UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

OR

Commission File Number: 001-39509

Dyne Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (781) 786-8230

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, 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. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the price of the registrant’s Common Stock as of June 30, 2023, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $504.0 million (based on the last reported sale price on the Nasdaq Global Select Market as of such date). For this computation, the registrant has excluded the market value of all shares of Common Stock reported as beneficially owned by its executive officer and directors; such exclusion shall not be deemed to constitute an admission that any such person is an affiliate of the registrant.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 29, 2024 was 81,958,068.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Industry Data

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or this Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve substantial risk and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical fact, contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “would,” or the negative of these words or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, among other things, statements about:

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in this Annual Report, particularly in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report, that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Moreover, we operate in a competitive and rapidly changing 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, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, collaborations, joint ventures or investments we may make or enter into.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we have filed or incorporated by reference as exhibits to this Annual Report with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report are made as of the date of this Annual Report, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

This Annual Report includes statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from independent industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by independent third parties as well as our own estimates of the prevalence of certain diseases and conditions. The market data used in this Annual Report involves a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such data. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Our estimates of the patient population with the potential to benefit from treatment with any of our product candidates includes several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research and other surveys, which may be based on a small sample size and may fail to accurately reflect the addressable patient population. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions.

Risk Factor Summary

Our business is subject to a number of risks that, if realized, could materially affect our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. These risks are discussed more fully in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage muscle disease company focused on advancing innovative life-transforming therapeutics for people living with genetically driven diseases. We are utilizing our proprietary FORCE platform to overcome the current limitations of muscle tissue delivery and advance modern oligonucleotide therapeutics for muscle diseases. Our proprietary FORCE platform therapeutics consist of an oligonucleotide payload that we rationally design to target the genetic basis of the disease we are seeking to treat, a clinically validated linker and an antigen-binding fragment, or Fab, that we attach to the payload using the linker. With our FORCE platform, we have the flexibility to deploy different types of oligonucleotide payloads with specific mechanisms of action that modify target functions. We leverage this modularity to focus on muscle diseases with high unmet need, with etiologic targets and with clear translational potential from preclinical disease models to well-defined clinical development and regulatory pathways.

Using our FORCE platform, we are assembling a broad portfolio of muscle disease therapeutics, including our programs in myotonic dystrophy type 1, or DM1, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, and facioscapulohumeral dystrophy, or FSHD. In addition, we plan to expand our portfolio through development efforts focused on rare skeletal muscle diseases, as well as cardiac and metabolic muscle diseases, including some with larger patient populations, and diseases involving the central nervous system, or CNS. We have identified product candidates for each of our DM1, DMD and FSHD programs that are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development. The following table summarizes our portfolio:

Our product candidate DYNE-101 is being evaluated in ACHIEVE, an ongoing Phase 1/2 global clinical trial in patients with DM1. ACHIEVE, which is designed to be a registrational trial, consists of a 24-week multiple ascending dose, or MAD, randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week open-label extension, or OLE, and a 96-week long-term extension.

Our product candidate DYNE-251 is being evaluated in DELIVER, an ongoing Phase 1/2 global clinical trial in patients with DMD who have mutations amenable to exon 51 skipping. DELIVER, which is designed to be a registrational trial, consists of a 24-week MAD, randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week OLE and a 96-week long-term extension.

In January 2024, we announced positive initial clinical data from the ACHIEVE trial and the DELIVER trial which we believe validates the promise of the FORCE platform.

Our approach

Oligonucleotide therapeutics are a genetic medicine modality that, using nucleic acids, specifically aims to correct the function of disease-causing genes by either degrading the target gene transcript or modifying expression of a target protein. While some oligonucleotide therapeutics have been approved, the development of oligonucleotide therapeutics has been limited by challenges in the delivery of the oligonucleotide to the tissue that requires therapy. To overcome these limitations, our FORCE platform utilizes the importance of Transferrin receptor 1, or TfR1, which is highly expressed on the surface of muscle cells, as the foundation of our novel approach of linking therapeutic payloads to our TfR1-binding Fab to deliver targeted therapeutics for muscle diseases. The mechanism of FORCE delivery is designed to utilize the natural biology of TfR1. We do not use membrane destabilizing agents to enter the cell or to escape the endosome. As a result, FORCE displays a distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, with the potential for a wide therapeutic index.
 

We have designed our proprietary FORCE platform using our deep knowledge of muscle biology and oligonucleotide therapeutics. Our therapeutics consist of three essential components: a proprietary Fab, a clinically validated linker and an oligonucleotide payload that we attach to our Fab using the linker. We engineered our proprietary Fab to bind to TfR1 to enable targeted delivery to skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle. We selected the linker for our platform based on its clinically validated safety and efficacy in approved products, its serum stability and its ability to release the therapeutic payload within the muscle cell. We attach the Fab and linker to a therapeutic payload that can be an antisense oligonucleotide, or ASO, a small interfering RNA, or siRNA, a phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomer, or PMO, or a small molecule that we rationally select to target the genetic basis of disease to potentially stop or reverse disease progression. We use the same Fab and linker for our product candidates which enables modularity of the platform.

We have demonstrated proof-of-concept of our FORCE platform with our initial data from our ACHIEVE and DELIVER clinical trials as well as in multiple in vitro and in vivo studies. In murine and non-human primate, or NHP, studies, we have delivered ASOs and phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomers, or PMOs to genetic targets within muscle tissue and observed durable, disease-modifying, functional benefit in preclinical models of disease. In the initial data from ACHIEVE, DYNE-101 demonstrated a dose dependent splicing correction and increase in muscle delivery and DMPK knockdown while also showing functional improvement in myotonia. In the initial data from DELIVER, once every 4-week administration of DYNE-251 reached levels of dystrophin expression, exon skipping and percent dystrophin positive fibers that exceeded levels reported in a third-party clinical trial for the current weekly standard of care for DMD exon 51, eteplirsen, at 6 months with a 24-fold lower total PMO dose.

The following graphic illustrates the three components of our therapeutics:

FORCE platform

Proprietary antibody (Fab)

Our proprietary Fabs are engineered to bind to TfR1 to enable targeted delivery of nucleic acids and other molecules to skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle. A Fab is the region of an antibody that binds to antigens. We selected a Fab antibody over monoclonal antibodies, or mAbs, due to its potential significant advantages when targeting TfR1 to enable muscle delivery, including enhanced tissue penetration, increased tolerability due to lower protein load and reduced risk of immune system activation due to the lack of the Fc domain, the portion of an antibody that interacts with the immune system, on the Fab. To identify the proprietary Fab we use in our product candidates, we generated and screened proprietary antibodies for selectivity to TfR1 in order to enhance muscle specificity and for binding to TfR1 without interfering with the receptor’s function of transporting iron into cells.

Clinically validated linker

The role of the linker is to connect, or conjugate, the Fab and the oligonucleotide payload. As a result, it is critical that the linker maintain stability in serum and provide release kinetics that favor sufficient payload accumulation in the targeted muscle cell. We have selected the Val-Cit linker for our product candidates based on its clinically validated safety and efficacy in approved products, its serum stability and its endosomal release attributes. We believe that serum stability is necessary to enable systemic intravenous administration, stability of the conjugated oligonucleotide in the bloodstream, delivery to muscle tissue and internalization of the therapeutic payload in the muscle cells. In preclinical studies, our Val-Cit linker facilitated precise conjugation of multiple types of payloads to our proprietary Fabs, including ASOs, small interfering RNAs, or siRNAs, and PMOs. This flexibility enables us to rationally select the appropriate type of payload to address the genetic basis of each muscle disease. Additionally, our linker and conjugation chemistry allow us to optimize the ratio of payload molecules attached to each Fab for each type of payload. We believe that our linker and conjugation chemistry will enable us to rapidly design, produce and screen molecules to enable new muscle disease programs.

Optimized payload

With our FORCE platform, we have the flexibility to deploy different types of therapeutic payloads with specific mechanisms of action that modify target functions. Using this modularity, we rationally select the therapeutic payload for each program to match the biology of the target, with the aim of addressing the genetic basis of disease and stopping or reversing disease progression. For instance, in our DM1 program, where the genetic driver of DM1 is mutant DMPK pre-mRNA located in the nucleus, we have determined to use an ASO because ASOs have advantages in degrading RNA in the nucleus when compared to siRNAs. In the case of our DMD program, we are utilizing an exon skipping PMO payload with the goal of enhancing dystrophin expression. In the case of certain cardiac and metabolic programs where the genetic targets are focused in the cytoplasm, we have engineered proprietary siRNA payloads to reduce the expression of these cytoplasmic targets.

Advantages of our FORCE platform

Our FORCE platform is designed to deliver disease-modifying therapeutics for a broad portfolio of serious muscle diseases. We believe that our FORCE platform may provide the following potential advantages:

Our strategy

Our goal is to become the leading muscle disease company by advancing innovative life-transforming therapeutics for genetically driven diseases. To accomplish this, we intend to continue building a team that shares our commitment to patients, to continue to enhance our platform and to advance our pipeline. The key elements of our strategy are to:

Our culture and team

We have established a patient-focused culture that drives our shared mission of developing life-transforming therapeutics for people living with serious muscle diseases. Our shared definition of success is simple: we do what we say we are going to do. We keep our commitments to patients, employees and other Dyne stakeholders. We endeavor to act with integrity and transparency.

Our management team is led by Joshua Brumm, our President and Chief Executive Officer, who brings over 18 years of leadership experience with life sciences companies; Susanna High, our Chief Operating Officer, who has more than two decades of experience leading corporate strategy, portfolio management, business planning and operations for biotechnology companies; Wildon Farwell, M.D., our Chief Medical Officer, who has significant expertise in clinical development and medical affairs in neuromuscular diseases and oligonucleotide therapies; and Oxana Beskrovnaya, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer, who has extensive experience in musculoskeletal and renal research. Our organization is comprised of 141 talented individuals with significant experience across discovery, preclinical research, manufacturing, clinical development and operations. We have also established scientific and clinical advisory boards comprised of leading experts in the fields of muscle disease drug discovery and development and nucleic acid therapeutics, who share our mission of delivering disease-modifying therapeutics for patients with serious muscle diseases.

Our portfolio

We are creating a pipeline of product candidates and programs to address diseases with high unmet need with etiologic targets. Our initial focus is on DM1, DMD and FSHD with potential pipeline expansion opportunities in additional rare skeletal muscle diseases, as well as cardiac and metabolic muscle diseases and diseases involving the CNS. In selecting diseases to target with our FORCE platform, we seek diseases with clear translational potential from preclinical disease models to well-defined clinical development and regulatory pathways, and where we believe that we would be able to commercialize any products that we develop and are approved with an efficient, targeted sales force. We have global commercial rights to all of our programs.

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1)

Overview

We are developing our product candidate, DYNE-101, to address the genetic basis of DM1 by targeting the toxic nuclear DMPK RNA that causes the disease. DYNE-101 consists of our proprietary Fab conjugated with our linker to an ASO and is designed to reduce the accumulation of DMPK pre-mRNA in the nucleus, release splicing proteins and potentially stop or reverse disease progression. In in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies supporting our DM1 program, we have observed a reduction in nuclear foci and toxic nuclear DMPK RNA, correction of splicing changes, reversal of myotonia, which is a neuromuscular condition in which the relaxation of a muscle is impaired, and enhanced muscle distribution. DYNE-101 is currently being evaluated in the ACHIEVE trial, a Phase 1/2 global clinical trial of adult patients with DM1. ACHIEVE, which is designed to be a registrational trial, consists of a 24-week MAD randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week OLE and a 96-week long-term extension. In January 2024, we reported positive initial data from the MAD portion of the ACHIEVE trial, including on safety, tolerability, splicing and myotonia as measured by video hand opening time, or vHOT. We anticipate reporting data from multiple, higher-dose cohorts of the ACHIEVE trial in the second half of 2024.

Disease overview and prevalence

DM1 is a monogenic, autosomal dominant, progressive disease that primarily affects skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscles. DM1 patients can suffer from various manifestations of the disease including myotonia, muscle weakness, cardiac arrhythmias, respiratory problems, fatigue, cardiac abnormalities, gastrointestinal, or GI, complications, early cataracts and cognitive and behavioral impairment.

DM1 is caused by an abnormal expansion in a region of the DMPK gene. Specifically, DM1 is caused by an increase in the number of CTG triplet repeats found in the 3’ non-coding region of the DMPK gene. The number of repeats ranges from up to approximately 35 in healthy individuals to many thousands in DM1 patients. The higher-than-normal number of triplet repeats form large hairpin loops that entrap the DMPK pre-mRNA in the nucleus and impart toxic activity, referred to as a toxic gain-of-function mutation. The mutant DMPK pre-mRNA sequesters in the nucleus, forming nuclear foci that bind splicing proteins. This inhibits the ability of splicing proteins to perform their normal function in the nucleus of guiding pre-mRNA processing of gene transcripts from many other genes. As a result, multiple pre-mRNAs that encode key proteins are mis-spliced. This mis-splicing in the nucleus results in the translation of atypical

proteins which ultimately cause the clinical presentation of DM1. When nuclear DMPK levels are reduced, the nuclear foci that bind splicing proteins are diminished, releasing splicing proteins, allowing normal mRNA processing and translation of normal proteins, and potentially stopping or reversing disease progression. This disease process is illustrated below:

DM1: Genetic basis and clinical presentation

DM1 is estimated to have a genetic prevalence of 1 in 2,500 to 1 in 8,000 people in the United States and Europe, affecting over 40,000 people in the United States and over 74,000 people in Europe. However, we believe that the patient population is currently underdiagnosed due to lack of available therapies as is observed for other rare diseases. DM1 is highly variable with respect to disease severity, presentation and age of onset.

