccDNA in HBV-infected primary human hepatocytes and reduced expression of HBV S-antigen (“HBsAg”) by as much as 95%. Similar levels of HBsAg reduction were observed in a newly developed mouse model of HBV infection following administration of ARCUS mRNA using LNP delivery. We expect to submit an IND/CTA in 2024 for our HBV program.

Our Team

We believe that our team, whom we call Precisioneers, has among the strongest scientific experience and capabilities of all genome editing companies. Our Chief Executive Officer, Michael Amoroso, who joined us in October 2021, brings extensive experience leading organizations focused on cell and gene therapies with a particular focus on oncology drugs, including CAR T cell therapies for hematologic malignancies. Derek Jantz, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer and a co-founder of Precision, and Jeff Smith, Ph.D., our Chief Technology Officer and also a co-founder of Precision, have been working with genome editing technology for approximately 20 years. They are pioneers in the genome editing field and developed the ARCUS genome editing platform to address what they perceived as limitations in the existing genome editing technologies.

We have recruited our team of Precisioneers to include individuals with extensive industry experience and expertise in the discovery, development and manufacture of cell and gene therapies. As of December 31, 2021, our team of Precisioneers included 45 full-time employees with Ph.D. or M.D. degrees.

We are a purpose-driven organization, and we have carefully promoted a culture that values innovation, accountability, respect, adaptability and perseverance. We strive to ensure that our open, collaborative culture empowers Precisioneers to be their best selves and do their best work. We strongly believe that our shared values will help our team navigate and overcome challenges we may experience as we pursue our mission of improving life through genome editing. Our culture has helped build a world-class team with industry-leading experience in genome editing and continually attracts new talent to further build our capabilities. Our team is a group of motivated individuals that value the opportunity to contribute their time and talents toward the pursuit of improving life. Precisioneers appreciate high-quality research and are moved by the opportunity to translate their work into treatments and solutions that will impact human health.

Our Strategy

We are dedicated to improving life. Our goal is to broadly translate the potential of genome editing into permanent genetic solutions for significant unmet needs. Our strategy to achieve this goal includes the following key elements:

5

Overview of Genome Editing

DNA carries the genetic instructions for all basic functions of a living cell. These instructions are encoded in four different molecules, called bases, which are strung together in specific sequences to form genes. Each gene is responsible for a specific function in a cell, and the complete set of genes in a cell, which can consist of tens of thousands of genes and billions of individual bases, is known as a genome. The complete genome sequence has been determined for many organisms, including humans. This allows scientists to identify specific genes and determine how their unique sequences contribute to a particular cellular function. Studying variations in gene sequences further informs an understanding of why a cell behaves a certain way, which can greatly enhance understanding of what causes and how to treat aberrant behavior that leads to disease.

Genome editing is a biotechnology process that removes, inserts or repairs a portion of DNA at a specific location in a cell’s genome. Early applications of genome editing focused on advancing genetic research. As genome editing technologies have advanced, their application is moving beyond understanding disease to treating or preventing disease by editing DNA. Genome editing is accomplished by delivering a DNA cutting enzyme, called an endonuclease, to a targeted segment of genetic code. Once the endonuclease cuts the DNA, the cell has to repair the break to survive and will generally do so in one of two ways, as shown below.

There are two primary mechanisms of DNA repair, non-homologous end joining (“NHEJ”), and homology directed repair (“HDR”). As shown in the figure above, NHEJ is a pathway that repairs breaks in DNA without a template. NHEJ is the less precise method of repair that prioritizes speed over accuracy, making it prone to leaving insertions and/or deletions of DNA bases at the cut site. These insertions or deletions can disrupt the gene sequence and can be used to inactivate or “knock out” the function of the gene. Accordingly, genome editing technologies can be used to permanently knock out a gene in a cell or organism by creating a break in the DNA sequence of that gene.

6

As shown in the figure above, HDR is a mechanism of DNA repair whereby the cell uses a second DNA molecule with a sequence similar to that of the cut DNA molecule to guide the repair process. Since HDR uses a “template” of similar genetic information to guide the repair process, it is the more precise mechanism of cellular repair. HDR results in the sequence of the template being copied permanently into the genome at the site of the DNA cut. If we provide a template DNA molecule directly to the edited cell and the cell repairs itself using HDR, a new gene can be incorporated or “knocked in” at a precise location in the genome. Alternatively, the use of HDR can “repair” a DNA mutation by correcting it to the proper functioning sequence when repairing the break. Thus, genome editing endonucleases can be used to introduce a variety of different changes to the genetic code of a cell or organism including gene knockout, gene insertion and gene repair.

There are several genome editing technologies, including ARCUS, zinc-finger nucleases (“ZFNs”), TAL-effector nucleases (“TALENs”), CRISPR/Cas9, and base editors. These technologies differ from one another principally in the properties of the endonuclease that they each employ. The different endonucleases have fundamentally different mechanisms of recognizing and cutting their DNA targets, which gives each technology advantages and disadvantages depending on how each is used.

Our ARCUS Genome Editing Platform

We are pioneers in the field of genome editing and have extensive experience with a breadth of genome editing technologies. Our ARCUS platform was developed to address limitations of other editing technologies that could impair their deployment for therapeutic applications. We looked to nature for examples of genome editing and found the I-CreI endonuclease from the algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Unlike ZFN, TALEN or CRISPR/Cas9, I-CreI is a natural enzyme that evolved to edit a large, complex genome. In nature, it is responsible for modifying a specific location in the algae genome by inserting a gene using the HDR process, according to scientific literature.

We believe that I-CreI has a number of attributes that make it attractive for the development of novel genome editing endonucleases, such as:

7

Other than the key programming challenge, we believed that the differentiated properties of I-CreI cited above make it an ideal “scaffold” for the development of novel genome editing tools. Moreover, we believed those properties were differentiated enough from other editing technologies to merit substantial investment in overcoming the key challenge of programmability. To that end, we invested 15 years of research effort to develop a robust, proprietary protein engineering method that now enables us to consistently re-program I-CreI to direct it to targeted sites in a genome. We call our approach ARCUS.

ARCUS is a collection of protein engineering methods that we developed specifically to re-program the DNA recognition properties of I-CreI, a homing endonuclease from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii algae evolved for precision genome editing in nature. To apply I-CreI to genome editing in other cells or organisms, we must modify it to recognize and cut a different DNA sequence for each new application we pursue. Since the I-CreI endonuclease evolved to recognize its target sequence in the algae genome with a high degree of selectivity, as supported by scientific literature, it was necessary for us to develop sophisticated protein engineering methods to re-engineer I-CreI endonucleases to bind and cut a different DNA sequence. Using the ARCUS process, we create customized endonucleases for particular applications. We call these custom endonucleases “ARCUS nucleases.” Our process is proprietary and core components are claimed in an extensive international patent portfolio. Moreover, since the ARCUS process involves a sophisticated blend of protein engineering art and science, each ARCUS nuclease we create is novel and, we believe, patentable. As of December 31, 2021, we have obtained U.S. patents with claims directed to six ARCUS nucleases as compositions of matter, and currently claim over 290 ARCUS nucleases as compositions of matter in pending U.S. and foreign patent applications.

Our objective with ARCUS is to redirect I-CreI to a new location in a genome without compromising its editing abilities. To accomplish this, we modify the parts of the enzyme that, as reported by scientific literature, are involved in recognizing the specific DNA target site. These enzyme parts are also reported to comprise the I-CreI active site and to be involved in anchoring the enzyme to its DNA site in the algae genome. In our preclinical studies, we have observed that these modifications allowed us to control how tightly an engineered variant of I-CreI binds to its intended DNA site, as well as how quickly it cuts, in a plant or animal cell. By adjusting these two parameters, we observed that we can generally control the efficiency with which the engineered endonuclease cuts its intended target site or any potential off-target sites.

8

The natural I-CreI target site is pseudo-palindromic, meaning the first half of the sequence is approximately a mirror image of the second half of the sequence. Palindromic DNA sites are rare in most genomes so it was necessary for us to develop additional technology that would overcome this limitation on the diversity of DNA sites that we can target. To this end, the ARCUS process involves the production of two re-programmed I-CreI proteins for each target site. These two different proteins are then linked together into a single protein that can be expressed from a single gene. This approach, called a “single-chain endonuclease,” represents a major advancement in I-CreI engineering because it enables our ARCUS nucleases to recognize and cut non-palindromic target sites using an endonuclease that, like natural I-CreI, is very small and easy to deliver to cells.

Since creating an ARCUS nuclease requires such extensive reengineering of I-CreI, it is, generally, an iterative process that involves multiple cycles of design and testing. We can typically produce a first-generation ARCUS nuclease in seven weeks. First-generation nucleases are suitable for research and development, proof-of-concept studies or other non-therapeutic applications. For therapeutic applications requiring the lowest possible off-targeting, however, we are rarely satisfied with generation one and each endonuclease undergoes extensive optimization. To this end, we thoroughly interrogate the nuclease with respect to its on-and off-target cutting properties using ultra-sensitive tests that we developed specifically for use with ARCUS. These results then inform our design of a second-generation nuclease with the goal of optimizing on-target efficiency while minimizing off-target cutting. Therapeutic ARCUS nucleases typically require two to four cycles of design and testing, often resulting in off-target cutting frequencies that are below the limit of detection with our most sensitive assays. This process can take six months to one year and results in development of our clinical candidate nuclease.

The ARCUS process is robust and reproducible. It enables us to create engineered variants of the I-CreI endonuclease that recognize and cut DNA sites that bear little resemblance to I-CreI’s natural target site. Importantly, however, ARCUS retains the attributes of I-CreI that we believe make it highly suitable as a genome editing endonuclease for complex commercial applications. We expect ARCUS nucleases to be exquisitely specific as a result of the natural structure of I-CreI and the intricate design process we employ to create them. We believe ARCUS nucleases are the smallest and easiest to deliver genome editing endonucleases. Like I-CreI, in our preclinical studies, ARCUS nucleases have been observed to produce DNA cuts with 3’ overhangs that promote HDR, facilitating gene insertions and gene repairs in addition to gene knockouts. We believe that these attributes will enable us to translate ARCUS into patient-based clinical trials and a wide array of product candidates that have the potential to address the limitations of other genome editing technologies and improve life.

We believe that ARCUS is a leading genome editing platform for therapeutic applications. Realizing the potential of ARCUS, however, requires supporting technologies and capabilities. To facilitate the potential commercial deployment of ARCUS in different fields, we surround it with ancillary technologies, domain expertise and infrastructure specific to that area of development. Our goal is to leverage ARCUS to build additional product-development platforms designed to rapidly generate new products in a given field.

Our Ex Vivo Allogeneic CAR T Immunotherapy Platform

We are leveraging the properties of ARCUS in an integrated platform for the development and large-scale production of ex vivo off-the-shelf (allogeneic) CAR T cell immunotherapies. A key to the success of this platform is our proprietary, one-step method for modifying the genetics of T cells from a healthy donor to make them detect and kill cancer cells. This method allows us to produce allogeneic CAR T therapy candidates with a potentially optimal phenotype for clinical development and scaled manufacturing. We have demonstrated that our approach yields an allogeneic product with a high proportion of naïve and central memory CAR T cells, which are the T cell phenotypes that have previously correlated best with good clinical benefit and fewer adverse events compared with terminally differentiated effector T cells. Additionally, because these cells are derived from healthy donors and maintain the

9

phenotypic characteristics described, it is our hypothesis that they will be more capable of controlled in vivo expansion and tumor killing. As such, we believe that our allogeneic CAR T cell platform will greatly increase patient access to these cutting-edge treatments.

CAR T Cell Therapies

CAR T cell therapy is a form of cancer immunotherapy that uses a patient’s immune system to kill cancer cells. T cells are a component of the immune system that can distinguish pathogen-infected or tumor cells from healthy cells and kill them. Recognition of pathogen-infected cells or tumor cells occurs through a protein called a TCR, that is expressed on the surface of T cells. Tumor cells, however, have evolved numerous ways to evade TCR-mediated killing by T cells. In CAR T cell therapy, T cells are engineered ex vivo to express a protein called a CAR that recognizes specific tumor cell surface targets and allows the T cells to function independently of the TCR, thus circumventing tumor cells’ evasion of the TCR. CAR T cell therapy has been shown in clinical trials to be an effective treatment for patients who have not responded to traditional cancer treatments, and there are FDA approved CAR T cell products available to treat certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

The most common form of CAR T cell therapy is referred to as “autologous” CAR T cell therapy because the CAR T cells are generated using T cells taken directly from the cancer patient. T cells are harvested from the patient, genetically engineered ex vivo to express a CAR, and then injected back into the patient. While autologous CAR T cell therapy has been shown to be effective for treating certain tumor types, it has several significant drawbacks:

Our Approach to Ex Vivo Allogeneic CAR T Cells

We believe that the use of ex vivo allogeneic, or donor-derived, CAR T cells will address many of the challenges associated with autologous CAR T cell therapy. An allogeneic approach allows selection of donors using specific criteria to define “healthy” T cells possessing specific phenotypes, which we believe are important to clinical efficacy and which may lessen the product-to-product variability seen in autologous therapies. Donor-derived cells could be used in any patient, eliminating the “one patient: one product” burden of autologous CAR T cell therapies. Because healthy donors would provide the starting material, patients that were too sick or otherwise unqualified for an autologous approach may benefit from an allogeneic CAR T cell therapy. Additionally, patients receiving an off-the-shelf allogeneic treatment would not have to wait for the manufacture of a personalized autologous treatment, which could be further delayed by manufacturing difficulties. By scaling the manufacturing of CAR T cells and optimizing the manufacturing process for a specific pool of donors, we believe that allogeneic CAR T cells can be manufactured at costs that are significantly lower than autologous CAR T cells and that will, over time, approach the manufacturing costs for conventional biologic drugs. These potential advantages of an allogeneic approach should allow for a safer, more predictable product with defined quality standards and significantly increase patient access.

We have used the unique qualities of ARCUS to create a one-step cell engineering process for allogeneic CAR T cells that we believe yields a well-defined cell product and is designed to maintain naïve and central memory T cell phenotypes throughout the CAR T manufacturing process; we believe this is of paramount importance for an optimized CAR T therapy. To produce an allogeneic CAR T cell, it is necessary to make two changes to the DNA of T cells from a healthy donor. First, it is necessary to knock out the gene that encodes the TCR to prevent the donor-derived T cells from eliciting GvHD in the patient. The TCR is actually a complex of several different components encoded by different genes, and knocking out any one of them is generally sufficient to prevent the TCR from functioning. Second, it is necessary to add, or knock in, a gene that encodes the CAR to give the T cells the ability to recognize and kill cancer cells. We developed a proprietary, one-step method for achieving both genetic changes simultaneously. This method, aspects of which are protected by nine issued U.S. patents, involves the use of ARCUS to target the insertion of a CAR gene directly into the gene that encodes the alpha subunit of the TCR. This approach adds the DNA encoding the CAR while simultaneously disrupting the DNA encoding the TCR, essentially replacing one gene with the other.

10

We believe that our one-step engineering approach, and the differentiated attributes of the ARCUS nuclease used to implement it, will overcome many of the critical challenges associated with allogeneic CAR T cell production as follows:

Manufacturing

We believe that we have strong internal scientific process development and manufacturing capabilities, including our MCAT, an in-house cGMP compliant manufacturing facility supporting our therapeutic product development platforms which we opened in 2019. We believe that having internal manufacturing capacity and expertise is a competitive advantage that enables enhanced control over process development timelines, costs and intellectual property.

We have leased over 33,800 square feet of space for our MCAT facility at a location approximately seven miles from our headquarters in Durham, North Carolina. We have four cleanroom production suites for CAR T cell, mRNA and AAV production for process development for our allogeneic CAR T immunotherapy platform. Our manufacturing facility leverages single-use, disposable, closed-system operations aligned to our technology platforms to ensure both flexibility and cost effectiveness. The initial scope is creating clinical trial material for certain of our planned clinical trials. During 2021, MCAT continued to support our ex vivo cell therapy products through execution of our manufacturing strategy, including the manufacture of clinical trial material for use in our PBCAR0191, PBCAR19B, and BCMA studies and ensuring on time delivery of drug product to the clinic. In addition, we completed the Commissioning, Qualification, and Validation (“CQV”) of the AAV manufacturing suites to support our in vivo gene therapy pipeline of products.

11

We currently contract with third parties for the manufacturing and testing of materials used in the production of our product candidates. To date, our third-party manufacturers have met our manufacturing requirements. Supply chain constraints affecting the industry have also impacted MCAT. Lead times for certain single-use components have been extended but have not materially constrained our ability to produce clinical trial materials to date. In addition to existing supply agreements for our most critical reagents and supplies, we believe that there are alternate sources of supply that can satisfy our requirements and dual sourcing strategies are being employed in select instances to mitigate risk. However, continued global impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led to longer timelines and greater costs.

The manufacturing process for our allogeneic CAR T immunotherapy platform utilizes a one-step cell engineering method in which a CAR gene is targeted directly into the TRAC locus. We believe this single step approach not only minimizes translocation safety concerns, but also greatly streamlines the manufacturing process and have entered into a license agreement with a principal supplier for research and clinical licensed technology used in such process. Commercial raw materials and reagents for this production are readily available. Our manufacturing strategy for our in vivo gene correction platform is to internally control process development and manufacturing to safeguard the proprietary nature of our technology and facilitate our ability to function as an integrated life sciences company.

Our in vivo Gene Correction Platform

Overview

We expect in vivo therapies for genetic and infectious diseases to be a significant focus of our operations long-term because the differentiated attributes of ARCUS are particularly advantageous for this type of application. In vivo gene correction involves the delivery of ARCUS nucleases directly into a patient’s cells to treat disease at the level of the underlying DNA. In vivo genome editing is more complex and challenging than ex vivo approaches like CAR T cells due to the need to safely deliver ARCUS directly to cells in the body. We believe that in vivo applications are particularly well suited to ARCUS because they require extremely low levels of off-target editing and efficient delivery.

Due to the demands of in vivo editing, we are taking a highly disciplined approach to managing our project portfolio that emphasizes studies in large animals, using both viral and non-viral delivery technologies.

Treatment of Genetic Disease

Genetic diseases are caused by errors in the DNA that lead to dysfunction of a cell or tissue. While the underlying cause of a particular genetic disease can often be complex and variable, DNA errors generally fall into two categories: loss-of-function or gain-of-function. Genetic diseases are most frequently caused by loss-of-function errors in which a particular gene is mutated at the DNA level in such a way that it is either non-functional or less functional than it should be. In these cases, treating the disease requires adding the function that the cell or tissue is otherwise lacking. Gain of function genetic disorders are the result of DNA errors that cause a gene to acquire a new, harmful function that leads to disease. In these cases, it is necessary to remove the unwanted function to treat the disorder.

Genetic disease is a very active area of therapeutic development, and the therapies that are available or in development are, to a large extent, as variable and specialized as the diseases themselves. There are, however, gene therapy platform approaches that are being broadly applied to the treatment of multiple genetic disorders. For the treatment of loss-of-function diseases, AAV-based gene therapy can often be an effective treatment. AAV is a non-integrating virus that can be used to deliver DNA to a wide range of different cell types in a patient. The virus can be engineered to deliver a functional copy of a gene that is otherwise missing or under-performing in the cell. This approach can, in some cases, restore normal function to the cell and alleviate the symptoms of the disease.