We are advancing our own efforts to better characterize the actual DM1 patient population through a natural history study that we are sponsoring. We believe that the introduction of new therapies for DM1 will cause the diagnosis rate to improve, resulting in an increase in the overall prevalence estimates for the disease. Based on age of onset and severity of symptoms, DM1 is typically categorized into four overlapping phenotypes: late-onset; classical (adult-onset); childhood; and congenital (cDM1):
 

Overview of DM1 phenotypes

All DM1 phenotypes, except the late-onset form, are associated with high levels of disease burden and premature mortality. The clinical course of DM1 is progressive, and may become extremely disabling, especially when more generalized limb weakness and respiratory muscle involvement develops. Systemic manifestations such as fatigue, GI complications, cataracts and excessive daytime sleepiness greatly impact a patient’s quality of life. As a result, DM1 leads to physical impairment, activity limitations and decreased participation in social activities and work. Excluding congenital DM1 deaths, life expectancy ranges from 45 years to 60 years. Approximately 80% of early mortality is caused by cardiorespiratory complications. Respiratory failure due to muscle weakness (especially diaphragmatic weakness) causes at least 50% of early mortality, and cardiac abnormalities, including sudden death, account for approximately 30% of early mortality.

Current approaches and limitations

There are currently no disease-modifying therapies to treat DM1 that are approved and treatment is focused largely on symptom management or palliative therapies. There are a number of product candidates in development, including product candidates in late-stage clinical development, that also are focused on symptom management or palliative therapies and do not target toxic nuclear DMPK RNA, which is the genetic basis of the disease. There remains a high unmet medical need for new disease-modifying therapies.

Our approach - DYNE-101

Our program is designed to address the genetic basis of DM1 by targeting the toxic nuclear DMPK RNA that is the cause of the disease. Our product candidate, DYNE-101, consists of our proprietary Fab targeting TfR1 conjugated to an ASO to reduce the levels of mutant DMPK RNA in the nucleus, thereby releasing splicing proteins, allowing normal mRNA processing and translation of normal proteins, and potentially stopping or reversing disease progression. The ASO is a gapmer oligonucleotide that is designed to translocate to the nucleus, bind its complementary sequence on the DMPK RNA, recruit RNAseH1 to degrade DMPK RNA and thus reduce toxic nuclear DMPK RNA. We have chosen to develop our product candidate with an ASO because single-stranded ASOs preferentially target nuclear RNAs, which is essential for degradation of toxic nuclear DMPK RNA. DYNE-101 has been granted orphan drug designation by the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for the treatment of DM1.

Preclinical data

We have conducted extensive preclinical studies supporting the development of DYNE-101 in multiple preclinical disease models. In in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies, we observed a reduction of nuclear foci, correction of splicing and reversal of myotonia in disease models, reduction of toxic human nuclear DMPK in a hTfR1/DMSXL DM1 mouse model developed by us. In NHPs, DYNE-101 demonstrated a favorable safety profile and achieved enhanced muscle distribution as evidenced by a reduction in wild-type DMPK RNA.

Data from Multiple DM1 Models Demonstrated that FORCE was Delivered to Muscle and Drove Disease Modification

Phase 1/2 ACHIEVE Clinical Trial of DYNE-101 in DM1

DYNE-101 is currently being evaluated in the ACHIEVE trial, a global Phase 1/2 clinical trial consisting of a 24-week MAD, randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week OLE and a 96-week long-term extension. The trial, which is designed to be registrational, is enrolling adult patients with DM1 who are 18 to 49 years of age. The primary endpoints are safety and tolerability; with secondary endpoints of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, including change from baseline in splicing, as well as measures of muscle strength and function. In the MAD portion of the ACHIEVE trial, patients are randomized to receive DYNE-101 or placebo intravenously every four weeks or every eight weeks for 24 weeks, depending on cohort. Patient cohorts will be dosed from 1.8 mg/kg to 10.2 mg/kg (approximate ASO dose). Following the placebo-controlled period, patients transition to DYNE-101 treatment in the OLE portion of the trial and in the long-term extension.

The initial efficacy assessment of the DYNE-101 ACHIEVE trial reported in January 2024 was based on data from 32 adult DM1 patients enrolled in the randomized, placebo-controlled MAD portion of the trial, including 6-month data from the 1.8 mg/kg (approximate ASO dose) cohort (n=16) and 3-month data from the 3.4 mg/kg Q4W cohort (n=16). In each of these cohorts, participants were randomized to receive either DYNE-101 (n=6) or placebo (n=4) once every four weeks or participants in the recovery arm (n=6) received two doses of DYNE-101 followed by placebo for the remainder of the MAD portion of the trial.

In the ACHIEVE trial, DYNE-101 demonstrated a dose dependent splicing correction and increase in muscle delivery and DMPK knockdown while also showing functional improvement in myotonia. Key initial findings from ACHIEVE include:

Muscle Delivery: Administration of 3.4 mg/kg of DYNE-101 Q4W demonstrated a mean ASO muscle concentration of 21.5 ng/g at 3 months while administration of 1.8 mg/kg Q4W showed a mean ASO muscle concentration of 10.0 ng/g at 3 months and 12.7 ng/g at 6 months.

DMPK Knockdown: Evaluable patients in the 3.4 mg/kg Q4W group had a 40% mean DMPK knockdown from baseline compared to 25% in patients in the 1.8 mg/kg Q4W group at 3 months and 16% in patients in the 1.8 mg/kg Q4W group at 6 months.

Splicing: Evaluable patients treated with 3.4 mg/kg Q4W of DYNE-101 had a 19% mean splicing correction from baseline across a broad, 22-gene panel at 3 months, with all evaluable participants experiencing an improvement. Patients in the 1.8 mg/kg Q4W group at 3 months had a 13% mean splicing correction and at 6 months had a 7% mean increase in splicing.

Function: Patients treated with 1.8 mg/kg of DYNE-101 Q4W had a mean 3.8 second benefit in myotonia at 6 months as measured by vHOT.

Patient Reported Outcome: Patients in the DYNE-101 1.8 mg/kg Q4W group experienced an overall improvement at 6 months in the Myotonic Dystrophy Health Index, including the fatigue subscale, suggesting potential benefit of DYNE-101 in the CNS.

Safety and tolerability data in this initial assessment of the ACHIEVE trial were based on 45 patients enrolled through the 5.4 mg/kg Q8W cohort of the MAD portion. As of the data cutoff date of December 6, 2023, DYNE-101 demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Additionally, the majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate, and no related serious treatment-emergent adverse events were identified. In addition, no participants demonstrated treatment-emergent anemia, and no clinically meaningful changes were observed in kidney or liver parameters. Also, no participants demonstrated kidney injury. Liver enzyme elevations were observed in approximately 18% of participants, with no impact on liver function. Interpretation is complicated by underlying liver disease and elevated baseline values up to approximately 2.5 times greater than the upper limit of normal. All participants who have completed the MAD portion of ACHIEVE have enrolled in the 24-week OLE.

Enrollment is complete through the 5.4 mg/kg Q8W cohort of the ACHIEVE trial (48 total patients enrolled), and we are currently enrolling in the 6.8 mg/kg Q8W cohort. These initial clinical data position us to optimize dose and dose regimen for DYNE-101 with the goal of initiating registrational cohorts in the trial by the end of 2024. We anticipate reporting data from multiple, higher dose cohorts of the ACHIEVE trial in the second half of 2024.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)

Overview

We are developing product candidates under our DMD program to address the genetic basis of DMD by delivering a PMO to muscle tissue to promote the skipping of specific DMD exons in the nucleus, allowing muscle cells to create a more complete, functional dystrophin protein and to potentially stop or reverse disease progression. We believe that PMOs, with their preferential targeting of nuclear mechanisms, are the best payload to address nuclear exon skipping. In in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies, our PMOs when conjugated to a Fab targeting TfR1 have shown increased exon skipping, increased dystrophin expression, reduced muscle damage and increased muscle function. We are seeking to build a global DMD franchise by initially focusing on the development of our product candidate DYNE-251 for patients with mutations amenable to skipping exon 51, to be followed by the development of product candidates for patients with mutations amenable to skipping other exons, including exon 53, 45 and 44. DYNE-251 is currently being evaluated in the DELIVER trial, a Phase 1/2 global clinical trial in males with mutations amenable to skipping exon 51. The DELIVER trial consists of a 24-week MAD randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week open-label extension and a 96-week long-term extension. In January 2024, we reported positive initial data from the MAD portion of the DELIVER trial, including on safety, tolerability and dystrophin expression. We anticipate reporting data from multiple, higher dose cohorts of the DELIVER trial in the second half of 2024.

Disease overview and prevalence

DMD is a monogenic, X-linked, disease caused by mutations in the gene that encodes for the dystrophin protein. Dystrophin protein is essential to maintain the structural integrity and normal function of muscle cells for walking, breathing and cardiac function. In patients with DMD, mutations in the dystrophin gene lead to certain exons being misread, resulting in the loss of function of the dystrophin protein. The

reduction or absence of dystrophin leads to damage to muscle cell membranes, resulting in muscle cell death and progressive loss of muscle function.

DMD symptoms typically begin to manifest with weakness and progressive loss of muscle function beginning in the first few years of life. Young boys experience progressive muscle wasting and have difficulty standing up, climbing stairs, running, breathing and performing daily functions. As the disease progresses the severity of damage to skeletal and cardiac muscles results in patients experiencing total loss of ambulation in the pre-teenage or early teenage years. Progressive loss of upper extremity function is often observed in the mid-to-late teens followed by respiratory and/or cardiac failure, resulting in death before the age of 30. The below graphic highlights the mechanism of exon skipping and resulting dystrophin expression in healthy individuals and in DMD patients and how our DMD program is designed to address the genetic basis of DMD.

Targeting the Genetic Basis of DMD

We estimate that DMD occurs in approximately one in every 3,500 to 5,000 live male births and that approximately 12,000 to 15,000 patients in the United States, and approximately 25,000 patients in Europe, have DMD. Approximately 80% of patients with DMD have DMD mutations amenable to exon skipping in the nucleus. Exons 51, 53, 45 and 44 represent nearly half of the total mutations observed in DMD that are amenable to exon skipping, as illustrated in the figure below.

Overview of DMD exons amenable to skipping

Current approaches and limitations

Currently, patients with DMD are treated with corticosteroids to manage the inflammatory component of the disease. There are four FDA-approved naked PMO-based oligonucleotide therapies, each addressing a specific mutation: EXONDYS 51 (eteplirsen), which is approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 51 skipping, VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen), which is approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 53 skipping, VILTEPSO (vitolarsen), which is approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 53 skipping and AMONDYS 45 (casimersen), which is approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 45 skipping. However, each of the drugs requires weekly intravenous infusions. Eteplirsen, golodirsen and casimersen have demonstrated a less than 1% mean increase in dystrophin in clinical trials and vitolarsen has demonstrated an approximately 3% increase in dystrophin in clinical trials. The FDA-approved labels for all four drugs state that a clinical benefit has not yet been established and that continued approval may be contingent upon the verification of such clinical benefit in confirmatory clinical trials. In Europe, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, has rejected an application for approval of eteplirsen citing insufficient evidence of clinical benefit. In addition, a fourth drug, TRANSLARNA (ataluren), has only been conditionally approved in the European Union, Iceland and South Korea for non-sense mutations in DMD in ambulatory patients aged five years and older. Each of these approved products seeks to address DMD through the exon skipping approach we are pursuing, but we believe their limited efficacy is due to poor muscle uptake and biodistribution. There are a number of product candidates in development, including product candidates in late-stage clinical development, which seek to address DMD through the exon skipping approach we are pursuing, including naked oligonucleotides, targeted oligonucleotides and PMOs conjugated to charged peptides, as well as product candidates that seek to address DMD through gene editing and gene replacement with viral gene therapies and with other approaches. We believe that each of these approaches currently have significant limitations, and that there continues to be a high unmet medical need for new disease-modifying therapies.

Our approach

Our DMD program is designed to address the genetic basis of DMD by promoting the skipping of specific DMD exons in the nucleus, allowing muscle cells to create more complete, functional dystrophin protein. Under our DMD program, we are developing product candidates that incorporate our proprietary Fab targeting TfR1 conjugated to a PMO designed to promote the skipping of specific DMD exons in the nucleus. Existing clinical data generated by others supports the benefits of utilizing a single stranded ASO or PMO to skip the faulty exon in the nucleus of DMD patient cells. We believe our Fab targeting TfR1 allows for more efficient delivery of a PMO to skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle cells, creating an opportunity to increase dystrophin expression, enable less frequent dosing and provide greater clinical benefit compared to current therapeutic approaches. We plan to develop our program candidates for DMD with a PMO, initially for exon 51 and in the future for other exon mutations including exons 53, 45 and 44.

DYNE-251

We are evaluating DYNE-251 in the Phase 1/2 global DELIVER clinical trial for people living with DMD who are amenable to exon 51 skipping. DYNE-251 consists of PMO conjugated to Fab that binds to TfR1. DYNE-251 has been granted fast track, orphan drug and rare pediatric disease designations by the FDA for the treatment of DMD mutations amenable to exon 51 skipping.

Preclinical data

We have conducted multiple in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies of our FORCE platform in DMD that have shown increased exon skipping, increased dystrophin expression, reduced muscle damage and increased muscle function. We believe these data support the potential for DYNE-251 to be a disease-modifying therapy for patients with DMD amenable to skipping exon 51.

In studies in the mdx mouse DMD model, a validated and widely accepted mouse model in DMD which has a mutation in exon 23, we observed that single intravenous doses of an exon 23-targeting PMO conjugated to a Fab targeting TfR1 which we refer to as FORCE-M23D, achieved robust, durable exon skipping in cardiac and skeletal muscles after a single dose. In NHPs, DYNE-251 demonstrated a favorable safety profile and achieved robust exon skipping, especially in the heart and diaphragm muscles which weaken over time leading to mortality in people living with DMD.

Phase 1/2 DELIVER Clinical Trial of DYNE-251 in DMD

DYNE-251 is currently being evaluated in the DELIVER trial, a Phase 1/2 global clinical trial consisting of a 24-week MAD randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week OLE and a 96-week long-term extension. The trial, which is designed to be registrational, is enrolling ambulant and non-ambulant males with DMD who are ages 4 to 16 and have mutations amenable to exon 51 skipping. The primary endpoints are safety, tolerability and change from baseline in dystrophin levels as measured by Western blot. Secondary endpoints include measures of muscle function, exon skipping and pharmacokinetics.