While a number of AAV-based gene therapies appear to be showing great promise in clinical trials, the approach is subject to a number of limitations. Many patients have antibodies in their blood that recognize and inactivate the AAV virus before it can deliver the DNA into the patient’s cells. In addition, among patients who do not have antibodies upon initial treatment with the virus, most will develop antibodies following the first dose. Therefore, in most cases, it is only possible to dose a patient one time. Most importantly, although AAV-based gene therapy can be an effective treatment, it may not be a permanent cure because AAV-delivered genes do not generally persist for more than a few years in the body. While the duration of virus persistence varies from cell-to-cell and from patient-to-patient, it is not believed to be permanent and symptoms of the disease can return once the virus is no longer present in the body.

12

Our Approach to in vivo Gene Correction

Our goal is to cure genetic diseases by correcting the DNA errors responsible for causing them. In principle, in vivo genome editing can likely be used to cure any genetic disorder. In practice, however, in vivo genome editing is limited by several challenges that, we believe, are best addressed using ARCUS:

The potential of ARCUS for in vivo genome editing is highlighted in a July 2018 publication in Nature Biotechnology that describes a research project performed as part of a sponsored research collaboration between our company with Dr. Jim Wilson and the Gene Therapy Program at the University of Pennsylvania. Co-authors of the publication include Derek Jantz and Jeff Smith, two of our co-founders. This publication is, to our knowledge, the first peer-reviewed publication of in vivo genome editing data in NHPs. We reported well-tolerated, long-term, high-efficiency editing of the PCSK9 gene in NHPs using ARCUS. A single IV administration of an AAV vector encoding a PCSK9-specific ARCUS nuclease was able to efficiently knock out the gene in the livers of Rhesus macaques, a species of monkey. Importantly, even at the highest dose the treatment was observed to be well tolerated in the study.

We believe that establishing collaborations with other groups that have additive domain expertise and access to the most relevant animal models will be important to advancing our in vivo gene correction platform, and we have entered into a number of collaborations and licensing agreements with third parties to help us advance our in vivo editing portfolio.

Familial Hypercholesteremia (FH) Development Program (PBGENE-PCSK9)

Our gene editing program for FH seeks to knockout expression of the PCSK9 gene. As published by Wang et al. in Molecular Therapy in June 2021, “Long-term Stable Reduction of Low-density Lipoprotein in Nonhuman Primates Following In Vivo Genome Editing,” NHPs in this 2017 study continue to be monitored for ongoing, sustained reduction in LDL cholesterol levels while maintaining stable gene editing without any obvious adverse effects.  After the one-time vector administration, NHPs treated with ARCUS have experienced stable reductions of up to 82% in PCSK9 protein levels and a 62% reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

13

PCSK9 and LDL Serum Levels

AAV was selected as the delivery technology for PBGENE-PCSK9. The underlying genetic causes of FH result in reduced lipid uptake by the liver, which may impair LNP uptake by hepatocytes.

Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 1 (PH1) Development Program (PBGENE-PH1)

PH1 is a potentially fatal genetic disease caused by a gene mutation that leads to the accumulation of calcium oxalate crystals in the kidneys.  PH1 affects approximately 1-3 people per million in the United States and is caused by loss of function mutations in the AGXT gene. This gene encodes an enzyme which is involved in the production of the amino acid glycine in the liver. In patients with PH1 who lack this enzyme, crystals of calcium oxalate form in the kidneys leading to painful kidney stones which may ultimately lead to renal failure. Approximately 40% of PH1 patients are found to have already progressed to end stage renal disease at the point of diagnosis, requiring a combined liver-kidney transplant.

Using ARCUS, we are developing a potential therapeutic approach to PH1 that involves knocking out a gene called HAO1 which acts upstream of AGXT. Suppressing HAO1 has been shown in preclinical models to prevent the formation of calcium oxalate. We therefore believe that a one-time administration of an ARCUS nuclease targeting HAO1 may be a viable strategy for a durable treatment of PH1 patients. LNP was selected as the delivery technology for PBGENE-PH1 and we expect to file an IND in 2023.

14

In preclinical studies we have demonstrated that ARCUS treatment decreased HAO1 mRNA levels by 98% and decreased Glycolate Oxidase (“GO”) protein levels by 97.9% in NHPs.

Chronic Hepatitis B (PBGENE-HBV)

Current standard-of-care treatments for HBV suppress viral replication, but often do not clear the virus, leaving cccDNA and integrated HBV genomes that enable viral persistence. ARCUS-mediated inactivation of cccDNA and integrated HBV through LNP delivery could result in a functional cure.

To address the challenge of a lack of an in vivo model of human HBV infection, we developed a novel in vivo model for HBV editing based on the similarities of HBV to AAV, in particular, both infect hepatocytes and both establish latency as extrachromosomal circular DNA elements. HBV genome sequences are delivered on an AAV vector and are then deleted by ARCUS delivered by LNP. LNP-ARCUS efficiently edited HBV sequences in an immunodeficient mouse model and a NHP model.

15

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (PBGENE-DMD)

ARCUS genome editing has previously been shown to increase expression of a shortened version of dystrophin in cultured myoblasts from a DMD patient. The approach uses two ARCUS nucleases delivered by a single AAV to simultaneously cut and delete a large segment of the dystrophin gene that encodes exons 45 through 55 of dystrophin – a region of the gene that accounts for more than 50% of DMD-causing mutations.

License and Collaboration Agreements

Eli Lilly and Company

On November 19, 2020, we entered into a development and license agreement, subsequently amended by the First Amendment to the Development and License Agreement dated August 9, 2021 (as amended, the “Development and License Agreement”) with Lilly to collaborate to discover and develop in vivo gene editing products incorporating our ARCUS nucleases. Lilly has initially nominated Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a liver-directed target and a CNS directed target. Under the terms of the Development and License Agreement, Lilly has the right to nominate up to three additional gene targets over the first four years of the Development and License Agreement (the “Nomination Period”). Lilly may extend the Nomination Period for an additional two years from the date on which such initial Nomination Period ends, upon Lilly’s election and payment of an extension fee. Additionally, under the terms of the Development and License Agreement, Lilly has the option to replace up to two gene targets upon Lilly’s election and payment of a replacement target fee. Under the terms of the Development and License Agreement, Lilly will receive an exclusive license to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize the resulting licensed products to diagnose, prevent and treat any and all diseases by in vivo gene editing directed against the applicable gene target. The Development and License Agreement provides that we will be responsible for conducting certain pre-clinical research and IND/CTA enabling activities with respect to the gene targets nominated by Lilly to be subject to the collaboration, including manufacture of initial clinical trial material for the first licensed product. Lilly will be responsible for, and must use commercially reasonable efforts with respect to, conducting clinical development and commercialization activities for licensed products resulting from the collaboration, and may engage us for additional clinical and/or initial commercial manufacture of licensed products.

Upon closing of the Development and License Agreement on January 6, 2021, we received an upfront cash payment of $100.0 million. We will also be eligible to receive milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $420.0 million per licensed product as well as nomination fees for additional targets and certain research funding. If licensed products resulting from the collaboration are approved and sold, we will also be entitled to receive tiered royalties ranging from the mid-single digit percentages to the low-teens percentages on world-wide net sales of the licensed products, subject to customary potential reductions. Lilly’s obligation to pay royalties to us expires on a country-by-country and licensed product-by-licensed product basis, upon the latest to occur of certain events related to expiration of patents, regulatory exclusivity or a period of ten years following first commercial sale of the licensed product. Simultaneously with the entry into the Development and License Agreement, we entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with Lilly

16

(the “Share Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which Lilly purchased 3,762,190 shares of our common stock for a purchase price of $35.0 million.

iECURE

In August 2021, we entered into a development and license agreement with iECURE under which iECURE plans to advance our PBGENE-PCSK9 candidate through preclinical activities as well as a Phase 1 clinical trial as partial consideration for a license to our PCSK9-directed ARCUS nuclease to develop gene-insertion therapies for four other rare genetic diseases, including OTC deficiency, Citrullinemia Type 1, PKU, and another program focused on liver disease (the “iECURE Agreement”).

Pursuant to the iECURE Agreement, we retain the rights to PBGENE-PCSK9, including all products developed for indications with increased risk of severe cardiovascular events such as FH. Simultaneously with the entry into the iECURE Agreement, we entered into an Equity Issuance Agreement with iECURE, pursuant to which iECURE granted us partial equity ownership in iECURE as partial consideration for the license to use our PCSK9-directed ARCUS nuclease.

Servier

In February 2016, we entered into the Servier Agreement with Servier, pursuant to which we agreed to develop allogeneic CAR T cell therapies for five unique antigen targets. One target was selected at the Servier Agreement’s inception. Two additional hematological cancer targets beyond CD19 and two new solid tumor targets were selected in 2020. With the addition of these new targets, we received development milestone payments in 2020. Upon selection of an antigen target under the Servier Agreement, we agreed to perform early-stage research and development on individual T cell modifications for the selected target, develop the resulting therapeutic product candidates through Phase 1 clinical trials and prepare initial clinical trial material of such product candidates for use in Phase 2 clinical trials.

On April 9, 2021, we entered into the Program Purchase Agreement with Servier, pursuant to which we reacquired all of our global development and commercialization rights previously granted to Servier pursuant to the Servier Agreement, and mutually terminated the Servier Agreement.  

Pursuant to the Servier Agreement, we had developed certain allogeneic CAR T candidates, including PBCAR0191 and the stealth cell PBCAR19B, each targeting CD19, as well as four additional product targets (“Servier Targets”).  Pursuant to the Program Purchase Agreement, we regained full global rights to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize products resulting from such programs, with sole control over all activities. Additionally, per the terms of the Program Purchase Agreement we do not have an obligation to continue development of the Servier Targets. With respect to products directed to CD19, Servier has certain rights of negotiation, which may be exercised during a specified time period if we elect to initiate a process or entertain third party offers for partnering such products.

Pursuant to the terms of the Program Purchase Agreement, we made a payment of $1.25 million in cash to Servier and agreed to waive earned milestones totaling $18.75 million that would have been otherwise payable to us.

The Program Purchase Agreement also requires us to make certain payments to Servier based on the achievement of regulatory and commercial milestones for each product, and a low- to mid-single-digit percentage royalty (subject to certain reductions) based on net sales of approved products, if any, resulting from any continued development and commercialization of the programs by us, for a period not to exceed ten years after first commercial sale of the applicable product in the United States or certain countries in Europe. If we enter into specified product partnering transactions, the Program Purchase Agreement requires us to pay to Servier a portion of certain consideration received pursuant to such product partnering transactions in lieu of the foregoing milestones (with the exception of a one-time clinical phase development milestone) and royalties. For additional discussion of accounting for payment obligations arising from the Program Purchase Agreement, refer to Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements, “Commitments and Contingencies.”

Gilead

In July 2020, Gilead Sciences (“Gilead”) notified us of its termination of the collaboration and license agreement dated September 10, 2018, subsequently amended by Amendment No. 1 dated March 10, 2020 or (the “Gilead Agreement”), to develop genome editing tools using ARCUS to target viral DNA associated with the Hepatitis B virus. Pursuant to the termination notice, the Gilead Agreement terminated on September 4, 2020. Upon termination, we regained full rights and all data we generated for the in vivo chronic HBV program developed under the Gilead Agreement.

17

Duke University

In April 2006, we entered into the Duke License, pursuant to which Duke University (“Duke”) granted us an exclusive (subject to certain non-commercial rights reserved by Duke), sublicensable, worldwide license under certain patents related to certain meganucleases and methods of making such meganucleases owned by Duke to develop, manufacture, use and commercialize products and processes that are covered by such patents, in all fields and in all applications. The patents that we license pursuant to the Duke License have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. See Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors— Risks Related to Intellectual Property— Some of our in-licensed intellectual property has been discovered through government funded research and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies, and compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and our ability to contract with foreign manufacturers.”

Under the Duke License, in addition to upfront licensing fees, we are also required to pay Duke (1) a total of $0.3 million in milestone payments, a portion of which we paid upon the completion of our Series A financing, a further portion of which we paid upon our first signed partnership in excess of $1 million, and the remainder of which we will be required to pay upon successful commercialization of human therapeutics, (2) royalties in the low single digit percentages on net sales of licensed products and licensed processes sold by us and our affiliates, subject to certain reductions in certain circumstances, with certain annual minimum royalties, and (3) certain percentages of sublicensing revenue received under sublicenses granted to third parties, which are creditable against annual minimum royalties and are subject to certain reductions in certain circumstances. For sublicenses of non-commercial products, the percentage of sublicensing revenue payable to Duke is in the mid-teen percentages for sublicense revenues owed from royalties received and low double-digits for sublicense revenues owed from non-royalty payments. For sublicenses of commercial products created by us and derivatives thereof, the percentage is determined by the highest negotiated royalty rate in such sublicense. If the highest negotiated royalty rate between us and our sublicensee exceeds a mid-single digit percentage, the percentage of sublicensing revenue payable to Duke will be high single digit, decreasing to low single digit as the highest negotiated royalty rate in such sublicense increases.

The Duke License will expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire patent that is licensed to us. We may terminate the Duke License by providing advance written notice as specified in the Duke License. Either party may terminate the Duke License in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach or for the other party’s fraud, willful misconduct or illegal conduct with respect to the subject matter of the Duke License.

Tiziana

In September 2021, we entered into the Tiziana Agreement to evaluate foralumab as a lymphodepleting agent in conjunction with our allogeneic CAR T cells for the potential treatment of cancers. We intend to investigate foralumab first in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T and plan an IND update in 2022 to enable combination use.

SpringWorks Therapeutics

In September 2020, we entered into a Clinical Trial Collaboration Agreement with SpringWorks. Pursuant to such agreement, PBCAR269A will be evaluated in combination with nirogacestat, SpringWorks’ investigational GSI, in patients with R/R multiple myeloma. Under the terms of the agreement, we will bear all costs with the conduct of the clinical trial including providing PBCAR269A for use in the trial, and SpringWorks is responsible for providing nirogacestat at its sole cost and expense. The first patient was dosed in the combination arm in June 2021.

Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

In January 2018, we entered into a research, collaboration and license agreement with the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”) to collaborate on the preclinical development for gene editing products involving the delivery of an ARCUS nuclease. In April 2020, both parties agreed to coordinate a wind-down of all activities in their entirety under the agreement, effective as of June 2020, however, in August 2020 and subsequently in January 2021, both parties agreed to extend certain portions of the agreement through 2022. We will not be required to make termination payments to Penn.

18

Cellectis S.A.

In January 2014, we entered into a cross-license agreement with Cellectis S.A., which we refer to as the Cellectis License, in connection with a settlement of litigation matters (1) between Cellectis and us and (2) among Cellectis, Duke and us. Cellectis granted us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, fully paid, royalty-free license to certain modified I‑CreI homing endonuclease patents and Cellectis patents asserted in the litigation, to make, use and commercialize modified I-CreI homing nucleases and products developed using such nucleases, in all fields. The license we received from Cellectis is subject to the rights of a preexisting license agreement that Cellectis entered into with a third party, and the license granted to us excludes any rights exclusively granted by Cellectis under such preexisting license, which preexisting license is limited to certain specific applications unrelated to the fields of human therapeutics, for so long as the rights under the preexisting license remain exclusive.

We granted Cellectis a non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free license to certain modified I CreI homing endonuclease patents and our patents asserted in the litigation matters (1) between Cellectis and us and (2) among Cellectis, Duke and us to make, use and commercialize modified I-CreI homing nucleases and products developing using such nucleases, in all fields except those for which we did not receive rights from Cellectis due to the preexisting license.

The Cellectis License will expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of all of the patents licensed to or from each of the parties to the agreement. Either party may terminate any of the licenses granted under the agreement (1) in the event of the other party’s material breach, subject to an opportunity to cure within the time period specified in the Cellectis License, or (2) if the other party directly or indirectly challenges a patent licensed to it by the other party.

Competition

As a diversified life sciences company, we compete in multiple different fields. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. We principally compete with others developing and utilizing genome editing technology in the human health sector, including companies such as Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Beam Therapeutics, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Celgene Corp., Cellectis S.A., CRISPR Therapeutics, AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., and Verve Therapeutics, Inc.

We compete with many biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. We expect that our operations focused on CAR T cell product candidate development and commercialization will face substantial competition from those focusing on immunotherapy solutions. Several companies, including Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Gilead Sciences, Inc. have obtained FDA approval for autologous immunotherapies, and a number of companies, including Cellectis S.A., Celgene Corp., Allogene Therapeutics and CRISPR Therapeutics AG, are pursuing allogeneic immunotherapies. We expect that our operations focused on developing products for in vivo treatment of genetic disease will face substantial competition from others focusing on gene therapy treatments, especially those that may focus on conditions that our product candidates target. Moreover, any human therapeutics products that we may develop will compete with existing standards of care for the diseases and conditions that our product candidates target and other types of treatments, such as small molecule, antibody or protein therapies.

Many of our current or potential competitors in the therapeutics space, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials and marketing approved products than we do. In addition to competing on the bases of safety, efficacy, timing of development and commercialization, convenience, cost, availability of reimbursement and rate of adoption of potential product candidates, we may also compete with these competitors in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, establishing clinical sites, establishing relationships with collaborators or other third parties, registering patients for clinical trials and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our product development platforms. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.  

Furthermore, we rely upon a combination of patents and trade secret protection, as well as license and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our proprietary technologies, product candidate development programs and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to secure and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to the ARCUS nucleases used in our existing allogeneic CAR T immunotherapy and in vivo gene correction programs, as well as any future product candidates. Moreover, the industries in which we operate are characterized by the existence of large numbers of patents and frequent allegations of patent infringement. If, therefore, we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained or in-licensed is not sufficiently

19

broad or if the validity of such patent protection is threatened, we may not be able to compete effectively, as it could create opportunities for competitors to enter the market or dissuade other companies from collaborating with us to develop products and technology, any of which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in any indication for which they are approved.

Intellectual property

Our success depends in part on our abilities to (1) obtain and maintain proprietary protection for ARCUS, (2) defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, (3) preserve the confidentiality of our know-how and trade secrets, and (4) operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, exclusively licensing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications, and filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to ARCUS, existing and planned programs, and improvements that are important to the development of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and confidential information, and the pursuit of licensing opportunities, to develop and maintain our proprietary position and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and others who may have access to proprietary information, under which they are bound to assign to us inventions made during the term of their employment or term of service. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

We cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we have licensed or filed or may license or file in the future, and we cannot be sure that any patents we have licensed or which have been granted to us, or patents that may be licensed or granted to us in the future, will not be challenged, invalidated or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. Moreover, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. While we have confidence in the measures we take to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Our patent portfolio consists of a combination of issued patents and pending patent applications that are owned by us or licensed by us from third parties. As of December 31, 2021, we have an exclusive license from Duke under 12 issued U.S. patents and two pending U.S. patent applications. In addition, as of December 31, 2021, we own 42 issued U.S. patents, 29 pending non-provisional U.S. patent applications, and 17 pending Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) international patent applications. We also exclusively license from Duke or own many corresponding patents and patent applications outside the United States, as described below. We intend to pursue, when possible, additional patent protection, including composition of matter, method of use and process claims, related to ARCUS. We also intend to obtain rights to existing delivery technologies through one or more licenses from third parties.