In the MAD portion of the DELIVER trial, patients are randomized to receive DYNE-251 or placebo every four or eight weeks intravenously for 24 weeks, depending on cohort. Patients cohorts will be dosed from 0.7 mg/kg to 40 mg/kg (approximate PMO dose). Following the placebo-controlled period, patients transition to DYNE-251 treatment in the open-label portion of the trial and in the long-term extension.

The initial efficacy assessment of the DYNE-251 DELIVER trial reported in January 2024 was based on 6-month data from six male patients with DMD amenable to exon 51 skipping enrolled in the 5 mg/kg (approximate PMO dose) cohort of the randomized, placebo-controlled MAD portion of the trial. Patients were randomized to receive either DYNE-251 (n=4) or placebo (n=2) once every four weeks. Once every 4-week administration of DYNE-251 in the DELIVER trial reached levels of dystrophin expression, exon skipping and percent dystrophin positive fibers that exceeded levels reported in a third-party clinical trial for the current weekly standard of care for DMD exon 51, eteplirsen, at 6 months with a 24-fold lower total PMO dose. Key initial findings from the DELIVER trial include:

Muscle delivery: DYNE-251 showed a mean 657 ng/g PMO muscle drug concentration at 6 months.

Exon 51 skipping: DYNE-251 demonstrated a mean absolute exon skipping level of 0.90% and a 0.80% change from baseline at 6 months. In the eteplirsen trial, eteplirsen, which is administered weekly, showed a 0.59% mean absolute exon skipping level and a 0.40% change from baseline at 6 months.

Dystrophin expression measured by Western blot: Patients treated with DYNE-251 had a mean absolute dystrophin level of 0.88% of normal and a 0.28% change from baseline at 6 months. In the eteplirsen trial, eteplirsen reached a mean absolute dystrophin level of 0.30% of normal and a 0.06% change from baseline at 6 months.

Percent dystrophin positive fibers: DYNE-251 demonstrated 22.2% mean level of dystrophin positive fibers, or PDPF, and a 19.8% change from baseline at 6 months. In the eteplirsen trial, eteplirsen showed a 19.6% mean level of PDPF and a 10.7% change from baseline at 6 months.

The DELIVER trial does not compare DYNE-251 to eteplirsen, and no head-to-head trials have been conducted comparing DYNE-251 to eteplirsen. Eteplirsen data may not be directly comparable to the DELIVER data due to differences between the trials in trial protocols, dosing regimens and patient populations. Accordingly, these cross-trial comparisons may not be reliable.

Safety and tolerability data in the DELIVER trial were based on 37 patients enrolled through the 20 mg/kg cohort of the MAD portion. As of the data cutoff date of December 6, 2023, DYNE-251 demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Additionally, the majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate, and no related serious adverse events were identified. In addition, no participants demonstrated treatment-emergent anemia, and no clinically meaningful changes were observed in kidney parameters or electrolytes, including magnesium. All participants who have completed the MAD portion of DELIVER have enrolled in the 24-week OLE.

Enrollment is complete through the 20 mg/kg Q4W cohort of the DELIVER trial (40 total patients enrolled), and we are currently enrolling in the 40 mg/kg Q8W cohort. These initial clinical data position us to optimize dose and dose regimen for DYNE-251 with the goal of initiating registrational cohorts by the end of 2024. We anticipate reporting data from multiple, higher dose cohorts of the DELIVER trial in the second half of 2024.

Facioscapulohumeral Dystrophy (FSHD)

Overview

We are developing a product candidate to address the genetic basis of FSHD by reducing DUX4 expression in muscle tissue. In September 2022, we announced that we were prioritizing our focus and resources on our clinical programs, DYNE-101 for DM1 and DYNE-251 for DMD. As a result, we announced the deferral of the IND application submission for DYNE-301 for FSHD that we had originally targeted for the second half of 2022. We continue to evaluate the optimal approach to target DUX4 and translate our preclinical work to a tractable clinical development pathway, and we plan to provide an update on the FSHD program in 2024.

Disease overview and prevalence

FSHD is one of the most common muscular dystrophies and affects both sexes equally, with onset typically in teens and young adults. FSHD is characterized by progressive skeletal muscle loss that initially causes weakness in muscles in the face, shoulders, arms and trunk and progresses to weakness in muscles in lower extremities and the pelvic girdle. Skeletal muscle weakness results in significant physical limitations, including progressive loss of facial muscles that can cause an inability to smile or communicate, difficulty using arms for activities of daily living and difficulty getting out of bed, with many patients ultimately becoming dependent upon the use of a wheelchair for daily mobility activities. We estimate that the patient population is between 16,000 and 38,000 in the United States and approximately

35,000 in Europe. We believe that there may be additional patients who are not formally diagnosed due to a perceived difficulty of obtaining a diagnosis and the fact that there are no approved treatments. Approximately two-thirds of cases are familial-inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion and one-third of cases occur randomly or as a result of environmental factors. FSHD affects all ethnic groups with similar incidence and prevalence.

FSHD is caused by aberrant expression of the DUX4 gene in muscle resulting in inappropriate presence of the DUX4 protein, a transcription factor causing the expression of other genes. Normally, DUX4-driven gene expression is limited to early embryonic development, after which time the DUX4 gene is silenced. In patients with FSHD, a genetic mutation causes expression of DUX4 protein to continue after embryonic development. The DUX4 protein regulates the expression of multiple genes encoding other proteins, some of which are toxic to muscle. Evidence of aberrant expression of DUX4 and the genes it activates, including ZSCAN4, MBD3L2, and TRIM43, is a major molecular signature that distinguishes muscles affected by FSHD from healthy muscle. The aberrant expression of DUX4 in FSHD results in muscle death and replacement by fat, which leads to the progressive muscle weakness and disability which characterize the disease, as shown in the figure below.

FSHD: genetic basis and disease process

Current approaches and limitations

There are currently no approved therapies for FSHD, and patients are treated with pain management and physical therapy. There are a number of product candidates in clinical development, including losmapimod, a p38 MAPK inhibitor that is intended to modulate DUX4 expression and is being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial. To aid in the development of therapies for FSHD, we are sponsoring an ongoing natural history study seeking to validate new clinical outcome assessments and evaluate physiological biomarkers to support the design and implementation of future clinical trials.

Discovery Programs and Pipeline Expansion Opportunities

We intend to expand our FORCE portfolio by pursuing programs in additional indications, including additional rare skeletal muscle diseases, as well as cardiac and metabolic muscle diseases and diseases involving the CNS. By rationally selecting therapeutic payloads to conjugate with our proprietary Fab and linker, we plan to develop product candidates to address the genetic basis of additional muscle diseases. In selecting these payloads, we plan to prioritize ASOs for indications driven by nuclear genetic targets and siRNAs for indications driven by cytoplasmic targets. We have completed screening and identified potent ASO and siRNA payloads against a number of cardiac and metabolic targets. We may selectively establish strategic collaborations for certain of these programs where we believe we could benefit from the resources or capabilities of other biopharmaceutical companies. We may also seek strategic

collaborations where we believe we can utilize our FORCE platform to enhance delivery of third-party payloads to muscle tissue.
 

We have demonstrated in preclinical studies that the FORCE platform achieved delivery to the CNS. Intravenous, or IV, administration of FORCE conjugate, our proprietary Fab antibody conjugated to an ASO, achieved delivery to the CNS via TfR1 in both NHPs and our hTfR1/DMSXL mouse model. The hTfR1/DMSXL model that we developed expresses the human TfR1 and carries a human DMPK gene with more than 1,000 CTG repeats that represents a severe DM1 phenotype. In these studies, FORCE conjugate was generally well tolerated. In NHPs, FORCE conjugate achieved superior delivery compared to unconjugated ASO when both were administered intravenously. In addition, IV administration of FORCE in our preclinical studies showed broader distribution throughout the brain compared to intrathecal administration of unconjugated ASO. FORCE conjugate was also delivered to the brain of hTfR1/DMSXL mice and demonstrated robust knockdown of toxic human nuclear DMPK RNA and foci reduction in hTfR1/DMSXL mice.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities. We currently rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and suppliers for our Fab antibody, linker and oligonucleotide payloads that comprise our program candidates and the conjugation of these components. We plan to use third-party CMOs to support our IND-enabling studies and to fully supply our clinical trials and commercial activities but may also seek to eventually establish our own manufacturing facility for long-term commercial supply. As we scale manufacturing, we intend to continue to expand and strengthen our network of CMOs. We believe there are multiple sources for all of the materials required for the manufacture of our product candidates, as well as multiple CMOs who could assemble the antibody, linker and payload that comprise our program candidates.

Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose procedural and documentation requirements. These regulations govern record keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance. Our CMOs are required to comply with these regulations and are assessed through regular monitoring and formal audits. Our third-party manufacturers are required to manufacture any product candidates we develop under current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, requirements and other applicable laws and regulations.

We have personnel with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical and quality experience to oversee all contracted manufacturing and testing activities. We have established a CMC Advisory Board to support our manufacturing personnel.

Intellectual property

We strive to protect our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms, program candidates, product candidates and components thereof, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture that we believe are important to our business, including by obtaining, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent and other intellectual property rights for the foregoing in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions. We also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our confidential information and know-how and other aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our future commercial success depends in part on our ability to:

As of December 31, 2023, we owned 59 patent application families related to our business, comprised of four U.S. provisional patent applications, 22 issued U.S. patents, 44 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 18 pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent applications, and 232 pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Eurasia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa, and we exclusively licensed one patent family, comprised of two issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. patent applications and one issued European patent that has been validated in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Our owned and licensed patent estate covers various aspects of our programs and technology, including our FORCE platform, proprietary antibodies, oligonucleotide conjugates, methods of treatment and aspects of manufacturing. Any U.S. or foreign patents issued from national stage filings of our PCT patent applications and any U.S. patents issued from non-provisional applications we may file in connection with our provisional patent applications would be scheduled to expire on various dates from 2039 through 2044, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity and other governmental fees. Further details on certain segments of our patent portfolio are included below.

FORCE platform

With regard to our FORCE platform, as of December 31, 2023, we owned three issued U.S. patents, 11 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and 66 pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Eurasia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and South Africa. These applications relate to various aspects of our FORCE platform including proprietary antibodies, oligonucleotide conjugates, methods of manufacture and methods of treatment. The three issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2042 without taking into account any possible patent term extensions. Any patents issued from these applications are expected to expire from 2039 to 2042; however, patent term extension may be available.

DM1 program

With regard to our DM1 program, as of December 31, 2023, we owned three pending PCT patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, eight issued U.S. patents, eight pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and 56 pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Eurasia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa. These applications relate to composition of matter and methods of treating disease involving our FORCE platform in the context of DM1. The eight issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2039 and 2042 without taking into account any possible patent term extensions. Any additional patents issued from these applications are expected to expire from 2039 to 2044; however, patent term extension may be available.

DMD programs (exons 51, 53, 44, 45, and other)

With regard to our DMD programs, as of December 31, 2023, we owned nine pending PCT patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, 13 issued U.S. patents, six pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and 41 pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, Europe, Eurasia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and South Africa. These patent filings relate to composition of matter and methods of treating disease involving our FORCE platform in the context of DMD. The 13 issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2039 and 2042 without taking into account any possible patent term extensions. Any additional patents issued from

these applications are expected to expire in 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043 and 2044; however, patent term extension may be available.

FSHD program

With regard to our FSHD program, as of December 31, 2023, we owned three pending PCT patent applications, 11 issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, six pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and 47 pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Eurasia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and South Africa. These patent filings relate to composition of matter and methods of treating disease involving our FORCE platform in the context of FSHD. The 11 issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2039 and 2042 without taking into account any possible patent term extensions. Any additional patents issued from these applications are expected to expire in 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043 and 2044; however, patent term extension may be available. We also in-license a patent family from the University of Mons, or UMONS, comprised of two issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent applications and one issued European patent that has been validated in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. The issued patents expire in 2031; however, a patent term extension may be available.

Discovery programs

With regard to our discovery programs, as of December 31, 2023, we owned two pending PCT patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, three pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and five pending foreign patent applications in China, Canada, Europe and Japan. These applications relate to composition of matter and methods of treating disease involving our FORCE platform in the context of a variety of additional rare skeletal muscle diseases, as well as cardiac and metabolic muscle diseases and diseases involving the CNS. Any patents issued from these applications are expected to expire in 2039, 2041 and 2042; however, patent term extension may be available.

Patent prosecution

A PCT patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file one or more national stage patent applications in the jurisdictions in which we seek patent protection and do so within prescribed timelines of the PCT application’s priority date. These prescribed timelines are generally 30 months, 31 months or 32 months, depending on the jurisdiction. If we do not timely file any national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our PCT patent application and any potential patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent application.

Moreover, a provisional patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent. A provisional patent application may serve as a priority filing for a non-provisional patent application we file within 12 months of such provisional patent application. If we do not timely file non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our existing provisional patent applications and any potential patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications.

While we intend to timely file additional provisional patent applications and national stage and non-provisional patent applications relating to our PCT patent applications, we cannot predict whether any of our patent applications will result in the issuance of patents. If we do not successfully obtain patent protection, or if the scope of the patent protection we or our licensors obtain with respect to our product candidates or technology is insufficient, we will be unable to use patent protection to prevent others from using our technology or from developing or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours or other similar competing products and technologies. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing any of our technology, inventions and improvements, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions and improvements.

The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. The protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of patent term adjustments and regulatory-related patent term extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular jurisdiction and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Patent laws and related enforcement in various jurisdictions outside of the United States are uncertain and may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Changes in the patent laws and rules, whether by legislation, judicial decisions or regulatory interpretation, in the United States and other jurisdictions may have uncertain affects that could improve or diminish our ability to protect our inventions and obtain, maintain, defend and enforce our patent rights, and could therefore affect the value of our business in uncertain ways.

The area of patent and other intellectual property rights in biotechnology is evolving and has many risks and uncertainties, and third parties may have blocking patents and other intellectual property that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our platform and product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology. Our patent rights may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, invalidated or ruled unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop third parties from marketing and commercializing related platforms or product candidates or limit the term of patents that cover our platform and any product candidates. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against third parties with similar technology, and third parties may independently develop similar technologies.

Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any competitive advantage provided by the patent. For this and other risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms and product candidates and intellectual property rights related to the foregoing, please see the section entitled “Risk factors—Risks related to our intellectual property.”

Patent term

The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the jurisdictions in which they are obtained. In most jurisdictions in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of the first non-provisional patent application to which the patent claims priority. However, the term of U.S. patents may be extended or adjusted for delays incurred due to compliance with FDA requirements or by delays encountered during prosecution that are caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO. For example, in the United States, a patent claiming a new biologic product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, for up to five years beyond the normal expiration date of the patent. Patent term extension cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date in the United States. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. During the period of extension, if granted, the scope of exclusivity is limited to the approved product for approved uses. Some foreign jurisdictions, including Europe and Japan, have analogous patent term extension provisions, which allow for extension of the term of a patent that covers a drug approved by the applicable foreign regulatory agency. For more information on patent term extensions, see Item 1. “Business—Government regulation—Patent term restoration and extension” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In the future, if and when any product candidates we may develop receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those product candidates. Moreover, we intend to seek patent term adjustments and extensions for any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where such adjustments and extensions are available. However, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO and FDA, will agree with our

assessment of whether such adjustments and extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such adjustments and extensions.

Trade secrets

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secrets, know-how, unpatented technology and other proprietary information to strengthen our competitive position. We currently, and may continue in the future continue to, rely on third parties to assist us in developing and manufacturing our products. Accordingly, we must, at times, share trade secrets, know-how, unpatented technology and other proprietary information, including those related to our platform, with them. We may in the future also enter into research and development collaborations with third parties that may require us to share trade secrets, know-how, unpatented technology and other proprietary information under the terms of research and development partnerships or similar agreements. Nonetheless, we take steps to protect and preserve our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of the foregoing, including by entering into non-disclosure and invention assignment agreements with parties who have access to our trade secrets or other confidential and proprietary information, such as employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, contract research and manufacturing organizations, sponsored researchers and other advisors, at the commencement of their employment, consulting or other relationships with us. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, to guard against any misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information by third parties.

Despite these efforts, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information. In addition, we cannot provide any assurances that all of the foregoing non-disclosure and invention assignment agreements have been duly executed, and any of the counterparties to such agreements may breach them and disclose our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information. Although we have confidence in the measures we take to protect and preserve our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information, they may be inadequate, our agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for such breaches. Moreover, to the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to our rights in any know-how or inventions arising out of such work. For more information, please see the section entitled “Risk factors—Risks related to our intellectual property.”

License agreement with the University of Mons

In April 2020, we entered into a license agreement with UMONS, or the UMONS Agreement, pursuant to which UMONS granted to us an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents and patent applications related to oligonucleotides for our FSHD program and a non-exclusive, worldwide license to existing, related know-how. Each of the issued patents licensed to us under the UMONS Agreement is scheduled to expire in 2031. The licenses under the UMONS Agreement confer on us the right to research, develop and commercialize products, which we refer to as licensed products, and to practice processes, in each case, covered by the licensed patents and existing, related know-how.

Under the UMONS Agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop at least one licensed product and, to the extent regulatory approval is obtained in such jurisdictions, to commercialize at least one licensed product in the United States and the United Kingdom or a member country of the European Union. Unless terminated earlier, the UMONS Agreement will remain in effect until the last to expire of the licensed patent rights on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis. UMONS may terminate the UMONS Agreement in the event of a material breach by us and our failure to cure such breach within a specified time period. We may voluntarily terminate the UMONS Agreement with prior notice to UMONS.

In connection with our entry into the UMONS Agreement, we paid UMONS an upfront payment of €50,000. We also agreed to make milestone payments to UMONS upon the achievement of specified

development and regulatory milestones up to a maximum aggregate total of €400,000 for the first licensed product to achieve such milestones and up to a maximum aggregate total of €200,000 for each subsequent licensed product to achieve each such milestones, as well as a low single-digit percentage royalty on net sales of licensed products by us, our affiliates and sublicensees. These royalty obligations continue on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the last licensed patent rights covering such licensed product in such country. In addition, if we sublicense rights under the UMONS Agreement, we are required to pay a low double-digit percentage of the sublicense revenue to UMONS. Additionally, if we choose to file, prosecute or maintain any patents included in the licensed patent rights under the UMONS Agreement, we will be required to bear the full cost and expenses of preparing, filing, prosecuting and maintaining any such patents.

Competition

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally, and the muscle disease field specifically, are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, sharp competition and strong defense of intellectual property. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will have to compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. While we believe that our technology, development experience and scientific knowledge in the field of muscle diseases, oligonucleotide therapeutics and manufacturing provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

There are currently no approved therapies to treat the underlying cause of DM1. Product candidates currently in development to treat DM1 include: tideglusib, a GSK3-ß inhibitor in late-stage clinical development by AMO Pharma Ltd. for the congenital phenotype of DM1; pitolisant, a selective histamine 3 receptor antagonist / inverse agonist being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial for non-muscular symptoms of DM1 by Harmony Biosciences Holdings, Inc.; AT466, an AAV-antisense candidate in preclinical development by Audentes Therapeutics, Inc.; AOC-1001, an antibody linked siRNA being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial by Avidity Biosciences, Inc., or Avidity; a gene editing treatment in preclinical development by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Vertex; small molecules interacting with RNA in preclinical development by Expansion Therapeutics, Inc.; gene targeted chimera small molecules in preclinical development by Design Therapeutics, Inc.; EDODM1, a peptide-linked PMO being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial by Pepgen, Inc.; and VX-670, an endosomal escape vehicle technology with a CUG steric blocker oligonucleotide by Entrada Therapeutics, Inc. in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in Canada and the United Kingdom.

Currently, patients with DMD are treated with corticosteroids to manage the inflammatory component of the disease. EMFLAZA (deflazacort) is an FDA-approved corticosteroid marketed by PTC Therapeutics, Inc., or PTC. In addition, there are four FDA-approved exon skipping drugs: EXONDYS 51 (eteplirsen), VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen) and AMONDYS 45 (casimersen), which are naked PMOs approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 51, exon 53 and exon 45 skipping, respectively, and are marketed by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., or Sarepta, and VILTEPSO (vitolarsen), a naked PMO approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 53 skipping, which is marketed by Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd. Companies focused on developing treatments for DMD that target dystrophin mechanisms, as does our DMD program, include Sarepta with SRP-5051, a peptide-linked PMO being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial for patients amenable to exon 51 skipping, Wave Life Sciences Ltd. with WVE-N531, a stereopure oligonucleotide being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial for patients amenable to exon 53 skipping, Entrada Therapeutics, Inc. with ENTR-601-44, an endosomal escape vehicle technology for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 44 skipping currently being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial, Pepgen, Inc., with EDO51, a peptide-linked PMO for patients amenable to exon 51 skipping which is being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial; BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. with BMN 351, an oligonucleotide therapy that targets dystrophin production which is in preclinical development and Avidity with AOC 1044, an antibody oligonucleotide conjugate that targets dystrophin production for patients amenable to exon 44 skipping being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. In addition, several companies are developing gene therapies to treat DMD, including Milo Biotechnology (AAV1-FS344), Pfizer Inc.

(PF-06939926), Sarepta (SRP-9001 and Galgt2 gene therapy program), Solid Biosciences Inc. (SGT-003) and REGENXBIO Inc. (RGX-202). Gene editing treatments that are in preclinical development are also being pursued by Vertex and Sarepta. We are also aware of several companies targeting non-dystrophin mechanisms for the treatment of DMD.

There are currently no therapies to treat the underlying cause of FSHD. Products currently in development to treat FSHD include: ARO-DUX4, an siRNA therapy being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial by Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AOC-1020, an antibody oligonucleotide conjugate being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial by Avidity, MC-DX4, a microRNA targeting therapy in preclinical development by miRecule, Inc. (in collaboration with Sanofi, Inc.), creatine monohydrate, a supplement that enhances muscle performance, which is being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial by Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, a preclinical AAV-mediated approach to decrease DUX4 expression by Kate Therapeutics, Inc., and losmapimod, a p38 MAPK inhibitor that may modulate DUX4 expression, which is being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial by Fulcrum Therapeutics Inc.

We will also compete more generally with other companies developing alternative scientific and technological approaches to the treatment of muscle diseases, including other companies working to develop conjugates with oligonucleotides for extra-hepatic delivery, including Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Aro Biotherapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Avidity, Denali Therapeutics, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, DTx Pharma, Inc., Gennao Bio, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sarepta, as well as gene therapy and gene editing approaches.

Many of our competitors, either independently or with strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we are in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance. Merger and acquisition activity in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries may result in resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our commercial opportunity could be substantially limited if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, safer, less toxic, more convenient or less expensive than products we may develop. In geographies that are critical to our commercial success, competitors may also obtain regulatory approvals before us, resulting in our competitors building a strong market position in advance of the entry of our products. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payers seeking to encourage the use of other drugs. The key competitive factors affecting the successful of all any products we may develop are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price and availability of reimbursement.

Government regulation

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

Licensure and regulation of biologics in the United States

In the United States, any product candidates we may develop would be regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and their implementing regulations and guidance.

A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products is referred to as a sponsor. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug or biological product in the United States must typically secure the following:

Preclinical studies and investigational new drug application

Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, including an antibody, the product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animal studies. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application.

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks or concerns about the CMC for the product candidate. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin or recommence.

As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trials to commence or allowing the trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time following the clearance of an IND, it may choose to impose a partial or complete clinical hold. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety, may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, preclinical and/or CMC or where there is non-compliance with regulatory requirements. This order issued by the FDA would delay either a proposed clinical trial or cause suspension of an ongoing trial, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. This could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing our planned clinical trial or future clinical trials in a timely manner.

Expanded access to an investigational drug for treatment use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application.

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere with initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access. Drug and biologic companies must, however, make publicly available their policies for expanded access for individual patient access to products intended for serious diseases. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial; or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, Fast Track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its investigational products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Human clinical trials in support of a BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease or condition to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, and the possible liability of the institution. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent.

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known either as a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, or a data monitoring committee, or DMC. This group may recommend continuation of the trial as planned, changes in trial conduct, or cessation of the trial at designated check points based on certain available data from the trial to which only the DSMB or DMC has access. Finally, research activities involving infectious agents, hazardous chemicals, recombinant DNA and genetically altered organisms and agents may be subject to review and approval of an Institutional Biosafety Committee, or IBC, in accordance with NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval.

In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such trials are typically referred to as post-approval clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of biologics approved under accelerated approval regulations. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any post-approval clinical trial requirement or

to request a change in the product labeling. The failure to exercise due diligence with regard to conducting post-approval clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Moreover, as noted above, a pivotal trial is a clinical trial that is believed to satisfy FDA requirements for the evaluation of a product candidate’s safety and efficacy such that it can be used, alone or with other pivotal or non-pivotal trials, to support regulatory approval. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need.

In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These diversity action plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, diversity action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In January 2024, the FDA issued draft guidance setting out its policies for the collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials.

Additionally, in June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s recently updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

Finally, sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. The NIH’s Final Rule on registration and reporting requirements for clinical trials became effective in 2017. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’, or HHS, long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, the FDA has issued several pre-notices for voluntary corrective action and several notices of non-compliance during the past two years. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues.

Interactions with the FDA During the Clinical Development Program

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data and clinical trial investigators. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the IRB and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other trials, in vivo laboratory tests or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA.

In addition, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. Specifically, sponsors may meet with the FDA prior to the submission of an IND, or pre-IND application meeting, at the end of a Phase II clinical trial, or EOP2 meeting, and before a BLA is submitted, or pre-BLA meeting. Meetings at other times may also be requested. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND application and pre-BLA meetings, as well as Type B end of phase meetings, such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues (should be limited to no more than two focused topics) and should not require input from more than three disciplines or divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.

Clinical Studies Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval

In connection with our clinical development program, we are conducting trials, and may conduct trials in the future, at sites outside the United States. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

The acceptance by the FDA of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of US approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted.

Pediatric Studies

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

For products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of a sponsor, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors and FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than 90 days after FDA’s receipt of the study plan.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law now requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. It further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has recently taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

Manufacturing and Compliance with cGMP requirements

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional preclinical studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biologic product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product candidate in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of introduction of adventitious agents or of causing other adverse events with the use of biologic products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other requirements, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biologic product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biologic product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will 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 full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated.

The PREVENT Pandemics Act, enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.

Submission and filing of a BLA

The results of product candidate development, preclinical testing and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting license to market the product. The BLA must contain extensive manufacturing information and detailed information on the composition of the product and proposed labeling as well as payment of a user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2024 is $4.05 million for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of a licensed BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for federal fiscal year 2024 is approximately $416,734. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Review and approval of a filed BLA

Once the submission of the BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the application. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the PDUFA, the FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the sponsor, and six months for a priority review of the application. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs. The review process may often be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or if the sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

In connection with its review of an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product candidate is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. Additionally, before approving an application, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified the FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to the FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.

Under the PHSA, the FDA may approve a BLA if it determines that the product is safe, pure and potent, and the facility where the product will be manufactured meets standards designed to ensure that it continues to be safe, pure and potent. To reach this determination, the FDA must also conclude that the investigational product is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety, purity and potency in the BLA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage those specific risks.

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities and any FDA audits of preclinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the application is not approved, the FDA will issue a complete response letter, which will contain the conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application, and when possible, will outline recommended actions the sponsor might take to obtain approval of the application. Sponsors that receive a complete response letter may submit to the FDA information that represents a complete response to the issues identified by the FDA. Such resubmissions are classified under PDUFA as either Class 1 or Class 2. The classification of a resubmission is based on the information submitted by a sponsor in response to an action letter. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has two months to review a Class 1 resubmission and six months to review a Class 2 resubmission. The FDA will not approve an application until issues identified in the complete response letter have been addressed.

The FDA may also refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. In particular, the FDA may refer applications for novel biologic products or biologic products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee.