ARCUS Platform Patent Families

We license one patent family from Duke and own three patent families that are directed to the core technologies employed in our ARCUS platform for nuclease design. Thus, each of our product candidates is protected by one or more patents in these families.

The first family, licensed from Duke, includes 12 issued U.S. patents, nine issued European patents, three issued Japanese patents, and one issued patent in each of Australia and Canada. This family also includes pending patent applications in each of the United States, Europe, Canada, and two pending patent applications in Japan. Patents in this family include claims directed to (1) recombinant meganucleases having altered cleavage specificity, altered heterodimer formation, and/or altered DNA binding affinity, (2) methods for cleaving target recognition sites in DNA using such meganucleases, and (3) methods for producing genetically modified eukaryotic cells using such meganucleases. Patents in this family have a standard expiration date of October 18, 2026, subject to potential extensions.

The second family, which we own, includes four issued U.S. patents, three issued patents in Europe, two issued patents in Japan, and one issued patent in Australia. This family also includes pending patent applications in each of the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Patents in this family include claims directed to (1) recombinant single-chain meganucleases, and (2) methods for producing isolated genetically modified eukaryotic cells using such meganucleases. Patents in this family have a standard expiration date of October 31, 2028, subject to potential extensions.

The third family, which we own, includes three issued patents in the United States, and two issued patents in each of Europe and Australia. This family also includes pending patent applications in each of the United States and Europe. Patents in this family include

20

claims directed to methods of cleaving DNA at specific four base pair sites using a recombinant meganuclease. Patents in this family have a standard expiration date of July 14, 2029, subject to potential extensions.

The fourth family, which we own, includes a pending PCT international patent application and pending patent applications in each of the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Mexico. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to recombinant meganucleases engineered to cleave recognition sequences having specific four base pair sites. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of May 7, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

Immunotherapy Patent Families

We own 23 patent families that are directed to immunotherapy, including CAR T cell therapies. Some of these are applicable to immunotherapies and/or CAR T cells directed to killing a variety of different types of infected or cancerous cells. Others are directed to specific indications in which cells expressing particular antigens are targeted, or methods of manufacturing immunotherapies. Each of our immunotherapy product candidates is protected by one or more patents in these families.

The first family includes nine issued U.S. patents, one issued patent in each of Europe, Australia, Israel, Hong Kong, and Japan, pending patent applications in each of the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea, and two pending patent applications in Israel. Patents in this family include claims directed to (1) populations of genetically modified human T cells in which 20%-65% of the cells have reduced expression of an endogenous TCR and express an anti-cancer antigen CAR from DNA inserted into the cells’ TCR alpha constant region (TRAC) gene, (2) methods for using such populations of genetically modified human T cells for cancer immunotherapy, (3) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such populations of genetically modified human T cells, (4) genetically modified human T cells which have reduced expression of an endogenous TCR and express an anti-cancer antigen CAR from DNA inserted into the cells’ TRAC gene, (5) methods for using such genetically modified human T cells for cancer immunotherapy, and (6) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such genetically modified human T cells. Patents in this family have a standard expiration date of October 5, 2036, subject to potential extensions.

The second family includes one issued patent in each of the United States, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan, two issued patents in Europe, pending patent applications in each of the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) first-generation recombinant meganucleases that cleave a target in the TRAC gene, (2) nucleic acids and vectors encoding such recombinant meganucleases, (3) methods for producing genetically modified eukaryotic cells, including CAR T cells, using such meganucleases, and (4) methods of using such genetically modified eukaryotic cells for cancer immunotherapy. Patents in this family will have a standard expiration date of October 5, 2036, subject to potential extensions.

The third family pending patent applications in each of the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) second-generation engineered meganucleases that cleave a specific target in the TRAC gene, (2) nucleic acids and vectors encoding such recombinant meganucleases, (3) methods for producing genetically modified eukaryotic cells, including CAR T cells, using such meganucleases, (4) genetically modified eukaryotic cells or populations of cells prepared by such methods, (5) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such cells or populations of cells, and (6) methods of treating diseases using such cells, populations of cells or pharmaceutical compositions to treat diseases, including cancer immunotherapy. Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of April 11, 2039, subject to potential extensions.

The fourth family includes one issued patent in each of the United States, Europe, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan, pending patent applications in Europe, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and Japan, and two pending patent applications in the United States. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) nucleic acids encoding co-stimulatory domains having certain amino acid sequences, (2) recombinant DNA constructs and vectors comprising such nucleic acids, (3) nucleic acids and vectors encoding such recombinant meganucleases, (4) genetically modified cells comprising such nucleic acids, (5) methods for producing such genetically modified cells, (6) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such cells, and (7) methods of immunotherapy using such cells. Patents in this family have a standard expiration date of October 4, 2037, subject to potential extensions.

The fifth family includes pending patent applications in the United States and Europe. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) methods of reducing cytotoxicity associated with DNA transfection in primary eukaryotic cells, (2) methods for increasing the number of gene-edited primary eukaryotic cells following DNA transfection, (3) methods for increasing gene editing frequency in primary eukaryotic cells following DNA transfection, (4) methods for increasing the number of primary eukaryotic cells comprising targeted insertion of an exogenous sequence of interest into the genome following DNA transfection, (5) methods for increasing insertion frequency of an exogenous sequence of interest into the genome in primary eukaryotic cells following DNA transfection, (6) methods for high throughput screening of primary human T cells expressing a CAR or exogenous TCR, (7) methods for high throughput screening of primary human T cells expressing a CAR or exogenous TCR, and (8) genetically modified primary eukaryotic cells produced by such methods. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of April 30, 2038, subject to potential extensions.

21

The sixth family includes one issued patent in each of Europe and Japan, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada and Japan. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) recombinant meganucleases that recognize and cleave a recognition sequence within the human β2m gene, (2) nucleic acids and vectors encoding such recombinant meganucleases, (3) methods for producing genetically modified eukaryotic cells, including CAR T cells, using such meganucleases, (4) populations of genetically modified eukaryotic cells in which 80% of the cells have reduced expression of an endogenous TCR and 80% of the cells have reduced expression of β2m, (5) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such populations of genetically modified eukaryotic cells, and (6) methods for using such genetically modified eukaryotic cells for cancer immunotherapy. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of December 22, 2036, subject to potential extensions.

The seventh family includes one issued patent in the United States, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and Japan. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) nucleic acids encoding an engineered antigen receptor (e.g., a CAR) and an inhibitory molecule (e.g., an RNA interfering with β2m expression), (2) genetically modified eukaryotic cells comprising such nucleic acids, (3) methods for producing such genetically modified eukaryotic cells using such nucleic acids and an engineered nuclease that promotes insertion of such nucleic acids, (4) genetically modified eukaryotic cells expressing an engineered antigen receptor and having expression of β2m or MHC Class I molecules reduced by 10%-95%, (5) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such genetically modified eukaryotic cells, and (6) methods for using such genetically modified eukaryotic cells for immunotherapy. Patents in this family have a standard expiration date of May 8, 2038, subject to potential extensions.

The eighth family includes one issued patent in the United States, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and Japan. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) engineered meganucleases that recognize and cleave a recognition sequence in an upstream intron of the human TRAC gene, (2) nucleic acids and vectors encoding such engineered meganucleases, (3) methods for producing genetically modified T cells using such nucleic acids or vectors, (4) genetically modified T cells in which an exogenous sequence is inserted into an upstream intron of the human TRAC gene and endogenous TCR expression is reduced, (5) populations of such genetically modified T cells, (6) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such genetically modified T cells, and (7) methods of treating disease using such genetically modified T cells and pharmaceutical compositions, including cancer immunotherapy. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of June 27, 2038, subject to potential extensions.

The ninth family includes pending patent applications in the United States and Europe. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) nucleic acids and vectors encoding certain modified human epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFRs, (2) genetically modified cells and populations of cells, including T cells and CAR T cells, expressing such modified EGFRs, (3) methods for producing such genetically modified cells using such nucleic acids or vectors encoding such modified EGFRs, (4) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such genetically modified cells, (5) methods for isolating such genetically modified cells, (6) methods of treating disease using such genetically modified cells and pharmaceutical compositions, including cancer immunotherapy, and (7) methods of depleting such genetically modified cells in a subject using anti-modified EGFR antibodies. Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of October 3, 2038, subject to potential extensions.

The tenth family includes a pending PCT international patent application, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, and Canada. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) methods for preparing genetically-modified immune cells, (2) populations of genetically-modified immune cells, (3) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such populations of genetically-modified immune cells, (4) methods of treating a disease using such populations of genetically-modified immune cells, (5) lipid nanoparticle compositions, and (6) kits for transfecting a eukaryotic cell with mRNA. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of April 3, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

The eleventh family includes two issued patents in the United States, a pending PCT international patent application, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) a genetically-modified immune cell comprising in its genome a nucleic acid sequence encoding a microRNA-adapted shRNA, (2) a method for reducing the expression of an endogenous protein in an immune cell, (3) immune cells made by such methods, (4) populations of such immune cells, (5) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such populations of immune cells, and (6) methods of immunotherapy for treating a disease in a subject. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of April 3, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

The twelfth family includes a pending PCT international patent application.  Patent applications in this family include claims directed to methods of immunotherapy comprising administering to a subject a CD3 antibody, or antigen binding fragment thereof, that binds CD3 for the purpose of lymphodepletion, in combination with the administration of genetically-modified T cells that do not have detectable CD3 expression on the cell surface.  Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of August 20, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

22

The thirteenth family includes a pending PCT international patent application.  Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) polynucleotides encoding a CD20-specific chimeric antigen receptor, (2) methods of producing a genetically-modified T cell comprising such polynucleotides, (3) a genetically-modified T cell comprising such polynucleotides, (4) populations of such genetically-modified T cells, (5) pharmaceutical compositions comprising such genetically-modified T cells or populations, and (6) methods of immunotherapy for treating cancer in a subject.  Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of October 30, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

The fourteenth family includes a pending PCT international patent application.  Patent applications in this family include claims directed to a method of immunotherapy for treating cancer in a subject.  Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of December 3, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

The fifteenth family includes a pending PCT international patent application.  Patent applications in this family include claims directed to methods for reducing the number of target cells, such as cancer cells, in a subject.  Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of May 14, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

The sixteenth family includes a pending PCT international patent application.  Patent applications in this family include claims directed to a method for reducing the number of target cells, such as cancer cells, in a subject.  Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of May 14, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

The seventeenth family includes a pending PCT international patent application.  Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) an isolated antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, that specifically binds to BCMA, (2) a pharmaceutical composition comprising such an antibody, (3) a polynucleotide encoding such an antibody, and an expression vector comprising the same, (5) a method of treating cancer in a subject, (6) a polynucleotide comprising a nucleic acid sequence encoding a chimeric antigen receptor having an anti-BCMA binding domain, (7) a genetically-modified eukaryotic cell comprising such a polynucleotide, (8) a method for producing such a genetically-modified eukaryotic cell, (9) a population of such genetically-modified eukaryotic cells, (10) a pharmaceutical composition comprising such a population, and (11) a method for treating cancer in a subject.  Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of August 10, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

The eighteenth family includes a pending PCT international patent application.  Patent applications in this family include claims directed to (1) a lipid nanoparticle composition, (2) a method for transfecting a population of eukaryotic cells, (3) a method for introducing a nucleic acid into a population of eukaryotic cells, (4) a population of such eukaryotic cells, (5) a pharmaceutical composition comprising such a population, and (6) a method for reducing the number of target cells in a subject.  Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of October 6, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

We own five additional patent families that include pending provisional patent applications in the United States that are directed to immunotherapies, including CAR T cell therapies, or to technologies that are useful for the manufacture of immunotherapies. We jointly own one patent family that includes a pending PCT international patent application directed to immunotherapies. We jointly own one patent family that includes two pending provisional patent applications in the United States. We will determine in the future whether to pursue each of these applications.

Other Patent Families

We own three patent families directed to gene therapy for HBV. The first family includes two issued patents in each of the United States and Japan, one issued patent in South Korea, pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eurasia, Guatemala, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and Vietnam, and two pending patent applications in Hong Kong. Patents in this family will have a standard expiration date of October 13, 2037, subject to potential extensions. The second family includes one issued US patent, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Taiwan and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of April 11, 2039, or April 12, 2039, subject to potential extensions. The third family includes a pending PCT international patent application. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of December 4, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting the PCSK9 gene, which is associated with familial hypercholesterolemia. This family includes pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of April 20, 2038, subject to potential extensions.

We own two patent families directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting the rhodopsin gene, which is associated with retinitis pigmentosa. The first family includes two issued patents in the United States, one issued patent in each of Australia and Japan, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan. Patents in this family

23

will have a standard expiration date of September 8, 2036, subject to potential extensions. The second family includes a pending PCT international patent application. Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of May 11, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

We own two patent families that are directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting the hydroxyacid oxidase 1 gene, which is associated with primary hyperoxaluria 1. The first family includes pending patent applications in the United States and Europe. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of December 20, 2039, subject to potential extensions. The second family includes three pending US provisional patent applications.  Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of January 8, 2042, subject to potential extensions.  

We own two patent families that are directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting the Factor VIII gene, which is associated with Hemophilia A. The first family includes one issued patent in Europe, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan. Patents in this family will have a standard expiration date of May 3, 2037, subject to potential extensions. The second family includes pending patent applications in the United States and Europe. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of November 1, 2038, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting the ApoC3 gene, which is associated with diseases resulting from abnormal triglyceride synthesis. This family includes a pending provisional patent application in the United States. Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of August 16, 2042, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting the transthyretin (“TTR”) gene, which is associated with TTR amyloidosis. This family includes a pending PCT international patent application. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of August 20, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

We own two patent families directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting the dystrophin gene, which is associated with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. The first family includes one issued patent in each of Europe and Japan, and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan. Patents in this family will have a standard expiration date of March 12, 2035, subject to potential extensions. The second family includes a pending provisional patent application in the United States and a pending PCT international patent application. Patent applications in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of November 12, 2041.

We own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treatment targeting genomic nucleotide repeats, which are associated with several nucleotide repeat disorders. This family includes one issued patent in Europe, and pending patent applications in the United States and Europe. Patents in this family will have a standard expiration date of May 2, 2036, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases and methods of treating alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency.  This family includes six pending provisional patent applications in the United States.  Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of October 19, 2042.

We own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases that target mitochondrial genomes and methods of treating mitochondrial disorders.  This family includes four pending provisional patent applications in the United States.  Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of April 22, 2042.

We jointly own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases that target mitochondrial genomes and methods of treating mitochondrial disorders.  This family includes three pending provisional patent applications in the United States.  Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of April 22, 2042.

We jointly own one patent family directed to methods for generating male sterile plants.  This family includes one pending provisional patent application in the United States.  Patents in this family, if issued, will likely have a standard expiration date of April 22, 2042.  

We license from Duke one patent family directed to engineered fusion proteins comprising engineered meganuclease domains and effector domains which may be useful in controlling gene expression. This patent family includes one pending patent application in the United States. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of October 18, 2026, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to engineered meganucleases that target amplifiable genetic loci and may be useful in producing cells with amplified transgenes. This family includes two issued patents in Europe, one issued patent in the United States, and pending

24

patent applications in each of the United States and Europe. Patents in this family will have a standard expiration date of June 1, 2032, subject to potential extensions.

We own two patent families directed to self-limiting viral vectors (e.g., AAV vectors) that encode engineered meganucleases which eliminate the vector after gene delivery. The first family includes one issued patent in the United States, and pending patent applications in each of the United States and Europe. Patents in this family will have a standard expiration date of June 20, 2036, subject to potential extensions. The second family includes one pending PCT international patent application. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of May 10, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to compositions and methods for sequential stacking of nucleic acid sequences into a genomic locus. This family includes a pending PCT international patent application. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of July 24, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to eukaryotic cells comprising a modified transferrin gene that includes an exogenous nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide of interest. This family includes pending patent applications in each of the United States and Europe. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of January 10, 2040, subject to potential extensions.

We own one patent family directed to methods for separation of empty and full AAV capsids during manufacturing. This family includes a pending PCT international patent application. Patents in this family, if issued, will have a standard expiration date of February 5, 2041, subject to potential extensions.

We own an issued patent in the United States directed to engineered meganucleases which target a genetic locus in maize and methods for genetically modifying that locus in maize. That patent has a standard expiration date of March 2, 2029, subject to potential extensions.

For any individual patent, the term depends on the applicable law in the country in which the patent is granted. In most countries where we have filed patent applications or in-licensed patents and patent applications, patents have a term of 20 years from the application filing date or earliest claimed non-provisional priority date. In the United States, the patent term is 20 years but may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent that expires earlier. The term of a U.S. patent may also be lengthened by a patent term adjustment to address administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) in granting a patent.

In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic may be eligible for patent term extension in order to restore the period of a patent term lost during the premarket FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the natural expiration of the patent. The patent term restoration period is generally equal to the portion of the FDA regulatory review period for the approved product that occurs after the date the patent issued, subject to certain exceptions. Only one patent may be extended for a regulatory review period for any product, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. In the future, we may decide to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to extend its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical studies and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant Biologics License Application (“BLA”).

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. If we are required to and unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners to enforce any patents that issue from such patent applications against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. We or our licensors are subject to and may also become a party to similar proceedings or priority disputes in Europe or other foreign jurisdictions.

Our trademark portfolio currently contains two registered trademarks in the United States, including ARCUS and ARC nuclease. We also own registered trademarks for both ARCUS and ARC nuclease in Europe, China and Australia, and a registered trademark for ARCUS in Canada. Additionally, we own pending trademark applications for Precision BioSciences and the Precision BioSciences logo in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, and the United Kingdom (“UK”), pending trademark applications for Evade, PBStealth, StealthCAR, and StealthCAR T in the United States, and pending trademark applications for Precision Biotechnology in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Japan, and Mexico.

25

Licensed Intellectual Property

Duke University

In April 2006, we exclusively licensed from Duke families of patents and patent applications related to certain meganucleases and methods of making such nucleases owned by Duke. The patent family covered by the Duke License comprises the core patents covering ARCUS described above. See “—License and Collaboration Agreements—Duke University” above for additional information regarding the Duke License.

Cellectis S.A.

In January 2014, we entered into the Cellectis License, which relates to certain modified I-CreI homing endonuclease patents and patents that had been subject to litigation between us and Cellectis. The patents to which we have rights under the cross-license include at least eight issued patents in each of the United States and Australia, seven issued patents in Europe, two issued patents in Canada and one issued patent in Japan. These patents have standard expiration dates prior to January 29, 2034, subject to potential extensions. See “—License and Collaboration Agreements—Cellectis S.A.” above for additional information regarding the Cellectis License.

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 biological product candidates 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 product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Biologics Regulation

The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

26

Prior to beginning the first 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. A central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. 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 according to the proposed clinical protocol including the proposed dose level(s). 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, within the 30-day time 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 submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight of institutional biosafety committees, or IBCs, as set forth in the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an 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. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

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. While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, and any clinically important increased rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Furthermore, for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial an independent IRB must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and the 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 clinical studies 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 or be combined:

27

Development of new treatments for cancer and genetic diseases often combine phase 1 and phase 2 trials as the treatment is studied in limited patient population with the specified disease. 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. 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, potency, 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.

BLA Submission and Review by the FDA

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 and clinical studies, 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 a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial user fee to FDA, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee. These fees are typically increased annually. A waiver of user fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the application also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews all NDAs and BLAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA or BLA for filing. In this event, the NDA or BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. 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’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation will direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for product candidates that, if approved, would represent significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. 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 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 involved in the pivotal studies submitted in the BLA to assure compliance with GCP.

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 (“CRL”) if the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable. In the CRL, the FDA will outline the deficiencies in the BLA submission and often will request additional information or testing that the applicant might perform to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. Note that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the CRL without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots, and/or reviewing proposed labeling. The FDA may delay or refuse 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.

28

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 the requirement that a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) be established to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks when used according to the approved label. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine 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, required prescriber training, 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 IV 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. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”) requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most biologics, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, BLAs and supplements thereto must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product has been determined safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the biologic is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a noncompliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

A sponsor may seek approval of its product candidate under programs designed to accelerate FDA’s review and approval of new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. For a fast track product candidate, the FDA may consider sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. A fast track designated product candidate may also qualify for priority review, under which the FDA sets the target date for FDA action on the BLA at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review is granted pending availability of FDA review resources for the expedited review and when there is evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious disease or condition.

A product candidate 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 candidate can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, 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 candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation or breakthrough therapy designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as accelerated approval. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may approve a BLA on a determination that the biologic has an effect on either 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. Post-marketing studies or completion of ongoing studies after marketing approval are generally required to verify the biologic’s clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the 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. FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval on an expedited basis if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product or the sponsor fails to conduct such confirmatory trials in a timely manner.

29

The Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”), designation facilitates an efficient development program for, and expedites review of, any drug that meets the following criteria:  (1) it 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; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. Like breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Product candidates 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. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence (such as electronic health records); through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy.

Fast track designation, priority review, breakthrough therapy designation and RMAT designation 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 shortened.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States and when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient within the product for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same active ingredient 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 or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug 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 user fee.

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

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. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. 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 cGMP, 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 cGMP 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 cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

30

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:

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 Exclusivity

The Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

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, can be 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.

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 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.

31

Foreign Regulation

To market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution 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 of 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. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Non-clinical studies and clinical trials

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union, (“EU”), are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new biological substances. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (“GLP”), as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization (“ICH”) guidelines on GCPs. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical trials of advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”). If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an entity within the EU to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most countries, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate CTA to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.  

Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”). Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

32

Marketing authorization

To market a medicinal product in the EU, we must obtain a marketing authorization (“MA”). To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application (“MAA”). The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

Under the above described procedures, in order to grant the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EU member states make an assessment of the risk benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Priority medicines scheme

Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the so-called Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S.  PRIME was launched in 2016 by the EMA to support the development and accelerate the review of new therapies to treat patients with unmet medical need. This voluntary scheme is based on enhanced interaction and early dialogue with developers of promising medicines, to optimize development plans and speed up evaluation so these medicines can reach patients earlier. To qualify for PRIME, product candidates require early clinical evidence that the therapy has the potential to offer a therapeutic advantage over existing treatments or benefits patients without treatment options. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is not guaranteed. 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 accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the CHMP

33

is appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. An initial meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Innovative medicines fulfilling a medical need may also benefit from different types of fast track approvals, such as a conditional marketing authorization or a marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances granted on the basis of less comprehensive clinical data than normally required (respectively in the likelihood that the sponsor will provide such data within an agreed timeframe or when comprehensive data cannot be obtained even after authorization).

Advanced therapy classification

Based on legislation adopted in 2007, the EMA established an additional regulatory designation for products classified as an ATMP. The ATMP designation offers sponsors a variety of benefits similar to those associated with the PRIME scheme, including scientific and regulatory guidance, additional opportunities for dialogue with regulators, and presubmission review and certification of the chemistry, manufacturing and controls (“CMC”) and nonclinical data proposed for submission in a forthcoming MA applications for micro-, small-, or medium-sized enterprises. To qualify for this designation, product candidates intended for human use must be based on gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, or tissue engineered therapy.

Data and marketing exclusivity

In the EU, new products authorized for marketing, or reference products, generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

There is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product, for example, because of differences in raw materials or manufacturing processes.  For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided, and guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product. There are no such guidelines for complex biological products, such as gene or cell therapy medicinal products, and so it is unlikely that biosimilars of those products will currently be approved in the EU. However, guidance from the EMA states that they will be considered in the future in light of the scientific knowledge and regulatory experience gained at the time.

Pediatric development

In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”), agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all EU member states and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of authorization) or, in the case of orphan products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity.

Orphan Medicinal Products

In the EU, a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan if its sponsor can establish that (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; and (2) either (a) such condition affects not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) without incentives, it is unlikely that the marketing of the product in the EU would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

In the EU, an application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of a MAA. Orphan drug designation entitles a party to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized procedure.

34

Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indications, which means the competent authorities, cannot accept another application for a MA, or grant a MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar medicinal product for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The orphan exclusivity period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity, or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Granting of an authorization for another similar orphan medicinal product where another product has market exclusivity can happen at any time if: (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar to the authorized product, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior, (ii) inability of the applicant  to supply sufficient quantities of the orphan medicinal product or (iii) where the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the orphan register.

Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the member states. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”).

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. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.  

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with 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.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

The UK left the EU on January 31, 2020, following which existing EU medicinal product legislation continued to apply in the UK during the transition period under the terms of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The transition period, which ended on December 31, 2020, maintained access to the EU single market and to the global trade deals negotiated by the EU on behalf of its members. The transition period provided time for the UK and EU to negotiate a framework for partnership for the future, which was then crystallized in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), and became effective on the January 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations.

35

EU laws which have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation continue to be applicable as “retained EU law”. However, new legislation such as the EU CTR will not be applicable. The UK government has passed a new Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which introduces delegated powers in favor of the Secretary of State or an ‘appropriate authority’ to amend or supplement existing regulations in the area of medicinal products and medical devices. This allows new rules to be introduced in the future by way of secondary legislation, which aims to allow flexibility in addressing regulatory gaps and future changes in the fields of human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices.

As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”), is the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, different rules will apply in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland (together “Great Britain” or “GB”); broadly, Northern Ireland will continue to follow the EU regulatory regime, but its national competent authority will remain the MHRA. The MHRA has published a guidance on how various aspects of the UK regulatory regime for medicines will operate in GB and in Northern Ireland following the expiry of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020. The guidance includes clinical trials, importing, exporting, and pharmacovigilance and is relevant to any business involved in the research, development, or commercialization of medicines in the UK. The new guidance was given effect via the Human Medicines Regulations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, or the Exit Regulations.

The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment and a rolling review procedure. All existing EU MAs for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into UK MAs, effective in GB (only), free of charge on January 1, 2021, unless the MA holder chooses to opt-out. In order to use the centralized procedure to obtain a MA that will be valid throughout the EEA, companies must be established in the EEA. Therefore after Brexit, companies established in the UK can no longer use the EU centralized procedure and instead an EEA entity must hold any centralized MAs. In order to obtain a UK MA to commercialize products in the UK, an applicant must be established in the UK and must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures to obtain an MA to commercialize products in the UK. The MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new (centralized procedure) MA when determining an application for a GB authorization; or use the MHRA’s decentralized or mutual recognition procedures which enable MAs approved in EU member states (or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) to be granted in GB.

There will be no pre-MA orphan designation. Instead, the MHRA will review applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding MA application. The criteria are essentially the same, but have been tailored for the market, i.e., the prevalence of the condition in GB, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Should an orphan designation be granted, the period or market exclusivity will be set from the date of first approval of the product in GB.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation under various federal and state healthcare laws including, among others, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act and HIPAA. Similar laws exist in foreign jurisdictions including the EU, as well.

The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. A person does not need to have knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation.

The U.S. federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, and civil monetary penalties laws, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. government. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act.

The U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

36

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician practitioners including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually to CMS certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

Moreover, analogous state and foreign laws and regulations may apply to our activities, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by the patients themselves, state laws that require pharmaceutical and device companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources, state and local laws and regulations that require manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing information, and state and local laws which require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Efforts to ensure that current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involves substantial costs. If a business is found to be in violation of any of these or any other health regulatory laws that may apply to it, it may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of operations.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status for newly approved therapeutics. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. 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. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Moreover, the coverage provided may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA. It is also possible that a third-party payor may consider a product as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Adequate third-party payor reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

In the EU, governments influence the price of products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Member states are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed to by the government. Member states may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the pharmaceutical product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

37

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively the ACA, enacted in March 2010, has substantially changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers. Among other things the ACA included the following provisions:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states on procedural grounds without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision. President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other health reform measures of the Biden administration will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, included reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Finally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies, rebates and price negotiation for pharmaceutical products. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product and medical device pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and medical devices to purchase and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs.

38

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, 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 data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws, including HIPAA, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the FTC Act), that 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. In addition, certain state foreign laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the UK GDPR, govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. 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.

Human Capital

We are a purpose-driven organization, and we believe we have carefully promoted a culture that values innovation, accountability, respect, adaptability and perseverance. We strive to ensure that our open, collaborative culture empowers Precisioneers to be their best selves and do their best work. We strongly believe that our shared values will help our team navigate and overcome challenges we may experience as we pursue our mission of improving life through genome editing. Our culture has helped build a world-class team with industry-leading experience in genome editing and we believe this will continue to attract new talent to further build our capabilities. Our team is a group of motivated individuals that value the opportunity to contribute their time and talents toward the pursuit of improving life. We believe all Precisioneers appreciate high-quality research and are moved by the opportunity to translate their work into treatments and solutions that could impact human health.

We are a company and a community dedicated to improving life. This isn’t just a statement supporting the products that we are developing – it is a statement that speaks to our collective desire to do our part in improving the lives of those around us. Through our Diversity and Inclusion initiative, we are actively fostering an environment that attracts the best talent, values diversity of life experiences and perspectives, and encourages innovation in pursuit of our mission. With guest lectures, new trainings, development of employee resource groups, and other activities, we are supporting a workplace that reflects and embraces the gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, as well as all cultural backgrounds in our community. As of February 24, 2022, our workforce was self-reportedly approximately 49% women and approximately 27% Asian, Black, Latinx, two or more races, or not defined. Our senior leadership team and department heads were self-reportedly approximately 28% women and 12% Asian or Black as of February 25, 2021.

Notable benefits we offer to our full-time Precisioneers include:

The health and safety of our Precisioneers is also a top priority. The global effects associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have been unprecedented in their scope and depth. We have implemented measures to mitigate exposure risks and support operations. We initiated a health and safety program addressing mandatory use of face masks, mandatory vaccinations, social distancing, sanitary handwashing practices, use of personal protective equipment stations, stringent cleaning and sanitization of all facilities and measures to reduce total occupancy in facilities. We have implemented temperature and symptom screening procedures at each location, and we have continuously communicated to all our Precisioneers that if they are not comfortable coming to work, regardless of role, then they do not have to do so. Throughout this crisis, our focus has been on keeping our workplace as safe as possible, while ensuring business continuity and positioning ourselves well for the future.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 198 full-time Precisioneers. Of these full-time employees, 156 are engaged in research and development activities and 45 have Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

39

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in January 2006. Our principal executive offices are located at 302 East Pettigrew St., Suite A-100, Durham, North Carolina 27701, and our telephone number is (919) 314-5512. Our website address is www.precisionbiosciences.com. The information contained in, or accessible through, our website does not constitute a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Our SEC filings are available to the public over the Internet at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Our SEC filings are also available free of charge under the Investors and Media section of our website at www.precisionbiosciences.com as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with or furnished to the SEC. Our website and the information contained on or connected to that site are not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We may use our website as a distribution channel of material information about the Company. Financial and other important information regarding the Company is routinely posted on and accessible through the Investors and Media section of our website at www.precisionbiosciences.com. In addition, you may automatically receive email alerts and other information about the Company when you enroll your email address by visiting the “Email Alerts” option under Investor Tools of the Investors and Media section of our website at www.precisionbiosciences.com.

40

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Before investing in our common stock, you should consider carefully the risks described below, together with the other information included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The occurrence of any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition, Limited Operating History and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. We have not been profitable and may not achieve or maintain profitability.

We do not expect to be profitable in the foreseeable future. Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. If our product candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any revenue from product sales. Our net loss was $30.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and we reported a net loss of $109.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $316.7 million. In addition, we have not commercialized any products and have never generated any revenue from product sales. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development activities, including our preclinical development activities, and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We have financed our operations primarily through proceeds from upfront and milestone payments from collaboration and licensing agreements, our IPO, private placements of our convertible preferred stock and convertible debt financings, at-the-market offerings of common stock, and borrowings on credit facilities. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the amount and growth rate of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues.

All of our current or future product candidates will require substantial additional development time and resources before we may realize revenue from product sales, if at all. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our expenses have increased and we anticipate will continue to increase substantially if and as we:

It will be several years, if ever, before we obtain regulatory approval for, and are ready for commercialization of, a therapeutic product candidate. Even if a therapeutic product candidate receives regulatory approval, future revenues for such product candidate will depend upon many factors, such as, as applicable, the size of any markets in which such product candidate is approved for sale, the market share captured by such product candidate, including as a result of the market acceptance of such product candidate and the effectiveness of manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution operations related to such product candidate, the terms of any collaboration or other strategic arrangement we may have with respect to such product candidate and levels of reimbursement from third-party payors. If we are unable to develop and commercialize one or more product candidates either alone or with collaborators, or if revenues from any product candidate that receives marketing approval or is commercialized are insufficient, we may not achieve

41

profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability. If we are unable to achieve and maintain profitability, the value of our common stock will be materially adversely affected.

We will need substantial additional funding, and if we are unable to raise a sufficient amount of capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some or all of our research programs, product development activities and commercialization efforts.

The process of identifying product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is time consuming, expensive, uncertain and takes years to complete. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we identify, continue the research and development of, initiate and continue clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, product candidates. In addition, if any therapeutic product candidate that we develop alone or with collaborators obtains marketing approval, we may incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution efforts. Furthermore, we have incurred, and expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise sufficient capital when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate current or future research programs, product development activities and/or commercialization efforts.

We believe that, as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, existing cash and cash equivalents, expected operational receipts and available credit will allow us to fund our operating expense and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2023. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our operating plans and other demands on our cash resources may change as a result of many factors, including factors unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations. We do not currently expect future grant revenues to be a material source of revenue.

Attempting to secure additional financing may divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop product candidates. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may continue to seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or in light of specific strategic considerations. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding on a timely basis or on favorable terms, we may be required to significantly delay, reduce or eliminate one or more of our research or product development programs and/or commercialization efforts. We may also be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities as desired. Any of these events could materially adversely affect our financial condition and business prospects.

42

Provisions of our debt instruments may restrict our ability to pursue our business strategies.

In May 2019, the Company entered into a loan and security agreement with Pacific Western Bank (“PWB”), (as subsequently amended, the “Revolving Line”). Pursuant to the terms of the Revolving Line, we may request advances on a revolving line of credit of up to an aggregate principal of $30.0 million and the maturity date of the Revolving Line is June 23, 2023. As of December 31, 2021, we had $2.5 million in borrowings under our Revolving Line. Pursuant to the terms of the Revolving Line, we granted PWB a security interest in substantially all of our assets, excluding any of the intellectual property now or hereafter owned, acquired or received by us (but including any rights to payment from the sale or licensing of any such intellectual property).  

The Revolving Line requires us, and any debt instruments we may enter into in the future may require us, to comply with various covenants that limit our ability to, among other things:

These restrictions could inhibit our ability to pursue our business strategies. In addition, we are subject to financial covenants based on minimum cash balances.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity and/or debt financings and collaborations, licensing agreements or other strategic arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, including in at-the-market offerings, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of such securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. To the extent that we raise additional capital through debt financing, it would result in increased fixed payment obligations and a portion of our operating cash flows, if any, being dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness. In addition, debt financing may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that impose operating restrictions, such as restrictions on the incurrence of additional debt, the making of certain capital expenditures or the declaration of dividends. To the extent we raise additional capital through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise, we may be required to relinquish some of our technologies, research programs, product development activities, product candidates and/or future revenue streams, license our technologies and/or product candidates on unfavorable terms or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us. Furthermore, any capital raising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to advance research programs, product development activities or product candidates.

We have a limited operating history, which makes it difficult to evaluate our current business and future prospects and may increase the risk of your investment.

We are a genome editing company with a limited operating history. We formed our company in 2006 and spent the first nine years of our company’s history developing and refining our core technology, and only during the past several years have we focused our efforts on advancing the development of product candidates.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative endeavor. It entails substantial upfront capital expenditures, and there is significant risk that any product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, obtain any required regulatory approvals or become commercially viable. Our genome editing platform and the technologies we are using are new and unproven. We have initiated a Phase 1/2a clinical trial in patients with R/R NHL and R/R B-ALL, a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with NHL and a Phase 1/2a clinical trial in patients with R/R multiple myeloma. We have not yet

43

demonstrated an ability to successfully complete any clinical trials, obtain any required marketing approvals, manufacture products, conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities, or arrange for a third party to do any of the foregoing on our behalf. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing products.

Additionally, we encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by new and growing companies in rapidly developing and changing industries, including challenges in forecasting accuracy, determining appropriate investments of our limited resources, gaining market acceptance of our technology, managing a complex regulatory landscape and developing new product candidates, which may make it more difficult to evaluate our likelihood of success. Our current operating model may require changes in order for us to adjust to these challenges or scale our operations efficiently. Our limited operating history, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving nature of the biopharmaceutical industry and the genome editing field, may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and business prospects or to predict our future performance. Additionally, due to the stage of our operations, we expect that our financial condition and operating results may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter as a result of many factors as we build our business, and you should not rely upon the results of any particular quarterly or annual period as indications of future operating performance.

We may expend our limited resources on pursuing particular research programs or product candidates that may be less successful or profitable than other programs or product candidates.

Research programs to identify new product candidates and product development platforms require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs, product candidates or product development platforms that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. Any time, effort and financial resources we expend on identifying and researching new product candidates and product development platforms may divert our attention from, and adversely affect our ability to continue, development and commercialization of existing research programs, product candidates and product development platforms. Clinical trials of any of our product candidates may never commence despite the expenditure of significant resources in pursuit of their development, and our spending on current and future research and development programs, product candidates and product development platforms may not yield any commercially viable products. As a result of having limited financial and managerial resources, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities that later prove to have greater commercial potential. For example, in 2021 we entered into an agreement with a syndicate of investors to separate from our wholly owned subsidiary, Elo Life Systems, and create an independent new food and agriculture business. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to timely capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Additionally, if we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other strategic arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Risks Related to the Identification, Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

ARCUS is a novel technology, making it difficult to predict the time, cost and potential success of product candidate development. We have not yet been able to assess the safety and efficacy of most of our product candidates in humans and have only limited safety and efficacy information in humans to date regarding three of our product candidates.