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

If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indication(s) for use of the product. It may also require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may call for post-approval studies, including post-approval clinical trials, to further assess the product’s efficacy and/or safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast Track, breakthrough therapy, priority review and regenerative medicine advanced therapy designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review designation and regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT, designation. These designations are not mutually exclusive, and a product candidate may qualify for one or more of these programs. While these programs are intended to expedite product development and approval, they do not alter the standards for FDA approval.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast-track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast-track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast-track product’s application before the application is complete. This

rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast-track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast-track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, in 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. This law established a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner. Breakthrough designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months. Priority designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

With passage of the Cures Act in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative medicine advanced therapies. A product is eligible for RMAT designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation include early interactions with FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review, and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints. RMAT designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

Accelerated approval pathway

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

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical

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

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

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies or dissemination of false or misleading promotional materials would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

With passage of FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to the FDA every six months (until the study is completed); and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the FDA to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval for designing, conducting and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approval.

Post-approval regulation

If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety, potency and purity information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of 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 ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official lot release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol

showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

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

Pharmaceutical products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Although healthcare providers may prescribe products for uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, in their professional judgment, drug manufacturers are prohibited from soliciting, encouraging or promoting unapproved uses of a product. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a biologic.

It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with the passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products. Additionally, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the FDA’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the DOJ, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

Orphan drug designation

Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for treatment of rare diseases or conditions. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the biologic for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits and market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s marketing approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product becomes an orphan when it receives orphan drug designation from the Office of Orphan Products Development at the FDA based on acceptable confidential requests made under the regulatory provisions. The product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product.

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first drug. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand or the subsequent product is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care. This is the case despite an earlier court opinion holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously required the FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Under legislation passed in 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drug products that received orphan drug designation before enactment of amendments to the FDCA in 2017 but have not yet been approved by FDA.

In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of market exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of the court’s order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved.

Pediatric exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of regulatory exclusivity to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such

data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity that cover the product are extended by six months.

Biosimilars and exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or, collectively, the ACA, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an existing FDA-licensed “reference product.” To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars and the first interchangeable biosimilar product was approved on July 30, 2021 and a second product previously approved as a biosimilar was designated as interchangeable in October 2021. The FDA has also issued numerous guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and licensing biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars under the PHSA.

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. In December 2022, Congress clarified through FDORA that the FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product.

An application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such 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. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. There have been government proposals to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period, but none has been enacted to date. At the same time, since passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, which address pharmacy practices involving biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products.

Federal and state data privacy and security laws

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry, generally, under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, the HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI, used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 or HITECH, and their regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities and their subcontractors that

obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them. Our clinical trials are regulated by the "common rule," which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that are applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal administrative, civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Accordingly, state attorneys general have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

Additionally, California recently enacted legislation that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020 and requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allow for a new cause of action for data breaches. Additionally, effective starting on January 1, 2023, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, will significantly modify the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. The CPRA also creates a new state agency that will be vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. The CCPA and CPRA could impact our business activities depending on how it is interpreted and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to not only cyber threats but also the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information.

In addition to California, eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2024 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2025 and beyond. Other states will be considering similar laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any product candidates we may develop, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

Patent term restoration and extension

In the United States, a patent claiming a new biologic product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent extension of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. Assuming grant of the patent for which the extension is sought, the restoration period for a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND involving human beings and the submission date of the BLA, plus the time between the submission date of the BLA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date in the United States. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension in consultation with the FDA.

Regulation and procedures governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, a sponsor will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union.

Non-clinical studies

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or EU GLP, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products – e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the EU 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 EU GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trial approval

On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or CTR became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the European Union, or EU Member State, will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

Beyond streamlining the process, the CTR includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors, and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for

authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the CTR.

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the EU at the EU Clinical Trials Register.

PRIME designation in the European Union

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. 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 marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Marketing authorization

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under the European Union regulatory system, a sponsor must submit a marketing authorization application, or an MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in European Union Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to a sponsor established in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, a sponsor must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all European Union member states. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain

diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Manufacturers must demonstrate the quality, safety and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of a product. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more other concerned EU Member States of an assessment of an application for marketing authorization conducted by one EU Member State, known as the reference EU Member State. In accordance with this procedure, a sponsor submits an application for marketing authorization to the reference EU Member State and the concerned EU Member States. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States which, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

Regulatory data protection in the European Union

In the European Union, new chemical entities approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for a period of eight years. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Conditional marketing authorization

In specific circumstances, E.U. legislation on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or conditional marketing authorization, enables sponsors to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, the product fulfills unmet medical needs and the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or

new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Exceptional Circumstances

A marketing authorization may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This marketing authorization is close to the conditional marketing authorization as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a marketing authorization. However, unlike the conditional marketing authorization, the applicant does not have to provide the missing data and will never have to. Although the marketing authorization “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the marketing authorization is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable. Under these procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the EMA or the competent authorities of the 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. Except conditional marketing authorizations, marketing authorizations 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.

Patent term extensions in the European Union and other jurisdictions

The European Union also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates, or SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining a SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity for a drug. In certain circumstances, these periods may be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained. Although SPCs are available throughout the European Union, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the European Union.

Periods of authorization and renewals

A marketing authorization is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any authorization that is not followed by the placement of the drug on the European Union market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

Regulatory requirements after marketing authorization

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include compliance with the European Union’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed.

In addition, the manufacturing of authorized products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s GMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Finally, the marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provide that a product can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the sponsor must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

An orphan drug designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance and the possibility to apply for a centralized European Union marketing authorization. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission or the member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication 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 because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity.

Brexit and the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU took place on January 31, 2020. The EU and the U.K. reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products, such as medicinal products. The EU and the U.K. formed two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the U.K. is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law whereas Northern Ireland was subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol.

On February 27, 2023, the U.K. government and the European Commission announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework.” This new framework fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the U.K. in particular. The MHRA is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the U.K. market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA no longer has any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. A single U.K.-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the U.K., enabling products to be sold in a single pack and

under a single authorization throughout the U.K. The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-U.K. Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, and will go into effect January 1, 2025.

The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, is the primary legal instrument for the regulation of medicines in the U.K. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU. EU laws which have been transposed into U.K. law through secondary legislation continue to be applicable as “retained EU law.” However, new EU legislation such as the CTR will not be applicable in Great Britain.

Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the U.K. covering the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval and commercialization of our product candidates in the U.K.

Furthermore, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, continues to apply in the United Kingdom in substantially unvaried form under the UK GDPR and is complemented by the United Kingdom Data Protection Act of 2018, which achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and remains effective in the United Kingdom in amended form. The United Kingdom has already determined that it considers all of the EU and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the EU/EEA remain unaffected. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the U.K. as being "essentially adequate" for purposes of data transfer from the European Union to the U.K., although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future. We may, however, incur liabilities, expenses, costs and other operational losses under GDPR and applicable European Union Member States and the United Kingdom privacy laws in connection with any measures we take to comply with them.

General Data Protection Regulation

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

Additionally, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield. The European Commission initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework in December 2022 and adopted that decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the European Union to the United States. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy

Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the EU.

For more information on these matters and the GDPR, please see the section entitled “Risk Factors—Risks related to regulatory approval and other regulatory and legal compliance matters—We are subject to stringent privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies, contractual obligations and failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.”

Coverage, pricing and reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may seek regulatory approval by the FDA or other government authorities. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payers to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use any product candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such product candidates. Even if any product candidates we may develop are approved, sales of such product candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payers, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such product candidates. The process for determining whether a payer will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payer will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payer not to cover any product candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such product candidates once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payer’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payer’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payer to payer. Third-party reimbursement and coverage may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In addition, any companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to any companion diagnostics.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its

collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

If we obtain approval in the future to market in the United States any product candidates we may develop, we may be required to provide discounts or rebates under government healthcare programs or to certain

government and private purchasers in order to obtain coverage under federal healthcare programs such as Medicaid. Participation in such programs may require us to track and report certain drug prices. We may be subject to fines and other penalties if we fail to report such prices accurately.

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

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states, and parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states), can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries.

Healthcare law and regulation

Healthcare providers and third-party payers play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payers and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers, drug pricing or marketing expenditures. In addition, certain state and local laws require drug manufacturers to register pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment, integrity oversight and reporting obligations and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Healthcare reform

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA,

which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government healthcare programs.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business.

Further, there have been several U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. Litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue with unpredictable and uncertain results.

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

products and services, which could result in reduced demand for any product candidates we may develop or additional pricing pressures.

Employees and human capital

As of February 29, 2024, we had 141 full-time employees, including a total of 46 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 113 employees are engaged in research and development. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, training, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards.

Our corporate information

We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware on December 1, 2017 under the name Dyne Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 1560 Trapelo Road, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 and our telephone number is (781) 786-8230.

We own or have rights to trademarks, service marks and trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business, including our corporate name, logos and website names. The service marks and trademarks that we own include the marks Dyne Therapeutics® and FORCE™. Other trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, some of the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are listed without the ® and ™ symbols, but we will assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights to our trademarks, service marks and trade names.

Available information

We file reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Our website address is https://www.dyne-tx.com. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investors & Media,” as a source of information about us.

The foregoing references to our website are not intended to, nor shall they be deemed to, incorporate information on our website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K by reference. We have included our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive textual reference.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business is subject to numerous risks. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto in evaluating our company. The risks described below are not the only risks facing our company. The occurrence of any of the following risks, or of additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial, could cause our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition to suffer materially.

Risks related to our financial position and need for additional capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception, have no products approved for sale and we expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $235.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2023 and $168.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $632.5 million. To date, we have financed our operations with the proceeds raised from the sale of equity securities. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development. We are still in the early stages of development of our programs and product candidates. Our product candidates are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development and we have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our operating expenses and net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of, and are successful in commercializing, one or more of any product candidates we may develop, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other costs to develop and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue.

We have never generated revenue from product sales and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Our product candidates are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development. We have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate, and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. To become and remain profitable, we

must succeed in developing, obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals for, and eventually commercializing a product or products that generate significant revenue. The ability to achieve this success will require us to be effective in a range of challenging activities, including:

We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. Our product candidates are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development, and we have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to accurately estimate or know the nature, timing or costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the preclinical and clinical development and commercialization of any product candidate we may develop or when, or if, we will be able to generate revenues or achieve profitability.

If we are successful in obtaining regulatory approval to market one or more of our products, our revenue will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to obtain coverage and reimbursement, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the treatment population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development activities or commercialization efforts.

We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance the clinical development of DYNE-101 and DYNE-251, the development of our FSHD program and additional research programs, and arrange for the manufacturing of, and potentially seek marketing approval for, any product candidates we may develop. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any product candidates we may develop, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. Furthermore, we 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 capital when needed, on attractive terms or at all, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $123.1 million. In addition, in January 2024 we issued and sold an aggregate of 19,722,500 shares of our common stock at a public offering price of $17.50 per share, resulting in net proceeds to us of $323.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will enable us to fund our operating

expenses and capital expenditure requirements through 2025. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us. As a result, we could deplete our capital resources sooner than we currently expect and could be forced to seek additional funding sooner than planned.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Identifying product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, even if we successfully identify and develop product candidates and those are approved, we may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, may not be sufficient to sustain our operations. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our operations. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, when needed or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital and, if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts, when needed or on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates we may develop, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We could be required to seek collaborators for product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to product candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

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 offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and/or licensing arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of common stockholders. Any debt financing or preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, selling or licensing our assets, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends or encumbering our assets to secure future indebtedness.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements when needed or on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or eliminate some or all of our research and development programs, pipeline expansion or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We commenced operations in 2017, and our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, conducting research and development activities and filing and prosecuting patent applications. Our product candidates are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development, and their risk of failure is high. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to complete any clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture product on a commercial scale or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing products.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and industry and predict our future performance. Our limited history as an operating company makes any assessment of our future success or viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early stage companies in rapidly evolving fields. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer.

In addition, as our business grows, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, restrictions, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We are in the process of transitioning from a company with a primarily research focus to a company primarily focused on conducting development activities. In the future, we will need to transition to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such transitions.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be subject to limitations.

We have a history of cumulative losses and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses in the foreseeable future; thus, we do not know whether or when we will generate taxable income necessary to utilize our net operating losses, or NOLs, or research and development tax credit carryforwards. As of December 31, 2023, we had federal NOL carryforwards of $273.5 million and state NOL carryforwards of $279.5 million.

In general, under Sections 382 and 383 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs and pre-change research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset post-change taxable income. We completed a Section 382 study of transactions in our stock through January 25, 2021 and concluded that we have experienced ownership changes since inception that we believe under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code will result in limitation on our ability to use certain pre-change NOLs and credits. In addition, we may have experienced since January 25, 2021, additional ownership changes and may experience future ownership changes as a result of equity offerings or other changes in the ownership of our stock, some of which are beyond our control. As a result, if, and to the extent that, we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our NOL carryforwards and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset such taxable income may be subject to limitations.

There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspensions on the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. As described below in “Changes in tax laws or regulations or in their implementation or interpretation may adversely affect our business and financial condition,” legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the Tax Act, as amended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and the rules governing NOL carryforwards that may significantly impact our ability to utilize our NOLs to offset taxable income in the future. In addition, state NOLs generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes.

Risks related to discovery and development

We are early in our development efforts. Our product candidates are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development and we have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. As a result it will be several years before we commercialize a product candidate, if ever. If we are unable to identify and advance product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtain marketing approval and ultimately commercialize them, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are early in our development efforts and have focused our efforts to date on developing our platform, identifying our programs and commencing the clinical development of our product candidates. Our product candidates are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development, and we have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for several years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Commencing clinical trials in the United States is subject to acceptance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, of an IND and finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA and other regulatory authorities. In the event that the FDA requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other FDA requests prior to commencing clinical trials, the start of any future clinical trials may be delayed. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from the FDA, the FDA could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence any clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect.

For example, the FDA placed on clinical hold our IND application to initiate a clinical trial of DYNE-251 in patients with DMD amenable to skipping exon 51. We received a clinical hold letter from the FDA on Friday, January 14, 2022 requesting additional clinical and non-clinical information for DYNE-251, which we submitted before the FDA ultimately cleared the IND in July 2022.

There are equivalent processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications in other countries, including countries in the European Union.

Commercialization of any product candidates we may develop will require preclinical and clinical development; regulatory and marketing approval in any jurisdiction where we seek to commercialize such product candidates, such as the FDA and the European Medicines Agency, or EMA; manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise; a commercial organization; and significant marketing efforts. The success of product candidates we may develop will depend on many factors, including the following:

If we do not succeed in one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop, which would materially harm our business. If we are unable to advance our product candidates into and through clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We may encounter substantial delays in commencement, enrollment or completion of our clinical trials or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities, which could prevent us from commercializing any product candidates on a timely basis, if at all.

The risk of failure in developing product candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any product candidate would prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of product candidates in humans. We have not yet completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. Clinical trials may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. Even if the clinical trials are successful, changes in marketing approval

policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application.

Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our INDs and other regulatory filings. We cannot be certain of the timely identification of a product candidate or the completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict whether the FDA will accept our proposed clinical programs or whether the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of any product candidates. Conducting preclinical testing is a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process. The length of time may vary substantially according to the type, complexity and novelty of the program, and often can be several years or more per program. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs for our preclinical product candidates on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin.

Furthermore, product candidates are subject to continued preclinical safety studies, which may be conducted concurrently with our clinical testing. The outcomes of these safety studies may delay the launch of or enrollment in clinical trials and could impact our ability to continue to conduct our clinical trials.

Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, or at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, which may result from a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, flaws in trial design, dose selection issues, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety or efficacy traits.

Other events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical studies and clinical trials could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenues from product sales, regulatory and commercialization milestones and royalties. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to any product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies or trials to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize any product candidates we may develop or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, if the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with any product candidates we may develop, we may:

In particular, each of the conditions for which we plan to develop product candidates are rare genetic diseases with limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical trials. Further, because it can be difficult to diagnose these diseases in the absence of a genetic screen, we may have difficulty finding patients who are eligible to participate in our studies. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials will further limit the pool of available study participants. Additionally, the process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly. The treating physicians in our clinical trials may also use their medical discretion in advising patients enrolled in our clinical trials to withdraw from our studies to try alternative therapies.

In addition, if we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Similarly, the regulatory

landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or 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 clinical trial application, or 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. If we are not able to fulfill these new requirements, our ability to conduct clinical trials may be delayed or halted.

Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates based on our FORCE platform is unproven, and we may not be successful in our efforts to identify, discover or develop potential product candidates.

The success of our business depends upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize products based on our proprietary FORCE platform. Our therapeutics are constructed from three components: a proprietary Fab, a clinically validated linker and an oligonucleotide payload that we attach to our Fab using the linker. The Fab is engineered to bind to TfR1 to enable targeted delivery of nucleic acids and other molecules to skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle.

All of our product candidates are still in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development, and our approach to treating muscle disease is unproven. Our research programs may fail to identify additional product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. Our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying additional potential product candidates and our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects in preclinical in vitro experiments or animal model studies. In addition, our product candidates may not show promising signals of therapeutic effect in such experiments or studies or they may have other characteristics that may make the product candidates impractical to manufacture, unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. Further, because all of our product candidates and programs are based on our FORCE platform, adverse developments with respect to one of our product candidates and programs may have a significant adverse impact on the actual or perceived likelihood of success and value of our other product candidates and programs.

In addition, we have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate or successfully developed any product candidates, and our ability to identify and develop product candidates may never materialize. The process by which we identify and develop product candidates may fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including those discussed in these risk factors. In addition:

If we are unable to identify and discover suitable product candidates for clinical development, this would adversely impact our business strategy and our financial position and share price and could potentially cause us to cease operations.

The outcome of preclinical studies and initial data from earlier-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of final results or future results of clinical trials or the success of later clinical trials.

We are in the early stage of the development of our platform, programs and product candidates, and have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. As a result, our belief in the capabilities of our platform, including our belief that we have demonstrated proof of concept for our FORCE platform, is based on early research, preclinical studies and initial data from early-stage clinical trials of our product candidates. However, the results of preclinical studies may not be predictive of the results of later preclinical studies or clinical trials, and the initial results of any clinical trials, such as initial results of ACHIEVE and DELIVER that we reported, may not be predictive of the final results of those trials or the result of any later clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials such as in the initial data from ACHIEVE and DELIVER may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Further, certain of our hypotheses regarding the potential benefits of our product candidates compared to alternative therapies and treatments are based on cross-trial comparisons of results that were not derived from head-to-head clinical trials. Such clinical trial data may not be directly comparable due to differences in study protocols, conditions and patient populations. Accordingly, these cross-trial comparisons may not be reliable predictors of the relative efficacy or other benefits of our product candidates compared to other product candidates that may have been approved previously.

Our clinical trials may not ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any product candidates we may develop. There is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving encouraging results in earlier studies. Any such setbacks in our clinical development could materially harm our business and results of operations.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our ability to complete clinical trials may be adversely impacted.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of any product candidates we may develop is critical to our success. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment and trial completion is affected by factors including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in these clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. Furthermore, we rely on and expect to continue to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and we will have limited influence over their performance.

Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining patients in our clinical trials. Many of the patients who end up receiving placebo may perceive that they are not receiving the product candidate being tested, and they may decide to withdraw from our clinical trials to pursue other alternative therapies rather than continue the trial with the perception that they are receiving placebo. If we have difficulty enrolling or maintaining a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials, we may need to delay, limit or terminate clinical trials, any of which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If any product candidates we may develop cause undesirable side effects or have other unexpected adverse properties, such side effects or properties could delay or prevent regulatory approval, limit the commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

We have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. It is impossible to predict when or if any product candidates we may develop will prove safe in humans. There can be no assurance that our technologies will not cause undesirable side effects.

Although other oligonucleotide therapeutics have received regulatory approval, our approach, which combines oligonucleotides with a Fab, is a novel approach to oligonucleotide therapy. As a result, there is uncertainty as to the safety profile of product candidates we may develop compared to more well-established classes of therapies, or oligonucleotide therapeutics on their own. Moreover, there have been only a limited number of clinical trials involving the use of conjugated oligonucleotide therapeutics and none involving the proprietary technology used in our FORCE platform.

If any product candidates we develop are associated with serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Many product candidates that initially showed promise in early-stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further clinical development of the product candidates.

If in the future we are unable to demonstrate that such side effects were caused by factors other than our product candidates, the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, any product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that any future serious adverse events are not product-related and regulatory authorities do not order us to cease further development of our product candidates, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any product candidate, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular program, product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on programs, product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications among many potential options. As a result, we

may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential, or we may choose to focus our efforts and resources on a potential product candidate that ultimately proves to be unsuccessful. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable medicines. 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 royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Clinical trial and product liability lawsuits against us could divert our resources, could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We will face an inherent risk of clinical trial and product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in clinical trials, and we will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. While we currently have no product candidates that have been approved for commercial sale, the use of product candidates by us in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients that use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling such products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We have increased our insurance coverage in countries in which we plan to conduct clinical trials and will need to increase our insurance coverage if we conduct clinical trials in additional countries or of additional product candidates or if we commence commercialization of any product candidates. 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 liability that may arise. If a successful clinical trial or product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

Risks related to our dependence on third parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct some or all aspects of our product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not expect to independently conduct all aspects of our product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties with respect to many of these items, including contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for the manufacturing of any product candidates we test in preclinical or clinical development, as well as CROs for portions of our animal testing, preclinical research and for the conduct of our clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations and study protocols. For example, for product candidates that we develop and commercialize on our own, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our IND-enabling studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the study plan and protocols. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with cGCPs for conducting, 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. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. If we or any of our CROs or other third parties, including trial sites, fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with cGCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under conditions that comply with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Although we design the clinical trials for our product candidates, CROs conduct some or all of the clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials will also result in less direct control over the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical 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 as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. In addition, any third parties conducting our clinical trials will not be our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical programs. If the CROs and other third parties do not perform preclinical studies and clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, or if they breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of any product candidates we may develop may be delayed, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates or our development programs may be materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on preclinical and clinical data collected by our CROs and other third parties, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of or increase the size of any preclinical studies or clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require greater expenditures.

If third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated study plans and protocols, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the preclinical studies and clinical trials required to support future IND submissions and approval of any product candidates we may develop.

We currently depend on a small number of third-party suppliers for the manufacture of our Fab, the linker and oligonucleotide payloads. The loss of these or future third-party suppliers, or their inability to provide us with sufficient supply, could harm our business.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities and have no current plans to develop our own clinical or commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities. We rely on a small number of third-party suppliers for the manufacture of our Fab, linker and oligonucleotide payloads. We expect to continue to depend on third-party suppliers for the manufacture of any product candidates that we evaluate in preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as for commercial manufacture if those product candidates receive marketing approval. The facilities used by third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA and any comparable foreign regulatory authority pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit a biologics license application, or BLA, to the FDA or any comparable filing to a foreign regulatory authority. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, third-party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements for manufacture of products. If these third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities.

Our product candidates consist of a proprietary Fab conjugated with a linker to an oligonucleotide. Our Fab is manufactured by starting with cells which are stored in a cell bank. If we lose multiple cell banks, our manufacturing will be adversely impacted by the need to replace the cell banks.

In addition, we have no control over the ability of third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of any product candidates we may develop 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 product candidates we may develop, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates. In addition, certain Chinese biotechnology companies and CMOs that supply us with drug components may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, and other regulatory requirements by the U.S. government, which could restrict or even prohibit our ability to work with such entities, thereby potentially disrupting the supply of material to us. Such disruption could have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates and our business operations.

We may also seek to eventually establish our own manufacturing facility for the long-term commercial supply of any product candidates we may develop and which receive regulatory approval. If we determine to establish our own manufacturing facility and manufacture our products on our own, we will need to obtain the resources and expertise in order to build such manufacturing capabilities and to conduct such manufacturing operations. In addition, our conduct of such manufacturing operations will be subject to the extensive regulations and operational risks to which our third-party suppliers are subject. If we are not successful in building these capabilities or complying with the regulations or otherwise operating our manufacturing function, our commercial supply could be disrupted and our business could be materially harmed.

Our or a third party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements on commercially reasonable terms and in compliance with cGMP could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

We are party to manufacturing agreements with a number of third-party manufacturers. We may be unable to maintain these agreements or establish any additional agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to maintain or establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

We may compete with third parties for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for all required raw materials. If our existing or future third-party manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers and we may be unable to replace them on a timely basis or at all.

Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in supply. An alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through a BLA supplement which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies or trials if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our product candidates, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our products successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements, and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon third parties for the manufacture of any product candidates we develop may adversely affect our development programs and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We may from time to time be dependent on single-source suppliers for some of the components and materials used in the product candidates we may develop.

We may from time to time depend on single-source suppliers for some of the components and materials used in any product candidate we may develop. For instance, we currently use a single supplier for each of our Fab, linker and payloads. We cannot ensure that these suppliers or service providers will remain in business, have sufficient capacity or supply to meet our needs or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to work with us. Our use of single-source suppliers of raw materials, components, key processes and finished goods could expose us to several risks, including disruptions in supply, price increases or late deliveries. There are, in general,

relatively few alternative sources of supply for substitute components. These vendors may be unable or unwilling to meet our future demands for our clinical trials or commercial sale. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for these components, materials and processes could take a substantial amount of time and it may be difficult to establish replacement suppliers who meet regulatory requirements. Any disruption in supply from any single-source supplier or service provider could lead to supply delays or interruptions which would damage our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we have to switch to a replacement supplier, the manufacture and delivery of any product candidates we may develop could be interrupted for an extended period, which could adversely affect our business. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers, if required, may not be accomplished quickly. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, the replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the single source components and materials used in our products, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain components or materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to meet the demand for our investigational medicines.

We may enter into collaborations with third parties for the research, development and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we may develop. If any such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of those product candidates.

We may seek third-party collaborators for the research, development and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we may develop. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them. 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. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into.

Collaborations involving our research programs or any product candidates we may develop pose numerous risks to us, including the following:

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research 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 could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to find a suitable replacement collaborator or attract new collaborators, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this “Risk Factors” section apply to the activities of our collaborators.

These relationships, or those like them, may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business. If we license rights to any product candidates we or our collaborators may develop, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture.

If conflicts arise between us and our potential collaborators, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.

If conflicts arise between us and our potential collaborators, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Our collaborators may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the product candidates we may develop that are the subject of these collaborations with us. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or to which the collaborators have rights, may result in the withdrawal of support for our product candidates.

Some of our future collaborators could also become our competitors. Our collaborators could develop competing products, preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely, fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products, or merge with or be acquired by a third party who may do any of these things. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts.

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

Our research programs and product candidates and the potential commercialization of any product candidates we may develop will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of the product candidates we may develop, we may decide to collaborate with other pharmaceutical and

biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. 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 the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, the EMA 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, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator 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.

Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. 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.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization, reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our own expenditures on the development of the product candidate.

We are dependent on third-party vendors to provide certain licenses, products and services and our business and operations, including clinical trials, could be disrupted by any problems with our significant third-party vendors.

We engage a number of third-party suppliers and service providers to supply critical goods and services, such as contract research services, contract manufacturing services and IT services. Disruptions to the business, financial stability or operations of these suppliers and service providers, including due to strikes, labor disputes or other disruptions to the workforce or to their willingness and ability to produce or deliver such products or provide such services in a manner that satisfies the requirements put forth by the authorities, or in a manner that satisfies our own requirements, could affect our ability to develop and market our future product candidates on a timely basis. If these suppliers and service providers were unable or unwilling to continue to provide their products or services in the manner expected, or at all, we could encounter difficulty finding alternative suppliers. Even if we are able to secure appropriate alternative suppliers in a timely manner, costs for such products or services could increase significantly. Any of these events could adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

Risks related to commercialization

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before us or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may develop from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. 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 many of the disorders for which we are conducting research and development programs. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. 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.