Our success depends on our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates using our novel genome editing technology. The novel nature of our technology makes it difficult to accurately predict the developmental challenges we may face for product candidates as they proceed through research, preclinical studies and clinical trials. There have been a limited number of clinical trials of products created with genome editing technologies, four of which have utilized our technology. Because our therapeutic research programs are all in preclinical or early clinical stages, we have only been able to assess limited safety and efficacy data for one of our product candidates in a human trial. Current or future product candidates may not meet safety and efficacy requirements for continued development or ultimate approval in humans and may cause significant adverse events or toxicities. All of our product candidates are designed to act at the level of DNA, and because animal DNA differs from human DNA, it will be difficult for us to test our therapeutic product candidates in animal models for either safety or efficacy, and any testing that we conduct may not translate to their effects in humans. Moreover, animal models may not exist for some of the targets, diseases or indications that we intend to pursue. Our product candidates may not be able to properly implement desired genetic edits with sufficient accuracy to be viable therapeutic products, and there may be long-term effects associated with them that we cannot predict at this time. Any problems we experience related to the development of our genome editing technology or any of our or our collaborators’ research programs or product candidates may cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, and we may not be able to satisfactorily solve such problems. These factors may prevent us or our collaborators from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we or our collaborators have ongoing or may initiate, or profitably commercializing any product candidates on a timely basis, or at all. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process as we develop and prepare to commercialize product candidates. These factors make it more difficult for us to predict the time, cost and potential success of product candidate development. If our product development activities take longer or cost more than anticipated, or if they ultimately are not successful, it would materially adversely affect our business and results of operations.

44

The genome editing field is relatively new and evolving rapidly, and other existing or future technologies may provide significant advantages over our ARCUS platform, which could materially harm our business.

To date, we have focused our efforts on optimizing our proprietary genome editing technology and exploring its potential applications. ARCUS is a novel genome editing technology using sequence-specific DNA-cutting enzymes, or nucleases, that is designed to perform modifications in the DNA of living cells and organisms. Other companies have previously undertaken research and development of genome editing technologies using zinc finger nucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (“TALENs”) and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats associated protein-9 nuclease (“CRISPR/Cas9”), although none has obtained marketing approval for a product candidate developed using such technologies. Other genome editing technologies in development or commercially available, or other existing or future technologies, may lead to treatments or products that may be considered better suited for use in human therapeutics, which could reduce or eliminate our commercial opportunity.

We are heavily dependent on the successful development and translation of ARCUS, and due to the early stages of our product development operations, we cannot give any assurance that any product candidates will be successfully developed and commercialized.

We are at an early stage of development of the product candidates currently in our programs and are continuing to develop our ARCUS technology. To date, we have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to develop ARCUS and advance our current product development programs, including conducting preclinical studies, early stage clinical trials and other early research and development activities, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We are also currently using our ARCUS technology to develop our lead in vivo gene correction programs targeting PH1, PCSK9, HBV and DMD. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop and, where applicable, obtain regulatory approval for, including marketing approval for, and then successfully commercialize, product candidates, either alone or with collaborators. We have not yet developed and commercialized any product candidates, and we may not be able to do so, alone or with collaborators.

Our research and development programs may not lead to the successful identification, development or commercialization of any products.

The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize products using our genome editing technology. With the exception of our CD19, CD19B and BCMA product candidates, all current product candidates and product development programs are still in the discovery or preclinical stages. We may be unsuccessful in advancing those product candidates into clinical development or in identifying any developing additional product candidates. Our ability to identify and develop product candidates is subject to the numerous risks associated with preclinical and early stage biotechnology development activities, including that:

Our product candidates currently being investigated in clinical trials, or that are expected to be investigated in clinical trials, and other product candidates we may identify may never be approved. Failure to successfully identify and develop new product candidates and obtain regulatory approvals for our products would have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition and could cause us to cease operations.

45

If our product candidates do not achieve projected development milestones or commercialization in the announced or expected timeframes, the further development or commercialization of such product candidates may be delayed, and our business will be harmed.

We sometimes estimate, or may in the future estimate, the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, manufacturing, regulatory and other product development objectives. These milestones may include our expectations regarding the commencement or completion of scientific studies or clinical trials, the submission of regulatory filings, the receipt of marketing approval or the realization of other commercialization objectives. The achievement of many of these milestones may be outside of our control. All of these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions, including assumptions regarding capital resources, constraints and priorities, progress of and results from development activities, the receipt of key regulatory approvals or actions, and other factors, including without limitation, impacts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and its variants, any of which may cause the timing of achievement of the milestones to vary considerably from our estimates. If we or our collaborators fail to achieve announced milestones in the expected timeframes, the commercialization of the product candidates may be delayed, our credibility may be undermined, our business and results of operations may be harmed, and the trading price of our common stock may decline.

Adverse public perception of genome editing may negatively impact the developmental progress or commercial success of products that we develop alone or with collaborators.

The developmental and commercial success of our current product candidates, or any that we develop alone or with collaborators in the future, will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of genome editing technology for the prevention or treatment of human diseases. Adverse public perception of applying genome editing technology for these purposes may negatively impact our ability to raise capital or enter into strategic agreements for the development of product candidates.

Any therapeutic product candidates may involve editing the human genome. The commercial success of any such potential therapeutic products, if successfully developed and approved, may be adversely affected by claims that genome editing is unsafe, unethical or immoral. This may lead to unfavorable public perception and the inability of any therapeutic product candidates to gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. Unfavorable public perceptions may also adversely impact our or our collaborators’ ability to enroll clinical trials for therapeutic product candidates. Moreover, success in commercializing any therapeutic product candidates that receive regulatory approval will depend upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, treatments that involve the use of such product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Publicity of any adverse events in, or unfavorable results of, preclinical studies or clinical trials for any current or future product candidates, including, without limitation, patient deaths, or with respect to the studies or trials of our competitors or of academic researchers utilizing genome editing technologies, even if not ultimately attributable to our technology or product candidates, could negatively influence public opinion. Negative public perception about the use of genome editing technology in human therapeutics, whether related to our technology or a competitor’s technology, could result in increased governmental regulation, delays in the development and commercialization of product candidates or decreased demand for the resulting products, any of which may have a negative impact on our business and financial condition.

We face significant competition in industries experiencing rapid technological change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop product candidates or treatments that are safer or more effective than ours, which may harm our financial condition and our ability to successfully market or commercialize any of our product candidates.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive, and the genome editing field is characterized by rapidly changing technologies, significant competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We will face competition with respect to our current and future therapeutic product candidates from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of products.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we have research programs. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. We principally compete with others developing and utilizing genome editing technology in the human health sector, including companies such as Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Beam Therapeutics, Inc, Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Cellectis S.A., CRISPR Therapeutics, AG, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., and Verve Therapeutics, Inc. Several companies, including Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Celgene Corp., and Gilead Sciences, Inc. have obtained FDA approval for autologous immunotherapies, and a number of companies, including Cellectis S.A., Allogene Therapeutics and CRISPR Therapeutics AG, are pursuing allogeneic immunotherapies. We expect that our operations focused on developing products for in vivo gene correction will face substantial competition from others

46

focusing on gene therapy treatments, especially those that may focus on conditions that our product candidates target. Moreover, any human therapeutics products that we develop alone or with collaborators will compete with existing standards of care for the diseases and conditions that our product candidates target and other types of treatments, such as small molecule, antibody or protein therapies.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products we develop alone or with collaborators or that would render any such products obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we or our collaborators may obtain approval for any that we develop, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we or our collaborators may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we develop alone or with collaborators.

Our future profitability, if any, will depend in part on our ability and the ability of our collaborators to commercialize any products that we or our collaborators may develop in markets throughout the world. Commercialization of products in various markets could subject us to risks and uncertainties, including:

We have limited or no prior experience in these areas, and our collaborators may have limited experience in these areas. Failure to successfully navigate these risks and uncertainties may limit or prevent market penetration for any products that we or our collaborators may develop, which would limit their commercial potential and our revenues.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any products that we develop alone or with collaborators.

We face an inherent risk of product liability and professional indemnity exposure related to the testing in clinical trials of our product candidates. We will face an even greater liability risk if we commercially sell any products that we or our collaborators may develop for human use. Manufacturing defects, errors in product distribution or storage processes, improper administration or application and known or unknown side effects of product usage may result in liability claims against us or third parties with which we have

47

relationships. These actions could include claims resulting from acts by our collaborators, licensees and subcontractors over which we have little or no control.

For example, our liability could be sought by patients participating in clinical trials for potential therapeutic product candidates as a result of unexpected side effects, improper product administration or the deterioration of a patient’s condition, patient injury or even death. Criminal or civil proceedings might be filed against us by patients, regulatory authorities, biopharmaceutical companies and any other third party using or marketing any product candidates or products that we develop alone or with collaborators. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on products that had unanticipated adverse effects. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that product candidates or products we develop alone or with collaborators caused harm, we could incur substantial liabilities.

Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, clinical development does not always fully characterize the safety and efficacy profile of a new medicine, and it is always possible that a drug or biologic, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates. If any of our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we will be highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of us and the safety and quality of such products. We could be adversely affected if we are subject to negative publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of such products or any similar products distributed by other companies.

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage if we or our collaborators successfully commercialize any products. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liabilities to which we may become subject.

Additional Risks Related to the Identification, Development and Commercialization of Our Therapeutic Product Candidates

The regulatory landscape that will apply to development of therapeutic product candidates by us or our collaborators is rigorous, complex, uncertain and subject to change, which could result in delays or termination of development of such product candidates or unexpected costs in obtaining regulatory approvals.

Regulatory requirements governing products created with genome editing technology or involving gene therapy treatment have changed frequently and will likely continue to change in the future. Approvals by one regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval, and there has historically been substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of gene therapy products, cell therapy products and other products created with genome editing technology. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissues, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Our product candidates will need to meet safety and efficacy standards applicable to any new biologic under the regulatory framework administered by the FDA.

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA, before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials subject to the NIH Guidelines are subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local

48

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. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. We are subject to significant regulatory oversight by the FDA, and in addition to the government regulators, the applicable IBC and IRB of each institution at which we or our collaborators conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, or a central IRB if appropriate, would need to review and approve the proposed clinical trial.

The same applies in the EU. The EMA has a Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”) that is responsible for assessing the quality, safety and efficacy of ATMPs. ATMPs include gene therapy medicine, somatic-cell therapy medicines and tissue-engineered medicines. The role of the CAT is to prepare a draft opinion on an application for marketing authorization for a gene therapy medicinal product candidate that is submitted to the EMA. In the EU, the development and evaluation of a gene therapy medicinal product must be considered in the context of the relevant EU guidelines. The EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. Similarly complex regulatory environments exist in other jurisdictions in which we might consider seeking regulatory approvals for our product candidates, further complicating the regulatory landscape. As a result, the procedures and standards applied to gene therapy products and cell therapy products may be applied to any of our gene therapy or genome editing product candidates, but that remains uncertain at this point.

The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for product candidates created with novel genome editing technology such as ours can be more lengthy, rigorous and expensive than the process for other better known or more extensively studied product candidates and technologies. Since we are developing novel treatments for diseases in which there is little clinical experience with new endpoints and methodologies, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory bodies may not consider the clinical trial endpoints to provide clinically meaningful results, and the resulting clinical data and results may be more difficult to analyze. This may be a particularly significant risk for many of the genetically defined diseases for which we may develop product candidates alone or with collaborators due to small patient populations for those diseases, and designing and executing a rigorous clinical trial with appropriate statistical power is more difficult than with diseases that have larger patient populations. Regulatory agencies administering existing or future regulations or legislation may not allow production and marketing of products utilizing genome editing technology in a timely manner or under technically or commercially feasible conditions. Even if our product candidates obtain required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be withdrawn as a result of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies.

Changes in applicable regulatory guidelines may lengthen the regulatory review process for our product candidates, require additional studies or trials, increase development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of such product candidates, or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Additionally, adverse developments in clinical trials conducted by others of gene therapy products or products created using genome editing technology, such as products developed through the application of a CRISPR/Cas9 technology, or adverse public perception of the field of genome editing, may cause the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for approval of any product candidates we may develop or limit the use of products utilizing genome editing technologies, either of which could materially harm our business. Furthermore, regulatory action or private litigation could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our research programs or the development or commercialization of current or future product candidates.

As we advance product candidates alone or with collaborators, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with all applicable guidelines, rules and regulations. If we fail to do so, we or our collaborators may be required to delay or terminate development of such product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a product candidate to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

We may not be able to submit INDs to the FDA or CTAs to comparable foreign authorities to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA or comparable foreign authorities may not permit us to proceed.

We plan to submit INDs and CTAs to enable us to conduct clinical trials for additional product candidates in the future, and we expect to file IND amendments to enable us to conduct additional clinical trials under existing INDs. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND, CTA, or IND amendment will result in us being allowed to proceed with clinical trials, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that could result in the suspension or termination such clinical trials. The manufacturing of allogeneic CAR T cell therapy and in vivo therapies for genetic and infectious diseases remains an emerging and evolving field. Accordingly, we expect CMC related topics, including product specifications, will be a focus of IND and CTA reviews, which may delay receipt of authorization to proceed under

49

INDs and CTAs. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or CTA, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. Similar risks may exist in foreign jurisdictions where we intend to conduct clinical trials.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

We and any collaborators are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities impose similar requirements. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable, but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities and sufficient resources at the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. To date, we have not submitted a biologics license application (“BLA”) or other marketing authorization application to the FDA or similar drug approval submissions to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any product candidate. We and any collaborators must complete additional preclinical or nonclinical studies and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities before we will be able to obtain these approvals.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, or a REMS or similar risk management measures. Regulatory authorities may not approve the price we or our collaborators intend to charge for products we may develop, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

50

Clinical trials are difficult to design and implement, expensive, time-consuming and involve an uncertain outcome, and the inability to successfully and timely conduct clinical trials and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates would substantially harm our business.

Clinical testing is expensive and usually takes many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process, and product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. We have initiated a Phase 1/2a clinical trial in patients with R/R NHL or R/R B-ALL, a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with NHL and a Phase 1/2a clinical trial in subjects with R/R multiple myeloma. We do not know whether any current or planned clinical trials will need to be redesigned, recruit and enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, or at all. Clinical trials have been and may in the future be delayed, suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, including in connection with:

51

Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Additionally, we or our collaborators may experience unforeseen events during or resulting from clinical trials that could delay or prevent receipt of marketing approval for or commercialization of product candidates. For example, clinical trials of product candidates may produce negative, inconsistent or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon development programs. Regulators may also revise the requirements for approving the product candidates, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate. If we or our collaborators are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of product candidates beyond those that we or our collaborators currently contemplate, if we or our collaborators are unable to successfully complete clinical trials or other testing of such product candidates, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

If we or our collaborators experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we or our collaborators terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, we may experience increased costs, have difficulty raising capital and/or be required to slow down the development and approval process timelines. Furthermore, the product candidates that are the subject of such trials may never receive regulatory approval, and their commercial prospects and our ability to generate product revenues from them could be impaired or not realized at all.

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

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU CTR which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate CTA to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.  

52

It is currently unclear to what extent the UK will seek to align its regulations with the EU. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation).

On January 17, 2022, the UK MHRA launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The consultation closes on 14 March 2022 and aims to streamline clinical trials approvals, enable innovation, enhance clinical trials transparency, enable greater risk proportionality, and promote patient and public involvement in clinical trials. The outcome of the consultation will be closely watched and will determine whether the UK chooses to align with the regulation or diverge from it to maintain regulatory flexibility. A decision by the UK not to closely align its regulations with the new approach that will be adopted in the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek a marketing authorization in the EU for our product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conducted in the UK.

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may also be impacted.

Any product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop will be novel and may be complex and difficult to manufacture, and if we experience manufacturing problems, it could result in delays in development and commercialization of such product candidates or otherwise harm our business.

Our product candidates involve or will involve novel genome editing technology and will require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most small molecule drugs, resulting in a relatively higher manufacturing cost. Moreover, unlike small molecules, the physical and chemical properties of biologics generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that such product will perform in the intended manner. Although we intend to employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process, we may experience manufacturing issues with any of our product candidates that could cause production interruptions, including contamination, equipment or reagent failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error, disruptions in the operations of our suppliers, inconsistency in cell growth and variability in product characteristics. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet FDA, EMA or other comparable applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs. For example, the FDA has required us to conduct testing of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates for the presence of certain human viruses prior to release of such products for clinical use. If the FDA concludes that further such viral testing of our product candidates is required and that any lots testing positive may not be used in clinical trials, we may need to produce new clinical trial materials, which could delay our clinical trials and result in higher manufacturing costs. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which such product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Our manufacturing process for any allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate that we develop alone or with collaborators will be susceptible to product loss or failure due to the quality of the raw materials, failure of the products to meet specifications, logistical issues associated with the collection of white blood cells, or starting material, from healthy third-party donors, shipping such material to the manufacturing site, ensuring standardized production batch-to-batch in the context of mass production, freezing the manufactured product, shipping the final product globally, thawing and infusing patients with such product. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, delays in initiating or completing clinical trials, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, we expect that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, may be altered along the way in an effort to help optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve the intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of future clinical trials or our reliance on results of trials that have previously been conducted using the product candidate in its previous form. If the manufacturing process is changed during the course of product development, we or our collaborators may be required to repeat some or all of the previously conducted trials or conduct additional bridging trials, which could increase our costs and delay or impede our ability to obtain marketing approval.

We expect our manufacturing strategy for one or more of our product candidates may involve the use of contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) as well as our dedicated manufacturing facility, MCAT. The facilities used by us and our contract manufacturers to manufacture therapeutic product candidates must be evaluated for the manufacture of our product candidates by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit a BLA to the FDA, or similar foreign applications to foreign regulatory authorities. We do not control the manufacturing process of our contract manufacturers and are dependent on their compliance with cGMP or similar foreign requirements for their manufacture of our product candidates. We may establish multiple manufacturing facilities as we expand our commercial footprint to multiple geographies, which will be costly and time consuming and may lead to regulatory delays. Even if we are successful, our manufacturing capabilities could be affected by cost-overruns, potential problems with scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot inconsistency, timely availability of reagents or raw materials, unexpected delays, equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, utility failures, regulatory issues

53

and other factors that could prevent us from realizing the intended benefits of our manufacturing strategy and have a material adverse effect on our business.

The FDA, the EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any product that may receive approval together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the relevant agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us or our collaborators to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business. Problems in our manufacturing process also could restrict our or our collaborators’ ability to meet market demand for products.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development opportunities.

We will rely on donors of T cells to manufacture product candidates from our allogeneic CAR T immunotherapy platform, and if we do not obtain an adequate supply of T cells from qualified donors, development of those product candidates may be adversely impacted.

We are developing a pipeline of allogeneic T cell product candidates that are engineered from healthy donor T cells, which vary in type and quality. This variability in type and quality of a donor’s T cells makes producing standardized product candidates more difficult and makes the development and commercialization pathway of those product candidates more uncertain. We have developed a screening process designed to enhance the quality and consistency of T cells used in the manufacture of our CAR T cell product candidates. If we are unable to identify and obtain T cells from donors that satisfy our criteria in sufficient quantity, to obtain such cells in a timely manner or to address variability in donor T cells, development of our CAR T cell product candidates may be delayed or there may be inconsistencies in the product candidates we produce, which could negatively impact development of such product candidates, harm our reputation and adversely impact our business and prospects.

Failure to achieve operating efficiencies from MCAT may require us to devote additional resources and management time to manufacturing operations and may delay our product development timelines.

We have leased approximately 33,800 square feet of space for MCAT at a location approximately seven miles from our headquarters in Durham, North Carolina. We use this manufacturing center to create clinical trial material for certain of our current and planned clinical trials. We may not experience the anticipated operating efficiencies in our own manufacturing. Any delays in manufacturing may disrupt or delay the supply of our product candidates if we have not maintained a sufficient back-up supply of such product candidates through third-party manufacturers. Moreover, changing manufacturing facilities may also require that we or our collaborators conduct additional studies, make notifications to regulatory authorities, make additional filings to regulatory authorities, and obtain regulatory authority approval for the new facilities, which may be delayed or which we may never receive. We are also required to comply with the FDA’s and applicable foreign regulatory authorities’ GMP requirements for the production of product candidates for clinical trials and, if approved, commercial supply, and will be subject to FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority inspection. These requirements include the qualification and validation of our manufacturing equipment and processes. We may not be able to develop, acquire or maintain the internal expertise and resources necessary for compliance with these requirements. If we fail to achieve the operating efficiencies that we anticipate, our manufacturing and operating costs may be greater than expected, which could have a material adverse impact on our operating results.

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing processes. If we experience unanticipated employee shortage or turnover in any of these areas, we may not be able to effectively manage our ongoing manufacturing operations and we may not achieve the operating efficiencies that we anticipate from MCAT, which may negatively affect our product development timeline or result in difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any such problems could result in the delay, prevention or impairment of clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Any delays or difficulties in our or our collaborators ability to enroll patients in clinical trials, could delay or prevent receipt of regulatory approvals.

We or our collaborators may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials on a timely basis or at all for any product candidates we or our collaborators identify or develop if we or our collaborators are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the trials as required by applicable regulations or as needed to provide appropriate statistical power for a

54

given trial. Additionally, some of our competitors may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that would treat the same indications as one or more of our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in our competitors’ clinical trials.

Patient enrollment may also be affected by many factors, including:

We expect that some of our product candidates will focus on rare genetically defined diseases with limited patient pools from which to draw for enrollment in clinical trials. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials will further limit the pool of available trial participants. In addition to the factors identified above, patient enrollment in any clinical trials we or our collaborators may conduct may be adversely impacted by any negative outcomes our competitors may experience, including adverse side effects, clinical data showing inadequate efficacy or failures to obtain regulatory approval.

Furthermore, our or our collaborators’ ability to successfully initiate, enroll and conduct a clinical trial outside the United States is subject to numerous additional risks, including:

Enrollment delays in clinical trials, including those due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its variants, may result in increased development costs for any of our product candidates, which may cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. If we or our collaborators have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and prospects.

55

Results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of results of later studies or trials. Our product candidates may not have favorable results in later clinical trials, if any, or receive regulatory approval.

Preclinical and clinical drug development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study or clinical trial process. Despite promising preclinical or clinical results, any product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical or clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates in our industry is high.

The results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not be predictive of the results from later preclinical studies or clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy characteristics despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks at later stages of development after achieving positive results in early stages of development, and we may face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway or safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, non-clinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory approval. With the exception of our allogeneic anti-CD19, anti-CD20 and anti-BCMA CAR T product candidates, which have undergone limited testing in humans to date, our gene editing technology and our product candidates have never undergone testing in humans and have only been tested in a limited manner in animals, and results from animal studies may not be predictive of clinical trial results. Even if product candidates progress to clinical trials, these product candidates may fail to show the safety and efficacy in clinical development required to obtain regulatory approval, despite the observation of positive results in animal studies. Our or our collaborators’ failure to replicate positive results from early research programs and preclinical studies may prevent us from further developing and commercializing those or other product candidates, which would limit our potential to generate revenues from them and harm our business and prospects.

For the foregoing reasons, we cannot be certain that any ongoing or future preclinical studies or clinical trials will be successful. Any safety or efficacy concerns observed in any one of our preclinical studies or clinical trials in a targeted area could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of product candidates in that and other areas, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

Interim, “top-line” and initial data from studies or trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim, initial or “top-line” data from preclinical studies or clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Initial or “top-line” data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from these initial data we previously published. As a result, interim, initial and “top-line” data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

Additionally, interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between initial or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. Any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant by you or others with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the top-line data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, product candidates may be harmed, which could significantly harm our business prospects.

56

Our product candidates may not work as intended or cause undesirable side effects that could hinder or prevent receipt of regulatory approval or realization of commercial potential for them or our other product candidates and substantially harm our business.

Our product candidates may be associated with off-target editing or other serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics, including large deletions and translocations or chromosomal abnormalities. Results of clinical trials could reveal severe or recurring side effects, toxicities or unexpected events, including death. Off-target cuts could lead to disruption of a gene or a genetic regulatory sequence at an unintended site in the DNA. In those instances where we also provide a segment of DNA, it is possible that following off-target cut events, such DNA could be integrated into the genome at an unintended site, potentially disrupting another important gene or genomic element. There may also be delayed adverse events following exposure to therapeutics made with genome editing technologies due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. Such unintended and undesirable side effects were recently exhibited in one of our competitors’ clinical trials for which a clinical hold was placed by the FDA in October 2021 following a report of a chromosomal abnormality. In addition to serious adverse events or side effects caused by product candidates we develop alone or with collaborators, the administration process or related procedures may also cause undesirable side effects. For example, in our Phase 1/2a clinical trial of PBCAR0191, as of November 16, 2021, one death without disease progression occurred following infection and was assessed by the investigator as possibly related to study treatment. As of the same date, three other treatment emergent deaths without disease progression occurred that were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

Further, any side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We or our collaborators expect to have to educate medical personnel using any product candidates we may develop to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of such product candidates. Inadequate recognition or management of the potential side effects of such product candidates could result in patient injury or death.

If any such events occur, clinical trials or commercial distribution of any product candidates or products we develop alone or with collaborators could be suspended or terminated, and our business and reputation could suffer substantial harm. Treatment-related side effects could affect patient recruitment and the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential liability claims. Regulatory authorities could order us or our collaborators to cease further development of, deny approval of or require us to cease selling any product candidates or products for any or all targeted indications. If we or our collaborators elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial or commercialization efforts, the commercial prospects of such product candidates or products may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from them or other product candidates that we develop may be delayed or eliminated.

Additionally, if we successfully develop a product candidate alone or with collaborators and it receives marketing approval, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could require us to adopt a REMS or similar risk management measures to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We or our collaborators may also be required to adopt a REMS or similar risk management measures or engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product that we develop alone or with collaborators. Such identification could also have several additional significant negative consequences, such as:

57

Any of these events could prevent us or our collaborators from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of any potential product, or otherwise have a negative impact on our business.

We are subject to federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations relating to our business, and could face substantial penalties if we are determined not to have fully complied with such laws, which would have an adverse impact on our business.

Our business operations, as well as our current and anticipated future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, customers and patients, expose or will expose us to broadly applicable foreign, federal, and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute any potential products for which we may obtain marketing approval. Such laws include:

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities may conclude that our business practices, including our relationships with certain physicians, some of whom are compensated in the form of stock options for consulting services provided, do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these or any other health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. or foreign healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational

58

harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the above occur, it could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Actual or perceived failures to comply with applicable data protection, privacy and security laws, regulations, standards and other requirements, and the increasing use of social media, could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we are or may become subject to numerous state, federal and foreign laws, requirements and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and security of personal data, such as information that we may collect in connection with clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or perception of their requirements may have on our business. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal information, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards can be high and is likely to increase in the future. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state or foreign laws or regulation, our internal policies and procedures or our contracts governing our processing of personal information could result in negative publicity, government investigations and enforcement actions, claims by third parties and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial performance and business.

As our operations and business grow, we may become subject to or affected by new or additional data protection laws and regulations and face increased scrutiny or attention from regulatory authorities. In the U.S., HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 and their implementing regulations, imposes, among other things, certain standards relating to the privacy, security, transmission and breach reporting of individually identifiable health information on covered entities (defined as health plans, health care clearinghouses and certain health care providers) and their respective business associates, individuals or entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HIPAA mandates the reporting of certain breaches of health information to HHS, affected individuals and if the breach is large enough, the media. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured protected health information, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by HHS, 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. Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards.

Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA. Such laws and regulations will be subject to interpretation by various courts and other governmental authorities, thus creating potentially complex compliance issues for us and our future customers and strategic partners. For example, California recently enacted the CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA creates individual privacy rights for California consumers and increases the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Further, the CPRA, recently passed in California. The CPRA significantly amends the CCPA and will impose additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The majority of the CPRA provisions are expected to go into effect on January 1, 2023. The CCPA, and the CPRA, may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, and many similar laws have been proposed at the federal level and in other states. In the event that we are subject to or affected by HIPAA, the CCPA, the CPRA or other domestic privacy and data protection laws, any liability from failure to comply with the requirements of these laws could adversely affect our financial condition.

59

In Europe, the GDPR went into effect in May 2018 and imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements. From January 1, 2021 we are subject to compliance with the GDPR and the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million/ £17 million or 4% of global turnover. The relationship between the UK and the EU in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, and it is unclear how UK data protection laws and regulations will develop in the medium to longer term. The European Commission has adopted an adequacy decision in favor of the UK, enabling data transfers from EU member states to the UK without additional safeguards. However, the UK adequacy decision will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European Commission re-assesses and renews or extends that decision.

Recent legal developments in Europe have created complexity and uncertainty regarding transfers of personal data from the EEA and the UK to the U.S. Most recently, on July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework, the Privacy Shield, under which personal data could be transferred from the EEA to US entities who had self-certified under the Privacy Shield scheme. While the CJEU upheld the adequacy of the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”), it made clear that reliance on them alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances. Use of the SCCs must now be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the legal regime applicable in the destination country, in particular applicable surveillance laws and rights of individuals and additional measures and/or contractual provisions may need to be put in place, however, the nature of these additional measures is currently uncertain. The CJEU went on to state that if a competent supervisory authority believes that the standard contractual clauses cannot be complied with in the destination country and the required level of protection cannot be secured by other means, such supervisory authority is under an obligation to suspend or prohibit that transfer. The European Commission issued revised SCCs on June 4, 2021 to account for the decision of the CJEU and recommendations made by the European Data Protection Board. The revised SCCs must be used for relevant new data transfers from September 27, 2021; existing standard contractual clauses arrangements must be migrated to the revised clauses by December 27, 2022. The new SCCs apply only to the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA and not the UK; the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office launched a public consultation on its draft revised data transfers mechanisms in August 2021. There is some uncertainty around whether the revised clauses can be used for all types of data transfers, particularly whether they can be relied on for data transfers to non-EEA entities subject to the GDPR.

These recent developments may require us to review and amend the legal mechanisms by which we make and/ or receive personal data transfers to/ in the U.S.  As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the standard contractual clauses cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results.

Despite our efforts to monitor evolving social media communication guidelines and comply with applicable rules, there is risk that the use of social media by us or our employees to communicate about our product candidates or business may cause us to be found in violation of applicable requirements. In addition, our employees may knowingly or inadvertently make use of social media in ways that may not comply with our internal policies or other legal or contractual requirements, which may give rise to liability, lead to the loss of trade secrets or other intellectual property, or result in public exposure of personal information of our employees, clinical trial patients, customers and others. Our potential patient population may also be active on social media and use these platforms to comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, our product candidates. Negative posts or comments about us or our product candidates on social media could seriously damage our reputation, brand image and goodwill.

Although we work to comply with applicable laws, regulations and standards, our contractual obligations and other legal obligations, these requirements are evolving and may be modified, interpreted and applied in an inconsistent manner from one jurisdiction to another, and may conflict with one another or other legal obligations with which we must comply. Any failure or perceived failure by us or our employees, representatives, contractors, consultants, CROs, collaborators, or other third parties to comply with such requirements or adequately address privacy and security concerns, even if unfounded, could result in additional cost and liability to us, damage our reputation, and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We have received orphan drug designation for PBCAR0191 for the treatment of ALL and MCL and for PBCAR269A for the treatment of multiple myeloma, and we may seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our other product candidates, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, which may negatively impact our ability to develop or obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates and may reduce our revenue if we obtain such approval.

We may seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates in specific orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug

60

or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Although we may seek orphan product designation for some or all of our other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan product exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can ensure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Even if we or our collaborators obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. Exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we or our collaborators seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and 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. Further, even if a product obtains orphan drug exclusivity, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we or our collaborators are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of the product.

Similarly, in the EU, a medicinal product may receive orphan designation under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000. This applies to products (1) that are intended for a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; and (2) either (a) such condition affects not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would be unlikely to generate sufficient returns in the EU to justify the necessary investment, and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. In the EU, orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and applicants can benefit from specific regulatory assistance and scientific advice. Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. However, 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—for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:

If we or our collaborators do not receive or maintain orphan drug designation for product candidates for which we seek such designation, it could limit our ability to realize revenues from such product candidates.

We have received and may continue to seek fast track designation and rare pediatric disease designation, and may seek breakthrough therapy designation, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) designation, or priority review from the FDA or access to the PRIME scheme from the EMA for some or all of our product candidates, but we may not receive such designations, and even if we do, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and will not increase the likelihood that such product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have received fast track designation and rare pediatric disease designation for PBCAR0191 for the treatment of B-ALL as well as fast track designation for PBCAR269A for R/R multiple myeloma. We may continue to seek fast track designation and may also seek breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation or priority review from the FDA, or access to the PRIME scheme from the EMA for some or all of our product candidates. If a drug, or biologic, in our case, is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need, the

61

product may qualify for FDA fast track designation, for which sponsors must apply. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. If granted, fast track designation makes a biologic eligible for more frequent interactions with FDA to discuss the development plan and clinical trial design, as well as rolling review of the application, which means that the company can submit completed sections of its marketing application for review prior to completion of the entire submission.  Products with fast track designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval and/or priority review, if the relevant criteria are met.

Breakthrough therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of product candidates that treat serious or life-threatening diseases when "preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug 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 of a product candidate as a breakthrough therapy provides the same potential benefits as a fast track designation, with more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient development program and an organizational commitment at FDA involving senior managers.

A company may also request RMAT designation of its product candidate, which designation may be granted if the drug meets the following criteria: (1) it 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; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. Like breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and potential eligibility for rolling review and priority review. 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. RMAT- designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence (such as electronic health records); through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy.

PRIME is a scheme provided by the EMA to enhance support for the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need. To qualify for PRIME, product candidates require early clinical evidence that the therapy has the potential to offer a therapeutic advantage over existing treatments or benefits patients without treatment options. Among the benefits of PRIME are the appointment of a rapporteur to provide continuous support and help build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

Based on legislation adopted late in 2007, the EMA established an additional regulatory designation for products classified as an ATMP.  The ATMP classification offers sponsors a variety of benefits similar to those associated with the PRIME scheme, including scientific and regulatory guidance, additional opportunities for dialogue with regulators, and presubmission review and certification of the CMC and nonclinical data proposed for submission in a forthcoming MA applications for micro-, small-, or medium-sized enterprises.  To qualify for this designation, product candidates intended for human use must be based on gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, or tissue engineered therapy (i.e., engineered cells or tissues intended to regenerate, replace or repair human tissue).

There is no assurance that we will obtain additional fast track designation, or that we will obtain breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation or access to PRIME or ATMP for any of our product candidates. Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation, and PRIME and ATMP eligibility do 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 or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation or PRIME or ATMP  eligibility. Additionally, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation and access to PRIME or ATMP can each be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges.

If the product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop receive regulatory approval in the United States or another jurisdiction, they may never receive approval in other jurisdictions, which would limit market opportunities for such product candidate and adversely affect our business.

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA or by the requisite regulatory agencies in any other jurisdiction does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. The approval process varies among countries and may limit our or our collaborators’ ability to develop, manufacture, promote and sell product candidates internationally. Failure to obtain marketing approval in international jurisdictions would prevent the product candidates from being marketed outside of the jurisdictions in which regulatory approvals have been received. In order to market and sell product candidates in the EU and many other jurisdictions, we and our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and may involve additional preclinical studies or clinical trials both before and after approval. In many countries, any product candidate for human use must be approved for

62

reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the intended price for such product is also subject to approval. Further, while regulatory approval of a product candidate in one country does not ensure approval in any other country, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. If we or our collaborators fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain all required marketing approvals, the target market for a particular potential product will be reduced, which would limit our ability to realize the full market potential for the product and adversely affect our business.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize any product candidates we or our collaborators develop and may adversely affect the prices for such product candidates.

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our or our collaborators’ ability to profitably sell any product candidates that obtain marketing approval.

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively the ACA, was enacted in the United States. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to our product candidates, the ACA established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health program, addressed 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, created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must now agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D, and created a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought before the Supreme Court was dismissed in June 2021 resulting in the ACA remaining in effect in its current form. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision. President Biden issued an executive order instructing certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other health reform measures of the Biden administration will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, included reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies, rebates and price negotiation for pharmaceutical products. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product and medical device pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and medical devices to purchase and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs.

We expect that other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we or our collaborators may receive for any approved or cleared product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to new

63

requirements or policies, or if we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, any of our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any products that we develop alone or with collaborators, such products will remain subject to ongoing regulatory requirements, which may result in significant additional expense.

Even if products we develop alone or with collaborators receive regulatory approval, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information, among other things. Any regulatory approvals received for such products may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which they may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing and surveillance studies. For example, the holder of an approved BLA in the United States is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with some types of gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for as long as 15 years. Similarly, in the EU, pharmacovigilance obligations are applicable to all medicinal products. In addition to those, holders of a marketing authorization for gene or cell therapy products must detail, in their application, the measures they envisage to ensure follow-up of the efficacy and safety of these products. In cases of particular concern, marketing authorization holders for gene or cell therapy products in the EU may be required to design a risk management system with a view to identifying, preventing or minimizing risks and may be obliged to carry out post-marketing studies. In the United States, the holder of an approved BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Similar provisions apply in the EU. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws. Similarly, in the EU any promotion of medicinal products is highly regulated and, depending on the specific jurisdiction involved, may require prior vetting by the competent national regulatory authority.

In addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with GMP requirements and adherence to commitments made in the BLA or foreign marketing application. If we, our collaborators or a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of that product, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions relative to that product, the manufacturing facility or us or our collaborators, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

Moreover, if any of our product candidates are approved, our product labeling, advertising, promotion and distribution will be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling.

If we or our collaborators fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any potential products we may develop, authorities may:

64

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our or our collaborators’ ability to commercialize products and our ability to generate revenues.

In addition, the FDA’s policies, and policies of foreign regulatory agencies, may change, and additional regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements, or if we or our collaborators are unable to maintain regulatory compliance, we or they may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. If we are found or alleged to have improperly promoted off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, as our product candidates would be, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion and avoid off-label promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, such as the EMA following its relocation to Amsterdam and resulting staff changes, may also slow the time necessary for new biologics or modifications to approved biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, in July 2020, the FDA resumed certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA utilized this risk-based assessment system to assist in determining when and where it was safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. Additionally, on April 15, 2021, the FDA issued a guidance document in which the FDA described its plans to conduct voluntary remote interactive evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites, among other facilities. According to the guidance, the FDA may request such remote interactive evaluations where the FDA determines that  remote evaluation would be appropriate based on mission needs and travel limitations. In May 2021, the FDA outlined a detailed plan to move toward a more consistent state of inspectional operations, and in July 2021, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities. More recently, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Regulatory authorities outside the United States have adopted similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its variants. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

65

Even if any product we develop alone or with collaborators receives marketing approval, such product may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any potential therapeutic products we develop alone or with collaborators will depend upon their degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Even if any potential therapeutic products we develop alone or with collaborators receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any product we develop alone or with collaborators, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any products we develop alone or with collaborators do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues, and we may not become profitable.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market any products we develop alone or with collaborators, the commercialization of such products may not be successful if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and, as a company, have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of biopharmaceutical or other commercial products. To achieve commercial success for any approved products for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing and commercial support infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, certain product candidates if and when they are approved.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, restricted or closed distribution channels may make it difficult to distribute products to segments of the patient population, and the lack of complementary medicines to be offered by sales personnel may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines.