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 our product candidates or that would render any product candidates that we may develop obsolete or non-competitive. 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. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors.

We expect to face competition from existing products and product candidates in development for each of our programs and product candidates. There are currently no approved therapies to treat the underlying cause of DM1. Product candidates currently in development to treat DM1 include: tideglusib, a GSK3-ß inhibitor in late-stage clinical development by AMO Pharma Ltd. for the congenital phenotype of DM1; pitolisant, a selective histamine 3 receptor antagonist / inverse agonist being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial for non-muscular symptoms of DM1 by Harmony Biosciences Holdings, Inc.; AT466, an AAV-antisense candidate in preclinical development by Audentes Therapeutics, Inc.; AOC-1001, an antibody linked siRNA being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial by Avidity Biosciences, Inc., or Avidity; a gene editing treatment in preclinical development by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Vertex; small molecules interacting with RNA in preclinical development by Expansion Therapeutics, Inc.; gene targeted chimera small molecules in preclinical development by Design Therapeutics, Inc.; EDODM1, a peptide-linked PMO being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial by Pepgen, Inc.; and VX-670, an endosomal escape vehicle technology with a CUG steric blocker oligonucleotide by Entrada Therapeutics, Inc. in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in Canada and the United Kingdom.

Currently, patients with DMD are treated with corticosteroids to manage the inflammatory component of the disease. EMFLAZA (deflazacort) is an FDA-approved corticosteroid marketed by PTC Therapeutics, Inc., or PTC. In addition, there are four FDA-approved exon skipping drugs: EXONDYS 51 (eteplirsen), VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen) and AMONDYS 45 (casimersen), which are naked PMOs approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 51, exon 53 and exon 45 skipping, respectively, and are marketed by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., or Sarepta, and VILTEPSO (vitolarsen), a naked PMO approved for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 53 skipping, which is marketed by Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd. Companies focused on developing treatments for DMD that target dystrophin mechanisms, as does our DMD program, include Sarepta with SRP-5051, a peptide-linked PMO being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial for patients amenable to exon 51 skipping, Wave Life Sciences Ltd. with WVE-N531, a stereopure oligonucleotide being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial for patients amenable to exon 53 skipping, Entrada Therapeutics, Inc. with ENTR-601-44, an endosomal escape vehicle technology for the treatment of DMD patients amenable to exon 44 skipping currently being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial, Pepgen, Inc., with EDO51, a peptide-linked PMO for patients amenable to exon 51 skipping which is being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial; BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. with BMN 351, an oligonucleotide therapy that targets dystrophin production which is in preclinical development and Avidity with AOC 1044, an antibody oligonucleotide conjugate that targets dystrophin production for patients amenable to exon 44 skipping being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. In addition, several companies are developing gene therapies to treat DMD, including Milo Biotechnology (AAV1-FS344), Pfizer Inc. (PF-06939926), Sarepta (SRP-9001 and Galgt2 gene therapy program), Solid Biosciences Inc. (SGT-003) and REGENXBIO Inc (RGX-202). Gene editing treatments that are in preclinical development are also being pursued by Vertex and Sarepta. We are also aware of several companies targeting non-dystrophin mechanisms for the treatment of DMD.

There are currently no therapies to treat the underlying cause of FSHD. Products currently in development to treat FSHD include: ARO-DUX4, an siRNA therapy being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial by Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AOC-1020, an antibody oligonucleotide conjugate being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial by Avidity, MC-DX4, a microRNA targeting therapy in preclinical

development by miRecule, Inc. (in collaboration with Sanofi, Inc.), creatine monohydrate, a supplement that enhances muscle performance, which is being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial by Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, a preclinical AAV-mediated approach to decrease DUX4 expression by Kate Therapeutics, Inc., and losmapimod, a p38 MAPK inhibitor that may modulate DUX4 expression, which is being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial by Fulcrum Therapeutics Inc.

We will also compete more generally with other companies developing alternative scientific and technological approaches to the treatment of muscle diseases, including other companies working to develop conjugates with oligonucleotides for extra-hepatic delivery, including Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Aro Biotherapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Avidity, Denali Therapeutics, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, DTx Pharma, Inc., Gennao Bio, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sarepta, as well as gene therapy and gene editing approaches.

Many of the companies against which we compete or against which we may compete in the future 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. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance, rendering our treatments obsolete or non-competitive.

Additionally, 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 and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

If we successfully obtain approval for any product candidate, we will face competition based on many different factors, including the safety and effectiveness of our products, the ease with which our products can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these products, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, reimbursement coverage and patent position. Competing products could present superior treatment alternatives, including by being more effective, safer, more convenient, less expensive or marketed and sold more effectively than any products we may develop. Competitive products or technological approaches may make any products we develop, or our FORCE platform, obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our product candidates. If we are unable to compete effectively, our opportunity to generate revenue from the sale of our products we may develop, if approved, could be adversely affected.

Even if any product candidate that we may develop receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payers and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If any product candidate we may develop receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payers and others in the medical community. Sales of medical products depend in part on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost-effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that our product is safe, therapeutically effective and cost-effective as compared with competing treatments. Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payers on the benefits of any product candidates we may develop may require significant resources and may not be

successful. If any product candidates we may develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If the market opportunities for any product candidates we develop are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Because the target patient populations of our programs are small, and the addressable patient population even smaller, we must be able to successfully identify patients and capture a significant market share to achieve profitability and growth.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for rare diseases. Given the small number of patients who have the diseases that we are targeting, it is critical to our ability to grow and become profitable that we continue to successfully identify patients with these rare diseases. Our 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 any product candidates we may develop, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research that we conducted, and may prove to be incorrect or contain errors. New studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are very small, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining such significant market share.

Our target patient populations are relatively small, and there is currently no standard of care treatment directed at some of our target indications, such as FSHD. As a result, the pricing and reimbursement of any product candidates we may develop, if approved, is uncertain, but must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell product candidates will be adversely affected.

The pricing, insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our future

product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate product revenue.

The initial target platforms in our pipeline are indications with small patient populations. For product candidates that are designed to treat smaller patient populations to be commercially viable, the reimbursement for such product candidates must be higher, on a relative basis, to account for the lack of volume. Accordingly, we will need to implement a coverage and reimbursement strategy for any approved product candidate that accounts for the smaller potential market size. If we are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any future product candidates from third-party payers, the adoption of those product candidates and sales revenue will be adversely affected, which, in turn, could adversely affect the ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved.

We expect that coverage and reimbursement by third-party payers will be essential for most patients to be able to afford these treatments. Accordingly, sales of our future product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or will be reimbursed by government authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payers. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement by government authorities for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, since CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payers tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, one payer’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage for the drug product. Further, a payer’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Reimbursement agencies in the European Union may be more conservative than CMS.

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, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as any product candidates we may develop. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay or might even prevent our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy periods of time. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. In general, the prices of products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for any product candidates we may develop may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payers, in the United States and internationally, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for any product candidates we may develop. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any product candidates we may develop due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of certain third-party payers, such as health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general,

particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products into the healthcare market. There have been instances in which third-party payers have refused to reimburse treatments for patients for whom the treatment is indicated in the FDA-approved product label. Even if we are successful in obtaining FDA approvals to commercialize our product candidates, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to secure reimbursement for all patients for whom treatment with our product candidates is indicated.

In addition to CMS and private payers, professional organizations, such as the American Medical Association, can influence decisions about reimbursement for new products by determining standards for care. In addition, many private payers contract with commercial vendors who sell software that provide guidelines that attempt to limit utilization of, and therefore reimbursement for, certain products deemed to provide limited benefit to existing alternatives. Such organizations may set guidelines that limit reimbursement or utilization of our product candidates. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more product candidates for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing any product candidates we may develop if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we have obtained marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales, marketing and distribution organization, either ourselves or through collaborations or other arrangements with third parties.

In the future, we may build a sales and marketing infrastructure to market some of the product candidates we may develop if and when they are approved. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. These efforts may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:

If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our product revenues and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop

ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute any product candidates we may develop or may be unable to do so on terms that are acceptable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing any product candidates we may develop.

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

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Amendment, or the ACA, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. In December 2022, Congress clarified through The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act that the FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product.

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 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.

There is a risk that any product candidates we may develop that are approved as a biological product under a BLA would not qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity or that this exclusivity could be shortened due to U.S. congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider any product candidates we may develop to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for nonbiological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

Risks related to our intellectual property

If we or our licensors are unable to obtain, maintain and defend patent and other intellectual property protection for any product candidates or technology, or if the scope of the patent or other intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize any product candidates we may develop or our technology may be adversely affected due to such competition.

Our success depends in large part on our and our licensors’ ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other jurisdictions. We currently own and license patents and patent applications relating to our FORCE platform technology, including our Fabs, oligonucleotide payloads and Fab-oligonucleotide conjugates, as well as aspects of our manufacturing and methods of treatment. We and our licensors have sought, and will seek, to protect our proprietary position by filing additional patent applications in the United States and abroad related to certain technologies and our platform that are important to our business. However, while much of our patent portfolio is at an early stage, we own twenty-two issued U.S. patents and exclusively license two issued U.S. patents and one issued European patent. Moreover, there can be no assurance as to whether or when our patent applications will issue as granted patents. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, marketing, offering to sell, importing and commercializing any product candidates we may

develop and our technology is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property that cover our platform and technology. If we are unable to secure, maintain, defend and enforce patents and other intellectual property with respect to any product candidates we may develop and technology, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a national stage patent application within 30 to 32 months, depending on the jurisdiction, from such application’s priority date in the jurisdictions in which we are seeking patent protection. Similarly, our pending provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of such provisional patent application’s filing date. If we do not timely file such national stage patent applications or non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to such PCT or provisional patent applications, respectively, and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT or provisional patent applications, respectively. While we and our licensors intend to timely file national stage and non-provisional patent applications relating to our PCT and provisional patent applications, respectively, we cannot predict whether any such patent applications will result in the issuance of patents. If we or our licensors do not successfully obtain issued patents, or, if the scope of any patent protection we or our licensors obtain is not sufficiently broad, we will be unable to prevent others from using any product candidates we may develop or our technology or from developing or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours or other competing products and technologies. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates or our FORCE platform would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we and our licensors may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, defend, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We and our licensors may not be able to obtain, maintain or defend patents and patent applications due to the subject matter claimed in such patents and patent applications being in the public domain. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent any third party from using any of our technology that is in the public domain to compete with any product candidates we may develop.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future owned and licensed patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates, effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. In fact, patent applications may not issue as patents at all, and even if such patent applications do issue as patents, they may not issue in a form, or with a scope of claims, that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent others from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. In addition, the scope of claims of an issued patent can be reinterpreted after issuance, and changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions may diminish the value of our patent rights or narrow the scope of our patent protection. Furthermore, our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

Third parties have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our own technologies and product candidates and may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have obtained issued

patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our owned or licensed patent applications or issued patents. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our current and future product candidates and technology. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know for certain whether the inventors of our owned or licensed patents and patent applications were the first to make the inventions claimed in any owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. If a third party can establish that we or our licensors were not the first to make or the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, our owned or licensed patent applications may not issue as patents and even if issued, may be challenged and invalidated or ruled unenforceable.

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 other jurisdictions. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, challenging the validity of one or more claims of our owned or licensed patents. Such submissions may also be made prior to a patent’s issuance, precluding the granting of a patent based on one of our owned or licensed pending patent applications. We may become involved in opposition, derivation, re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (for example, opposition proceedings) challenging our owned or licensed patent rights. In addition, a third party may claim that our owned or licensed patent rights are invalid or unenforceable in a litigation. An adverse result in any litigation or patent office proceeding could put one or more of our owned or licensed patents at risk of being invalidated, ruled unenforceable or interpreted narrowly and could allow third parties to commercialize products identical or similar to any product candidates we may develop and compete directly with us, without payment to us. Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such challenges and proceedings may result in loss of patent rights, exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, 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 protection of our technology and any product candidates we may develop. Such challenges and proceedings may also result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Moreover, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments related to such challenges and proceedings. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from the earliest date of filing of the first non-provisional patent application to which the patent claims priority. Patent term adjustments and extensions may be available; however, the overall term of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent and other intellectual property rights may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to our technology and any product candidates we may develop. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize any product candidates are subject and may in the future be subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by third parties. If we fail to comply with our obligations under our current or future intellectual property license agreements or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our current or any future licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.

We are and expect to continue to be reliant upon third-party licensors for certain patent and other intellectual property rights that are important or necessary to the development of our technology and product candidates. For example, we rely on a license from the University of Mons, or UMONS, to certain patent rights and know-how of UMONS. Our license agreement with UMONS imposes, and we expect that any future license agreement will impose, specified diligence, milestone payment, royalty, commercialization, development and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise diligent or commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. For more information on the terms of the license agreement with UMONS, see Item 1. “Business—Intellectual Property—License Agreement with the University of Mons” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Furthermore, our licensors have, or may in the future have, the right to terminate a license if we materially breach the agreement and fail to cure such breach within a specified period or in the event we undergo certain bankruptcy events. In spite of our best efforts, our current or any future licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements. If our license agreements are terminated, we may lose our rights to develop and commercialize product candidates and technology, lose patent protection, experience significant delays in the development and commercialization of our product candidates and technology, and incur liability for damages. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying intellectual property fails to provide the intended exclusivity, our competitors or other third parties could have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products and technologies identical or competitive to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates and technology. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties, including our competitors, to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses and to compete with any product candidates we may develop and our technology. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

In addition, our license agreement with UMONS is, and future license agreements are likely to be, complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our diligence, development, regulatory, commercialization, financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement. In addition, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed or any other dispute related to our license agreements prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current license agreements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates and technology. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

License agreements we may enter into in the future may be non-exclusive. Accordingly, third parties may also obtain non-exclusive licenses from such licensors with respect to the intellectual property licensed to us under such license agreements. Accordingly, these license agreements may not provide us with exclusive rights to use such licensed patent and other intellectual property rights, or may not provide us with exclusive rights to use such patent and other intellectual property rights in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and any product candidates we may develop in the future.