66

Recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists are expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our commercialization personnel. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize products on our own include:

If we choose to enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support or distribution services, we may not be successful in entering into such arrangements or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. Entering into such third-party arrangements may subject us to a variety of risks, including:

If we do not establish effective commercialization capabilities, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing any of our product candidates that may receive approval.

If the market opportunities for any products we develop alone or with collaborators are smaller than our estimates, or if we are unable to successfully identify enough patients, our revenues may be adversely affected.

We focus some of our research and product development on treatments for rare genetic diseases. Our and our collaborators’ projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with product candidates we may develop, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect, and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, Europe and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, and patients may not be amenable to treatment with products that we may develop alone or with collaborators, or may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, any of which would decrease our ability to realize revenue from any such products for such diseases.

The successful commercialization of potential products will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish coverage, and the adequacy of reimbursement levels and pricing policies, and failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any potential products that may receive approval, could limit marketability of those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability of coverage and adequacy of reimbursement by government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford prescription medications such as the potential therapeutic products we develop alone or with collaborators. The ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for any potential products that may be approved by governmental authorities will have an effect on our and our collaborators’ ability to successfully commercialize such products. Even if products we develop alone or with collaborators obtain coverage by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. If coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the EU or elsewhere is not available for any products we develop alone or with collaborators that may be approved, or any reimbursement that may become available is decreased or eliminated in the future, we and our collaborators may be unable to commercialize such products.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved drugs and biologics. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an

67

important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered. In August 2019, the CMS published its decision to cover autologous treatment for cancer with T-cells expressing at least one CAR when administered at healthcare facilities enrolled in the FDA risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and used for an FDA-approved indication or for other uses when the product has been FDA-approved and the use is supported in one or more CMS-approved compendia. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models in the United States for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. We cannot predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for any product that we develop alone or with collaborators.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us or our collaborators to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of any potential products that may be approved to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement for products we develop alone or with collaborators may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with drugs administered under the supervision of a physician. In certain instances, payors may not separately reimburse for the product itself, but only for the treatments or procedures in which such product is used. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover or separately reimburse for products that we develop alone or with collaborators or procedures using such products, could reduce physician utilization of any such products that may receive approval.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar or a less expensive therapy is available. If approved, it is possible that a third-party payor may consider any products that we develop alone or with collaborators as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Pricing of existing third-party therapeutics may limit the amount we will be able to charge for any products that may receive approval even if we or our collaborators show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration such products. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in the product. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we or our collaborators may not be able to successfully commercialize any of the products that we develop, even if approved, and we may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on them. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for any products we develop alone or with collaborators that may receive approval. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any products that may receive approval due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and elsewhere have and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of any products we develop alone or with collaborators that may receive approval. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional international price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we or our collaborators are able to charge for products that we develop that may receive approval. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for such products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

Our product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated.

If we are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize any biologic product candidate we develop alone or with collaborators, it may face competition from biosimilar products. In the United States, our product candidates are regulated by the FDA as biologic products subject to approval under the BLA pathway. The BPCIA created an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biologic products following the approval of an original BLA. The abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an existing brand product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted 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 after the reference product was first licensed by

68

the FDA. 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 the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product.

We believe that any of our product candidates that are approved as biological products under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider such product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing any products that we develop alone or with collaborators that may be approved, such products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and potential adverse consequences.

Jurisdictions in addition to the U.S. have established abbreviated pathways for regulatory approval of biological products that are biosimilar to earlier approved reference products. For example, the EU has had an established regulatory pathway for biosimilars since 2006.

Risks Related to Our Organization, Structure and Operations

The ongoing novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19 has impacted, and may continue to impact, our business, and any other pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease may materially and adversely impact our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization designated the outbreak of the novel strain of coronavirus known as COVID-19 as a global pandemic, and COVID-19 and its variants have spread to multiple global regions, including the United States and Europe. The ongoing pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred; supply chains and manufacturing, including our own, have been disrupted; facilities and production have been suspended; and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as travel, has fallen. In response to the impact of COVID-19 and its variants and in accordance with local guidelines, we have implemented measures to mitigate exposure risks and support operations. The health and safety program we have initiated requiring mandatory use of face masks, mandatory vaccinations, social distancing, sanitary handwashing practices, use of personal protective equipment stations, stringent cleaning and sanitization of all facilities and measures to reduce total occupancy in facilities, as well as temperature and symptom screening procedures at each location may not sufficiently protect our employees. We have communicated to our employees that based on their comfort level, regardless of role, they may elect not to come to work. Any additional resurgence of outbreaks, new regulatory orders or guidance, or self-imposed protective measures we impose could require reversal of our previously eased restrictions to our on-site activities and, as a result, adversely impact our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its variants or other pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease, we have and may continue to experience disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials, including:

69

The COVID-19 pandemic and its variants continues to evolve. Disruptions, supply chain constraints and timeline impacts, competing resource demands and safety concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its variants have caused, and may continue to cause, delays in our clinical trial site activation and our ability to enroll patients. Supply chain constraints affecting the industry have also impacted our business. Lead times for certain single-use components have been extended, and global impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to longer timelines or greater costs in the future. Additionally, we have experienced and may also experience other difficulties, disruptions or delays in conducting preclinical studies or initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials, and we may incur other unforeseen costs as a result. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacts our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the pandemic, emergence of additional new variants, travel restrictions and social distancing in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.  If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience shutdowns or any further business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted. Additionally, the magnitude of the economic impact brought by and the duration of COVID-19 pandemic and its variants continues to be difficult to assess or predict and may continue to result in significant disruption of global financial markets, which may reduce our ability to access capital and negatively affect our liquidity.

We will need to expand our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 198 full-time employees. We will need to significantly expand our organization, and our future financial performance, ability to develop and commercialize product candidates alone or with collaborators and ability to compete effectively will depend in part on our ability to effectively manage any future growth. We may have difficulty identifying, hiring and integrating new personnel. Many of the biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history than we do. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel and consultants, the rate and success at which we can identify and develop product candidates, enter into collaborative arrangements and otherwise operate our business will be limited.

Future growth would impose significant additional responsibilities on our management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees, consultants and contractors.

Management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expected expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Moreover, the expected physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources from other projects, such as the development of product candidates. If we are not able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, it may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, increase our expenses more than expected, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity. Our future financial performance, ability to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates and our ability to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

We may engage in transactions that could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our stockholders or reduce our financial resources.

In the future, we may enter into transactions to acquire or in-license rights to product candidates, products or technologies or to acquire other businesses. If we do identify suitable candidates, we may not be able to enter into such transactions on favorable terms, or at all. Any such acquisitions or in-licenses may not strengthen our competitive position, and these transactions may be viewed negatively by customers or investors. We may decide to incur debt in connection with an acquisition or in-license, which may negatively impact our financial condition and restrict our operations, or issue our common stock or other equity securities to the stockholders of the acquired company, which would reduce the percentage ownership of our existing stockholders. We could incur losses resulting from undiscovered liabilities of the acquired business that are not covered by the indemnification we may obtain from the sellers of the acquired business. In addition, we may not be able to successfully integrate the acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business in an effective, timely and non-disruptive manner. Such transactions may also divert management attention from day-to-day responsibilities, increase our expenses and reduce our cash available for operations and other uses. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future acquisitions or in-licenses or the effect that they might have on our operating results.

70

Our future success depends on our key executives, as well as attracting, retaining and motivating qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development experience, technical skills, leadership and continued service of certain members of our management and scientific teams. Although we have formal employment agreements with our executive officers, these agreements do not prevent them from terminating their employment with us at any time. The loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and, if we retain commercialization responsibility for any product candidate we develop alone or with collaborators, sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. For instance, we recently appointed a new Chief Executive Officer and, earlier in 2021, appointed a new Chief Medical Officer. With the resignation of our Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) earlier in 2021, we have reassigned the responsibilities of the COO to other members of the management and senior leadership team. We may not be able to attract new or successor personnel on acceptable terms or at all given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategies. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. The inability to recruit, integrate, motivate and retain additional skilled and qualified personnel, or the loss of services of certain executives, key employees, consultants or advisors, may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives and have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are subject to increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to maintaining compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices, including establishing and maintaining proper and effective internal control over financial reporting.

As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, including the reporting requirements thereunder, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and other applicable securities rules and regulations, including requirements related to the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel will need to continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations have increased our legal and financial compliance costs, making some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly, and increasing demand on our systems and resources.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 404”) we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. We may need to hire more employees in the future or engage outside consultants to comply with these requirements, which will further increase our costs and expenses. If we fail to implement the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the required timeframe, we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, including the SEC and Nasdaq. Furthermore, if we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, our investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our common stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities. Failure to implement or maintain an effective internal control system could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.

Our business and operations may suffer in the event of system failures or security breaches which could materially affect our results.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our information technology systems, as well as those of third parties with which we have relationships, are vulnerable to attack and damage from computer viruses and malware (e.g., ransomware), unauthorized access, natural and manmade disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, malfeasance by external or internal parties, and human error (e.g., social engineering, phishing).  The aforementioned third parties with which we have relationships include service providers and vendors who provide to us a broad array of software and other technologies as well as products, services and functions (e.g., human resources, finance, communications, data transmission, risk, compliance) that enable us to conduct, monitor and/or protect our business, operations, systems and data assets.  

Attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. Furthermore,

71

because the technologies used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage or disrupt, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period.  Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence.  As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its variants, we may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our and our service providers’ employees who are (and may continue to be) working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. The White House, SEC and other regulators have also increased their focus on companies’ cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks.  

We and certain of our service providers are from time to time, subject to cyberattacks and security incidents. While we do not believe that we have experienced any significant system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our or our critical third parties’ operations, it could result in delays and/or material disruptions of our research and development programs, our operations and ultimately, our financial results. For example, the loss of trial data from completed, ongoing or planned trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability due to delays in the development of our product candidates and/or due to reputational harm, litigation, regulatory investigations and enforcement, fines and penalties, or increased costs of compliance and system remediation.  Any losses, costs or liabilities may not be covered by, or may exceed the coverage limits of, any or all applicable insurance policies.

Federal, state and foreign legislators and regulators globally have enacted or proposed legal requirements regarding the collection, distribution, disclosure, use, processing, security and storage of personally identifiable information and other types of regulated data, including online information and data online.  In the ordinary course of our business, we and third parties with which we have relationships will continue to collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, clinical trial data, proprietary business information, personal data and personally identifiable information of our clinical trial subjects and employees, in data centers and on networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations. Despite security measures that we and our critical third parties (e.g., collaborators) implement, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or internal bad actors, breaches due to human error, technical vulnerabilities, malfeasance or other disruptions. A number of proposed and enacted federal, state and international laws and regulations obligate companies to notify individuals and other parties of security breaches involving particular types of information, which could result from breaches experienced by us or by third parties, including collaborators, vendors, contractors or other organizations with which we have formed relationships that involve the handling or processing of such information.

Although, to our knowledge, neither we nor any such third parties have experienced any material security breach or incident involving the unauthorized disclosure or misuse of sensitive information, and even though we may have contractual protections with third parties who process or handle sensitive information, any breach could compromise our or their networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure, notifications, follow-up actions related to such a security breach or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information and significant costs, including regulatory penalties, fines and legal expenses, and such an event could disrupt our operations, cause us to incur remediation costs, damage our reputation and cause a loss of confidence in us and our or such third parties’ ability to conduct clinical trials, which could adversely affect our reputation and delay our research and development programs.

Our insurance policies are expensive and protect us only from some business risks, which leaves us exposed to significant uninsured liabilities.

We do not carry insurance for all categories of risk that our business may encounter. If we obtain marketing approval for any product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop, we intend to acquire insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products, but we may be unable to obtain such insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.

Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and clinical trials or regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates could be suspended. We also expect that operating as a public company will make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified individuals to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as our executive officers.

72

Insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and in the future we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. We do not know if we will be able to maintain existing insurance with adequate levels of coverage, and any liability insurance coverage we acquire in the future may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. A successful liability claim or series of claims brought against us could require us to pay substantial amounts and cause our share price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business, including preventing or limiting the development and commercialization of any product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop.

If we or any of our contract manufacturers or other suppliers fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur significant costs.

We and any of our contract manufacturers and suppliers are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research and product development efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty and general liability insurance policies (under which we currently have an aggregate of approximately $10 million in coverage) specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals for any product candidate we develop alone or with collaborators could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting requirements, and any third-party contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage will also be subject to such current and future regulations and requirements. These current or future laws, regulations and permitting requirements may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and permitting requirements, either by us or by any third-party contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage, also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or business disruption.

Our business operations, including our current and future relationships with third parties, may expose us to penalties for potential misconduct or improper activity, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

Complex laws constrain our business and the financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we may research, market, sell and distribute product candidates alone or with collaborators. We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, consultants and collaborators and, if we or our collaborators commence clinical trials and proceed to commercialization, our principal investigators and commercial partners, as well as healthcare professionals, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers. For example, misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in the EU and other jurisdictions, provide accurate information to the FDA and other regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, false and/or misleading statements, corruption of government officials, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing, promotion, sales commission and customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct also could involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, creating fraudulent data in preclinical studies or clinical trials, illegal misappropriation of study materials or other property, or improper interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our or our collaborators’ reputations.

73

Ensuring that our internal operations and current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including 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, additional reporting requirements and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar penalties, such as criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs and imprisonment, which could affect our ability to operate our business. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time-consuming and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

We have adopted policies applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent such activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could result in the imposition of any of the penalties discussed above and have a significant impact on our business and financial condition.

We are subject to complex tax rules relating to our business, and any audits, investigations or tax proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to income and non-income taxes in the United States. Income tax accounting often involves complex issues, and judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes and other tax liabilities. In May 2018 we formed a subsidiary in Australia, which was subsequently transferred to New Elo in December 2021. In June 2019 we formed a subsidiary in the UK, and we may operate in other foreign jurisdictions in the future. We could become subject to income and non-income taxes in foreign jurisdictions as well. In addition, many jurisdictions have detailed transfer pricing rules, which require that all transactions with non-resident related parties be priced using arm’s length pricing principles within the meaning of such rules. The application of withholding tax, goods and services tax, sales taxes and other non-income taxes is not always clear and we may be subject to tax audits relating to such withholding or non-income taxes. We believe that our tax positions are reasonable and our tax reserves are adequate to cover any potential liability. We are currently not subject to any tax audits. However, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or other taxing authorities may disagree with our positions. If the IRS or any other tax authorities were successful in challenging our positions, we may be liable for additional tax and penalties and interest related thereto or other taxes, as applicable, in excess of any reserves established therefor, which may have a significant impact on our results and operations and future cash flow.

We may not be able to utilize all, or any, of our net operating loss carryforwards.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history, do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may not achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2021, we had U.S. federal, state, and foreign net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards of  $181.0 million, $122.2 million, and $0.4 million, respectively. Our federal NOL carryforwards of $19.7 million will begin to expire in 2030 while the remaining federal NOL carryforwards of $161.2 million carry forward indefinitely. The state NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2025. In addition, as of December 31, 2021, we have U.S. federal and state research and development (“R&D”) tax credits of $11.4 million and an amount less than $0.1 million available to offset future U.S. federal and state income taxes, which begin to expire in 2027 and 2030, respectively.  At December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, we had federal Orphan Drug credits of $9.5 million and $6.0 million, respectively, which begin to expire in 2038.

Changes in tax laws or regulations may adversely impact our ability to utilize all, or any, of our NOL carryforwards. For example, legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), significantly revised the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Future guidance from the IRS and other tax authorities with respect to the TCJA may affect us, and certain aspects of the TCJA could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) modified certain provisions of the TCJA. Under the CARES Act, NOLs arising in a tax year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2021, generally may now be carried back five years. Under the TCJA, as modified by the CARES Act, unused losses generated in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017 will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such NOLs in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, is limited to 80% of taxable income. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the to the TCJA or the CARES Act.

74

As of December 31, 2021, we have a valuation allowance for the full amount of our net deferred tax assets as the realization of the net deferred tax assets is not determined to be more likely than not. In addition, Sections 382 and 383 of the Code limit a corporation’s ability to utilize its NOL carryforwards and certain other tax attributes (including research credits) to offset any future taxable income or tax if the corporation experiences a cumulative ownership change of more than 50% over any rolling three-year period. State NOL carryforwards (and certain other tax attributes) may be similarly limited. A Section 382 ownership change can therefore result in significantly greater tax liabilities than a corporation would incur in the absence of such a change, and any increased liabilities could adversely affect the corporation’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow. We have not yet determined if any prior change in the ownership of our equity or any change in such ownership in connection with our IPO, would trigger a Section 382 ownership change. It is possible that such a Section 382 ownership change has already occurred in prior periods. Furthermore, additional ownership changes may occur in the future as a result of events over which we will have little or no control, including purchases and sales of our equity by our 5% stockholders, the emergence of new 5% stockholders, additional equity offerings or redemptions of our stock or certain changes in the ownership of any of our 5% stockholders. As a result, our pre-2018 NOL carryforwards (and research tax credits) may expire prior to being used, and our NOL carryforwards and tax credits generated in 2018 and thereafter will be subject to a percentage limitation, upon an ownership change. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We have entered into significant arrangements with collaborators and expect to depend on collaborations with third parties for certain research, development and commercialization activities, and if any such collaborations are not successful, it may harm our business and prospects.

We have sought in the past, and anticipate that we will continue to seek in the future, third-party collaborators for the research, development and commercialization of certain product candidates and the research and development of certain technologies. For example, we are party to the Development and License Agreement with Lilly.  Under this agreement, we are focused on research and development of in vivo gene editing products that utilize or incorporate our ARCUS nucleases. Our likely collaborators for other product research and development arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and our likely collaborators for other technology research and development arrangements include universities and other research institutions.

Working with collaborators poses several significant risks. We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the product candidates or technologies we may seek to develop with them. A variety of factors may impact resource allocation decisions of collaborators, such as study or trial results, changes in the collaborator’s strategic focus, turnover in personnel responsible for the development activities, financial capacity or external factors such as a business combination or change in control that diverts resources or creates competing priorities. Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates or the development of technologies in the most efficient manner or at all. Resource allocation and other developmental decisions made by our collaborators may result in the delay or termination of research programs, studies or trials, repetition of or initiation of new studies or trials or provision of insufficient funding or resources for the completion of studies or trials or the successful marketing and distribution of any product candidates that may receive approval. Collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, product candidates or technologies that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates or technologies if the collaborators believe that competitive products or technologies are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours. Collaborators may not properly obtain, maintain, enforce or defend our intellectual property or proprietary rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way that could jeopardize or invalidate our proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation. Disputes may arise between us and our collaborators that result in the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization activities or that result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources.

Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates or technologies, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of product candidates or technologies could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop such product candidates or technologies. For example, we waived earned, but unpaid milestone payments in connection with the termination of the Servier Agreement. Further, as a result of the termination of the Gilead Agreement, we are no longer entitled to receive certain milestone payments, our submission of an IND for our in vivo chronic HBV program has been delayed and we are currently exploring alternative opportunities to enable to continued development of ARCUS-based HBV therapies. In connection with this termination, and if any of our other collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may be unable to find a suitable replacement collaborator or any replacement collaborator or attract new collaborators and may need to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates or technologies. These events could delay development programs, negatively impact the perception of our company in business and financial communities or cause us to have to

75

cease development of the product candidate covered by the collaboration arrangement. Failure to develop or maintain relationships with any current collaborators could result in the loss of opportunity to work with that collaborator or reputational damage that could impact our relationships with other collaborators in the relatively small industry communities in which we operate. Moreover, all of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K apply to the activities of our collaborators. If our existing collaboration agreements or any collaborative or strategic relationships we may establish in the future are not effective and successful, it may damage our reputation and business prospects, delay or prevent the development and commercialization of product candidates and inhibit or preclude our ability to realize any revenues.

If we are not able to establish collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our research, development and commercialization plans.

Our research and product development programs and the potential commercialization of any product candidates we develop alone or with collaborators will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses, and we expect that we will continue to seek collaborative arrangements with others in connection with the development and potential commercialization of current and future product candidates or the development of ancillary technologies. We face significant competition in establishing relationships with appropriate collaborators. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include, among other things and as applicable for the type of potential product or technology, an assessment of the opportunities and risks of our technology, the design or results of studies or trials, the likelihood of approval, if necessary, by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products and technologies and industry and market conditions generally.

Current or future collaborators may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us. Additionally, we may be restricted under existing collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements on certain terms or for certain development activities with potential collaborators. For example, we have granted exclusive rights or options to Lilly for certain targets, and during the term of our collaboration agreement we will be restricted from granting rights to other parties to use our ARCUS technology to pursue potential products that address those targets. Similarly, our collaboration agreements have in the past and may in the future contain non-competition provisions that could limit our ability to enter into strategic collaborations with future collaborators.

Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we do enter into additional collaboration agreements, the negotiated terms may force us to relinquish rights that diminish our potential profitability from development and commercialization of the subject product candidates or others. If we are unable to enter into additional collaboration agreements, we may have to curtail the research and development of the product candidate or technology for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay research and development programs, delay potential commercialization timelines, reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities or undertake research, development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund research, development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and if those third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements, or otherwise perform in a satisfactory manner, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize product candidates, or such approval or commercialization may be delayed, and our business may be substantially harmed.

We rely on medical institutions, universities, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct preclinical studies and future clinical trials for our product candidates. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on such third parties will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

Although we intend to design the trials for our product candidates either alone or with collaborators, third parties may conduct all of the trials. As a result, many important aspects of our research and development programs, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct future studies and trials will also result in less direct control over the management of data developed through studies and trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes and difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may have staffing difficulties, fail to comply with contractual obligations, experience regulatory compliance issues, undergo changes in priorities, become financially distressed or form relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. We also face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or misappropriation of our intellectual property by CROs or

76

other third parties, which may reduce our trade secret protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of our preclinical studies and future clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution.

For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with regulations, commonly referred to as GCPs for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. If we, our collaborators, our CROs or other third parties fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of such completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

If our CROs or other third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other reasons, trials for product candidates may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we or our collaborators may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, any product candidate that we develop. If we are required to repeat, extend the duration of or increase the size of any trials we conduct, it could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures. As a result of any of these factors, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidate that we or our collaborators may develop would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

We rely on third parties to supply raw materials or manufacture product supplies that are necessary for the conduct of preclinical studies, clinical trials and manufacturing of our product candidates, and failure by third parties to provide us with sufficient quantities of products, or to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices and on a timely basis, could harm our business.

We are dependent on third parties for the supply of various biological materials, such as cells, cytokines and antibodies, and the manufacture of product supplies, such as media, plasmids, mRNA and AAV viral vectors, that are necessary to produce our product candidates. The supply of these materials could be reduced or interrupted at any time. In such case, identifying and engaging an alternative supplier or manufacturer could result in delay, and we may not be able to find other acceptable suppliers or manufacturers on acceptable terms, or at all. Switching suppliers or manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. If we change suppliers or manufacturers for commercial production, applicable regulatory agencies may require us to conduct additional studies or trials. If key suppliers or manufacturers are lost, or if the supply of the materials is diminished or discontinued, we or our collaborators may not be able to develop, manufacture and market product candidates in a timely and competitive manner, or at all. If any of our product candidates receives approval, we will likely need to seek alternative sources of supply of raw materials or manufactured product supplies and there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish such relationships to provide such supplies on commercially reasonable terms or at acceptable quality levels, if at all. If we are unable to identify and procure additional sources of supply that fit our required needs, we could face substantial delays or incur additional costs in procuring such materials. In addition, manufactured product supplies are subject to stringent manufacturing processes and rigorous testing. Delays in the completion and validation of facilities and manufacturing processes of these materials could adversely affect the ability to complete studies or trials and commercialize any product candidates that may receive approval. Furthermore, if our suppliers or manufacturers encounter challenges relating to employee turnover, the supply and manufacturing of our materials could be delayed or adversely affected as such parties seek to hire and train new employees. These factors could cause the delay of studies or trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing products successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers or manufacturers fail to meet contractual requirements, and we are unable to secure one or more replacements capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our or our collaborators’ studies or trials may be delayed and we could lose potential revenue.

We may continue to rely on third parties for at least a portion of the manufacturing process of product candidates, and failure by those parties to adequately perform their obligations could harm our business.

While we use our MCAT facility for certain of our clinical-scale manufacturing and processing needs, we may continue to rely on outside vendors for at least a portion of the manufacturing process of product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture product candidates must be approved by the FDA or other foreign regulatory agencies pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an application to the FDA or other foreign regulatory agencies. To the extent that we or our collaborators engage third parties for manufacturing services, we will not control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing providers for compliance with cGMP

77

requirements for manufacture of the product candidates. We have not yet caused any product candidates to be manufactured or processed on a commercial scale and may not be able to do so. We will make changes as we work to optimize the manufacturing process, and we cannot be sure that even minor changes in the process will result in products that are safe and effective. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market any of our or our collaborators’ potential products.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Our ability to compete may decline if we do not adequately protect our proprietary rights, and if our proprietary rights do not provide a competitive advantage.

Our commercial success depends upon obtaining and maintaining proprietary rights to our intellectual property estate, including rights relating to ARCUS and to our product candidates, as well as successfully defending these rights against third-party challenges and successfully enforcing these rights to prevent third-party infringement. We will only be able to protect ARCUS and product candidates from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents cover them. Our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for ARCUS and our product candidates is uncertain due to a number of factors, including that:

Even if we have or obtain patents covering ARCUS or any product candidates or compositions, we and our collaborators may still be barred from making, using and selling such product candidates or technologies because of the patent rights of others. Others may have filed, and in the future may file, patent applications covering compositions, products or methods that are similar or identical to ours, which could materially affect our ability to successfully develop any product candidates or to successfully commercialize any approved products alone or with collaborators. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications unknown to us that may later result in issued patents that we or our collaborators may infringe. These patent applications may have priority over patent applications filed by us.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent

78

protection of our technology and products. For example, in August 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”), of the USPTO initiated two patent interferences, administrative proceedings within the USPTO, involving a family of patents that have been issued to us and a pending patent application filed by a third party. An interference is conducted by the PTAB when opposing parties have applied for patent claims to the same invention or substantially the same invention. The interference is conducted to determine which party, if either, is entitled to claims to the subject matter of the interference. In October 2020, we announced the PTAB has issued judgements in our favor in two patent interference proceedings that challenged nine U.S. patents we owned. The patents, which issued in 2018, relate to allogeneic CAR T cells produced by inserting a gene encoding a CAR into the TRAC locus, as well as methods of using those cells for cancer immunotherapy. In the interference proceedings, a third party argued that it had invented the technology in 2012. The PTAB, however, found that the third-party patent application did not satisfy the written description requirement and rejected these claims while maintaining the claims in all nine of our patents.  Any adverse outcome in future interference proceedings could affect our competitive position, including, without limitation, loss of some or all of our involved patent claims, limiting our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Protecting our patent rights in connection with such proceeding may also be expensive and may involve the diversion of significant management time.

Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that any patents will be issued from any pending or future owned or licensed patent applications. Thus, even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. In addition, third parties may be able to develop products that are similar to, or better than, ours in a way that is not covered by the claims of our patents, or may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our products or practicing our own patented technology. Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for current or future product candidates, we may be open to competition from generic versions of such potential products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to those we or our collaborators may develop.

Obtaining and maintaining a patent portfolio entails significant expense, including periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and patent applications. These expenditures can be at numerous stages of prosecuting patent applications and over the lifetime of maintaining and enforcing issued patents. We may or may not choose to pursue or maintain protection for particular intellectual property in our portfolio. If we choose to forgo patent protection or to allow a patent application or patent to lapse purposefully or inadvertently, our competitive position could suffer. There are situations, however, in which failure to make certain payments or noncompliance with certain requirements in the patent process can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Legal action that may be required to enforce our patent rights can be expensive and may involve the diversion of significant management time. There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. In addition, these legal actions could be unsuccessful and result in the invalidation of our patents, a finding that they are unenforceable or a requirement that we enter into a licensing agreement with or pay monies to a third party for use of technology covered by our patents. We may or may not choose to pursue litigation or other actions against those that have infringed on our patents, or have used them without authorization, due to the associated expense and time commitment of monitoring these activities. If we fail to successfully protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, our competitive position could suffer, which could harm our results of operations.

Many biotechnology companies and academic institutions are currently pursuing a variety of different nuclease systems for genome editing technologies using zinc finger nucleases, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9 and the use of those nucleases in cancer immunotherapy, gene therapy and genome editing. Although those nucleases are physically and chemically different from our ARCUS nucleases, those companies and institutions may seek patents that broadly cover aspects of cancer immunotherapy, gene therapy and genome editing using nucleases generally. Such patents, if issued, valid and enforceable, could prevent us from marketing our product candidates, if approved, practicing our own patented technology, or might require us to take a license which might not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. While we expect that we will continue to be able to patent our ARCUS nucleases for the foreseeable future, as the scientific and patent literature relating to engineered endonucleases increases, including our own patents and publications, it may become more difficult or impossible to patent new engineered endonucleases in the future.

79

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to a number of intellectual property license agreements that are important to our business and expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. We may need to outsource and rely on third parties for many aspects of the development, sales and marketing of any products covered under our current and future license agreements. Delay or failure by these third parties could adversely affect the continuation of our license agreements with our licensors. If we fail to comply with any of our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, our licensors may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to market any products covered by the license.

In addition, disputes may arise regarding the payment of the royalties due to licensors in connection with our exploitation of the rights we license from them. Licensors may contest the basis of royalties we retained and claim that we are obligated to make payments under a broader basis. In addition to the costs of any litigation we may face as a result, any legal action against us could increase our payment obligations under the respective agreement and require us to pay interest and potentially damages to such licensors.

In some cases, patent prosecution of our licensed technology is controlled solely by the licensor. If such licensor fails to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we license from such licensor, we could lose our rights to such intellectual property or the exclusivity of such rights, and our competitors could market competing products using such intellectual property. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we or our collaborators may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. In other cases, we control the prosecution of patents resulting from licensed technology. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners.

For example, our license agreement with Duke, which we refer to as the Duke License, imposes various payment, royalty and other obligations on us in order to maintain the license. If we fail to make royalty payments or milestone payments required under the Duke License, Duke may terminate the agreement. If we or our affiliates obtain a license from a third party to practice the Duke technology, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to secure a covenant not to sue Duke, or any of its faculty, students, employees or agents, for any research and development efforts conducted at Duke that resulted in the creation of any of its inventions or intellectual property rights arising therefrom. Additionally, because development of the Duke technology was funded in part by the U.S. government, it is subject to certain government rights and obligations, including the requirement that any products sold in the United States based upon such technology be substantially manufactured in the United States.

In addition, our cross-license agreement with Cellectis, or the Cellectis License, imposes various obligations on us in order to maintain the license. In particular, if we participate in or provide assistance to a third party challenging the validity, enforceability and/or patentability of any claim of any patent licensed to us by Cellectis under this agreement, Cellectis may terminate the agreement. The Cellectis License does not provide exclusive rights to use the licensed intellectual property and technology or rights in all relevant fields in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and products in the future. As a result, we are not able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products and technology that may use this technology. Additionally, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from Cellectis. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If Cellectis or other licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend the patents subject to such licenses, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, and our right to develop and commercialize any of our products that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under the Duke License or the Cellectis License, or arrangements with any other licensors, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product candidate that is covered by these agreements, which could materially adversely affect the value of any such product candidate. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.

Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

80

Such disputes may be costly to resolve and may divert management’s attention away from day-to-day activities. If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed from third parties prevent or impair our ability to maintain our licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we or our collaborators may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

Some of our in-licensed intellectual property has been discovered through government funded research and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies, and compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and our ability to contract with foreign manufacturers.

Certain intellectual property rights that have been in-licensed pursuant to the Duke License have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or the Patent and Trademark Law Amendment. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require the licensor to grant exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention, (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the licensor fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States, and the Duke License requires that we comply with this requirement. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture the products substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with foreign product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our owned or licensed future intellectual property is also generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

If we do not obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation with respect to our product candidates, thereby potentially extending the term of marketing exclusivity for such product candidates, our business may be harmed.

In the United States, a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic may be eligible for a term extension designed to restore the period of the patent term that is lost during the premarket regulatory review process conducted by the FDA. Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. In the EU, our product candidates may be eligible for term extensions based on similar legislation. In either jurisdiction, however, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Even if we are granted such extension, the duration of such extension may be less than our request. If we are unable to obtain a patent term extension, or if the term of any such extension is less than our request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be in effect shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. The resulting reduction of years of revenue from applicable products could be substantial.

81

Patents and patent applications involve highly complex legal and factual questions, which, if determined adversely to us, could negatively impact our patent position.

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and other actors in our fields of business can be highly uncertain and typically involve complex scientific, legal and factual analyses. In particular, the interpretation and breadth of claims allowed in some patents covering biopharmaceutical compositions may be uncertain and difficult to determine, and are often affected materially by the facts and circumstances that pertain to the patented compositions and the related patent claims. The standards of the USPTO and its foreign counterparts are sometimes uncertain and could change in the future. Consequently, the issuance and scope of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. U.S. patents and patent applications may also be subject to interference or derivation proceedings, and U.S. patents may be subject to reexamination proceedings, post-grant review and/or inter partes review in the USPTO. International patents may also be subject to opposition or comparable proceedings in the corresponding international patent office, which could result in either loss of the patent or denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of the patent or patent application. In addition, such interference, derivation, reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review and opposition proceedings may be costly. Accordingly, rights under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection against competitive products or processes.

Furthermore, even if not challenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our technology and any product candidates or products that we develop alone or with collaborators or prevent others from designing their products to avoid being covered by our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we hold with respect to product candidates or potential products is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and could threaten our or their ability to successfully commercialize, such product candidates. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which any claim is entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO in order to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by such patent claims.

In addition, changes in, or different interpretations of, patent laws in the United States and other countries may permit others to use our discoveries or to develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates or products without providing any compensation to us, or may limit the scope of patent protection that we are able to obtain. The laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as U.S. laws, and those countries may lack adequate rules and procedures for defending our intellectual property rights.

If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our current and future research and development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their validity, breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our technology or any products and product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, encourage competitors to develop competing products or technologies and threaten our or our collaborators’ ability to commercialize future product candidates. Any such outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Third parties may assert claims against us alleging infringement of their patents and proprietary rights, or we may need to become involved in lawsuits to defend or enforce our patents, either of which could result in substantial costs or loss of productivity, delay or prevent the development and commercialization of product candidates, prohibit our use of proprietary technology or sale of potential products or put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.

Our commercial success depends in part upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell product candidates without alleged or actual infringement, misappropriation or other violation of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Litigation relating to infringement or misappropriation of patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is common, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO and corresponding international patent offices. The various markets in which we plan to operate are subject to frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. In addition, many companies in intellectual property-dependent industries, including the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. Numerous United States, EU and other internationally issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we and our collaborators are developing product candidates, and as the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties. For example, we are aware of certain patents held by third parties relating to the modification of T cells, including the production of CAR T cells. Although conducting clinical trials and other development activities with respect to our CAR T product candidates is not considered an act of infringement in the United States, if and when any of our CAR T product candidates may be approved by the FDA, those third parties may seek to enforce their patents by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. As a result of any patent infringement claims, or in order to avoid any potential infringement claims, we may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party, which may require payment of substantial royalties or fees, or require us to grant a cross-license under our intellectual property rights, similar to the cross license we granted Cellectis as part of our patent litigation settlement. These licenses may not be available on reasonable

82

terms or at all. Even if a license can be obtained on reasonable terms, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights. If we are unable to enter into a license on acceptable terms, we or our collaborators could be prevented from commercializing one or more product candidates, or forced to modify such product candidates, or to cease some aspect of our business operations, which could harm our business significantly. We or our collaborators might also be forced to redesign or modify our technology or product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights, which may result in significant cost or delay to us, or which redesign or modification could be impossible or technically infeasible. Even if we were ultimately to prevail, any of these events could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us, our collaborators or our third-party service providers, our development, manufacturing or sales activities relating to the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit may be delayed or terminated. In addition, defending such claims has in the past and may in the future cause us to incur substantial expenses and, if successful, could cause us to pay substantial damages if we are found to be infringing a third party’s patent rights. These damages potentially include increased damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have infringed such rights willfully. Some claimants may have substantially greater resources than we do and may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation to a greater degree and for longer periods of time than we could. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we own or in-license is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

We have been and may in the future be subject to third-party claims and similar adversarial proceedings or litigation in other jurisdictions regarding our infringement of the patent rights of third parties. Even if such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, and the holders of any such patents may be able to block or our collaborators’ ability to further develop or commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our technologies, compositions, formulations, or methods of treatment, prevention or use, the holders of any such patents may be able to prohibit our use of those technologies, compositions, formulations, methods of treatment, prevention or use or other technologies, effectively blocking our or our collaborators’ ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable or unless we or our collaborators obtain a license.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity, adversely impact prospective customers, cause product shipment delays or prohibit us from manufacturing, marketing or otherwise commercializing our products, services and technology. Any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation, financial condition or cash flows.

If we or one of our licensors were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our technology or a product candidate, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States and Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are common. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Third parties might allege unenforceability of our patents because during prosecution of the patent an individual connected with such prosecution withheld relevant information, or made a misleading statement. The outcome of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution, but that an adverse third party may identify and submit in support of such assertions of invalidity. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology or product candidates. Our patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors view these announcements in a negative light, the price of our common stock could be adversely affected. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings.

83

Developments in patent law could have a negative impact on our business.