Moreover, some of our in-licensed patent and other intellectual property rights may in the future be subject to third party interests such as co-ownership. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to such third-party co-owners’ interest, in such patent and other intellectual property rights, such third-party co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. We or our licensors may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our licensed patent and other intellectual property rights in order to enforce them against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us or our licensors.

Additionally, we may not have complete control over the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of patents and patent applications that we license from third parties. It is possible that our licensors’ filing, prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents and patent applications, enforcement of patents against infringers or defense of such patents against challenges of validity or claims of enforceability may be less vigorous than if we had conducted them ourselves, and accordingly, we cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such patents and patent applications, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, our right to develop and commercialize any of our technology and any product candidates we may develop that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors or other third parties from making, using and selling competing products.

Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed patent rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. When new technologies are developed with government funding, in order to secure ownership of patent rights related to the technologies, the recipient of such funding is required to comply with certain government regulations, including timely disclosing the inventions claimed in such patent rights to the U.S. government and timely electing title to such inventions. A failure to meet these obligations may lead to a loss of rights or the unenforceability of relevant patents or patent applications. In addition, the U.S. government may have certain rights in such patent rights, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the U.S. government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. If the U.S. government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. The U.S. government’s rights may also permit it to disclose the funded inventions and technology, which may include our confidential information, to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use the technology that was developed using U.S. government funding. The U.S. government may exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we or our licensors failed to achieve practical application of the U.S. government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such U.S. government-funded inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture any product candidates we may develop embodying such inventions in the United States. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, enforcing and defending patents and other intellectual property rights on our technology and any product candidates we may develop in all jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and accordingly, our intellectual property rights in some jurisdictions outside

the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States. In some cases, we or our licensors may not be able to obtain patent or other intellectual property protection for certain technology and product candidates outside the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to obtain issued patents or other intellectual property rights covering any product candidates we may develop and our technology in all jurisdictions outside the United States and, as a result, may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our and our licensors’ inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Third parties may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we and our licensors have not pursued and obtained patent or other intellectual property protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing, misappropriating or violating products to territories where we have patent or other intellectual property protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with any product candidates we may develop and our technology and our or our licensors’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Additionally, many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain jurisdictions, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our patent and other intellectual property rights or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property rights generally. For example, an April 2019 report from the Office of the United States Trade Representative identified a number of countries, including China, Russia, Argentina, Chile and India, where challenges to the procurement and enforcement of patent rights have been reported. Proceedings to enforce our or our licensors’ patent and other intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patent and other intellectual property rights at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We or our licensors may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

As another example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system went into effect on June 1, 2023, which significantly impacts European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). Existing European patents and published applications may be opted out of the jurisdiction of the UPC at any time before the end of a transitional period (at least seven years from the UPC Agreement which went into effect on June 1, 2023), unless an action has already been brought before the UPC in which case an opt-out request cannot be filed. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes.

Many jurisdictions have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many jurisdictions limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these jurisdictions, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patents. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by government patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and/or patent applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our owned or licensed patent rights. We rely on our outside counsel and other professionals or our licensing partners to pay these fees due to the USPTO and non-U.S. government patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government patent agencies also require compliance with several procedural, documentary and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We rely on our outside counsel and other professionals to help us comply and we are also dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result in abandonment, loss of priority or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be successful in obtaining necessary rights to product candidates we may develop through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We currently have rights to certain intellectual property through licenses from third parties. Because our product candidates may require the use of additional intellectual property rights held by third parties, the growth of our business likely will depend, in part, on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these intellectual property rights. In addition, with respect to any patent or other intellectual property rights that we co-own with third parties, we may require exclusive licenses to such co-owners’ interest in such patent or other intellectual property rights. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or otherwise acquire or in-license any intellectual property rights related to compositions, methods of use, processes or other components from third parties that we identify as necessary for any product candidates we may develop and our technology on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we are able to in-license any such necessary intellectual property, it could be on non-exclusive terms, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and the applicable licensors could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

We sometimes collaborate with non-profit and academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to third parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our research program and develop and commercialize our product candidates.

If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have licensed, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign any product candidates we may develop or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or

commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Issued patents covering any product candidates we may develop could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad.

Our owned and licensed patent rights may be subject to priority, validity, inventorship and enforceability disputes. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, such patent rights may be narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or we may be required to cease the development, manufacture and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we or one of our licensors initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering any of the product candidates we may develop or our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering the product candidate or technology is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties also may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, post grant review, inter partes review and equivalent proceedings such as opposition, invalidation and revocation proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Such proceedings could result in the revocation or cancellation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover any product candidates we may develop or our technology or prevent third parties from competing with any product candidates we may develop or our technology. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which the patent examiner and we or our licensing partners were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our product candidates or technology. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and other parties who have access to such technology and processes. However, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know-how or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. If any of the collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants who are parties to these agreements breach or violate the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation. As a result, we could lose our trade secrets and third parties could use our trade secrets to compete with any product candidates we may develop and our technology. Additionally, we cannot guarantee that we have entered

into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes.

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; however, such systems and security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach.

In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors or other third parties. Competitors or third parties could purchase any product candidates we may develop or our technology and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our intellectual property rights or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside the scope of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate such trade secrets, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors’ products, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could harm our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and complex litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. We may become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation in which third parties may assert infringement, misappropriation or other violation claims against us, alleging that any product candidates we may develop, manufacturing methods, formulations or administration methods are covered by their patents. Given the vast number of patents and other intellectual property in our field of technology, we cannot be certain or guarantee that we do not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property. Other companies and institutions have filed, and continue to file, patent applications that may be related to our technology and, more broadly, to gene therapy and related manufacturing methods. Some of these patent applications have already been allowed or issued and others may issue in the future. Since this area is competitive and of strong interest to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, there will likely be additional patent applications filed and additional patents granted in the future, as well as additional research and development programs expected in the future. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that we may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. If a patent holder believes the manufacture, use, sale or importation of any product candidates we may develop or our technology infringes its patent, the patent holder may sue us even if we have licensed other patent rights for our technology.

We are aware of certain patents in the United States and other jurisdictions owned by third parties that claim subject matter that relates to our program candidates and the FORCE platform. Although we believe that these patents are invalid and/or not infringed, such third parties may assert these patents against us in litigation in the United States or other jurisdictions. The outcome of any such litigation is uncertain and, even if we prevail, the costs of such litigation could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, result in disclosure of our trade secrets, distract key personnel from the continued development of our business, and adversely affect our ability to enter or maintain commercial relationships with collaborators, clients or customers. If we are unsuccessful in such litigation, we could

be prevented from commercializing products or could be required to take licenses from such third parties which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing and can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending which may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or importation of any product candidates we may develop or our technology and we may not be aware of such patents. Furthermore, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States may remain confidential until a patent issues. Moreover, it is difficult for industry participants, including us, to identify all third-party patent rights that may be relevant to any product candidates we may develop and our technologies because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our technology. In addition, we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by our activities. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, any product candidates we may develop or the use of any product candidates we may develop.

Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop or any other of our product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe a third party’s valid and enforceable intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing any product candidates we may develop and our technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. A finding of infringement could prevent us from manufacturing and commercializing any product candidates we may develop or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property litigation or other proceedings could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Competitors may challenge the validity and enforceability of our patent rights or those of our licensing partners, infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensors’ patent and other intellectual property rights, or we may be required to defend against claims of infringement, misappropriation or other violation. Litigation and other proceedings in connection with any of the foregoing claims can be unpredictable, expensive and time consuming. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our scientific, technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition,

there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims asserting that our employees, consultants or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or be required to obtain licenses to such intellectual property rights, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. An inability to incorporate such intellectual property rights would harm our business and may prevent us from successfully commercializing any product candidates we may develop or at all. In addition, we may lose personnel as a result of such claims and any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent contractors. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and our technology, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our scientific and management personnel.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Moreover, even when we obtain agreements assigning intellectual property to us, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Furthermore, individuals executing agreements with us may have pre-existing or competing obligations to a third party, such as an academic institution, and thus an agreement with us may be ineffective in perfecting ownership of inventions developed by that individual. Disputes about the ownership of intellectual property that we own may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, we or our licensors may in the future be subject to claims by former employees, consultants or other third parties asserting an ownership right in our owned or licensed patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding 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 technology and therapeutics, without payment to us, or could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technology and any product candidates we may develop. Such challenges may also result in our inability to develop,

manufacture or commercialize our technology and product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our owned or licensed patent rights are threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future technology and product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we do not obtain patent term extension and data exclusivity for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop and our technology, one or more of our U.S. patents that we license or may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. In addition, to the extent we wish to pursue patent term extension based on a patent that we in-license from a third party, we would need the cooperation of that third party. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patent and other intellectual property rights.

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 patent rights, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates or technology. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our or our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in-licensed patent rights, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of or right to use intellectual property that is important to any product candidates we may develop or our technology. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

We have filed trademark applications with the USPTO for our corporate name, logos and tagline and have filed trademark applications in foreign jurisdictions. Our current and future trademark applications in the United States and other foreign jurisdictions may not be allowed or may be subsequently opposed. Once filed and registered, our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. As a means to enforce our trademark rights and prevent infringement, we may be required to file trademark claims against third parties or initiate trademark opposition proceedings. This can be expensive and time-consuming, particularly for a

company of our size. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor or other third party will discover our trade secrets or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we currently rely on certain third parties to manufacture all or part of our drug product and to perform quality testing, and because we collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions for the advancement of our product engine and pipeline, we must, at times, share our proprietary technology and confidential information, including trade secrets, with them. We seek to protect our

proprietary technology, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements and other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees, consultants and contractors prior to beginning research or disclosing any proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors or other third parties, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets by third parties. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s or other third party’s discovery of our proprietary technology and confidential information or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks related to regulatory approval and other regulatory and legal compliance matters

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of any product candidates we may develop. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, product candidates we may develop, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Any product candidates we may develop and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate we may develop will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have no experience as a company in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety, purity and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any product candidates we may develop may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Of the large number of products in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. Even if any product candidates we may develop demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials, the regulatory agencies may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent

marketing approval of a product candidate. If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of any product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for those product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Further, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a new drug application, or NDA, a BLA or supplement to an NDA or BLA for certain drugs and biological products must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA. For any of our product candidates for which we seek regulatory approval in the United States or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA or foreign marketing application for any product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval or other marketing authorization contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including post-market clinical trials. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency also may approve or authorize for marketing a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population that we originally request, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agency may not approve or authorize the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any of these restrictions or commitments could render an approved product not commercially viable, which would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

Finally, our ability to develop and market new products may be threatened by ongoing litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Specifically, on April 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy or REMS. In reaching that decision, the district court made a number of findings that numerous representatives of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry believe will chill the development, approval and distribution of new drug products in the United States. Among other determinations, the district court substituted its scientific judgment for that of the FDA and it held that FDA must provide a special justification for any differences between an approved drug’s labeling and the conditions that existed in the drug’s clinical trials. Further, the district court read the jurisdictional requirements governing litigation in federal court so as to potentially allow virtually any party to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve a new drug application or establish requirements under a REMS.

On April 12, 2023, the district court decision was stayed, in part, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Thereafter, on April 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court entered a stay pending disposition of the appeal of the district court decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral arguments for the case on May 17, 2023 and, on August 16, 2023, issued its decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market, finding that a challenge to the FDA’s initial approval in 2000 is barred by the statute of limitations. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did hold that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone that FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021 were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of federal law. On September 8, 2023, the Department of Justice and a manufacturer of mifepristone asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review this decision. On December 13, 2023, the Supreme Court granted these petitions for a writ of certiorari. Depending on the outcome of this litigation and the regulatory uncertainty it has engendered, our ability to develop new drug product

candidates and to maintain approval of existing drug products and measures adopted under a REMS is at risk and could be delayed, undermined or subject to protracted litigation.

Obtaining and maintaining marketing approval or commercialization of our product candidates in the United States does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining marketing approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions. Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent any product candidates we may develop from being marketed in such jurisdictions, which, in turn, would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

In order to market and sell any product candidates we may develop in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or these third parties may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our medicines in any jurisdiction, which would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to seeking marketing approval in the United Kingdom as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit.

In addition, the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland is currently subject to EU rules. The United Kingdom and EU have however agreed to the Windsor Framework which fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the United Kingdom. Once implemented, the changes introduced by the Windsor Framework will see the MHRA be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland.

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

Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement or otherwise, would prevent us from commercializing any product candidates in the United Kingdom and/or the European Union and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to

seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or the European Union for any product candidates we may develop, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

We are conducting and intend to conduct certain of our clinical trials globally. However, the FDA and other foreign equivalents may not accept data from such trials, in which case our development plans will be delayed, which could materially harm our business.

We are conducting and intend to continue conducting certain of our clinical trials globally. The acceptance by the FDA or other regulatory authorities of study data from clinical trials conducted outside their jurisdiction may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to cGCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the clinical trial is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with cGCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in current or future product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Conducting clinical trials outside the United States also exposes us to additional risks, including risks associated with additional foreign regulatory requirements; foreign exchange fluctuations; compliance with foreign manufacturing, customs, shipment and storage requirements; cultural differences in medical practice and clinical research; diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries; and interruptions or delays in our trials resulting from geopolitical events, such as war or terrorism.

Fast Track designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not assure FDA approval of any product candidates we may develop.

If any product candidate we may develop is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product candidate demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, we may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. In October 2022, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for DYNE-251. However, a Fast Track designation does not ensure that the product candidate will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. As a result, while we may seek and receive Fast Track designation for any product candidates we may develop, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

Breakthrough or RMAT therapy designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster regulatory review or approval process and, in any event, does not assure FDA approval of any product candidates we may develop.

If any product candidate we may develop is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence

indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development, the sponsor may apply for FDA breakthrough designation or a regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT, designation. However, neither a breakthrough designation nor an RMAT designation ensures that the product candidate will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. As a result, while we may seek and receive breakthrough or RMAT designation for any product candidates we may develop, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw breakthrough or RMAT designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Neither breakthrough nor RMAT designation alone guarantees qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

Priority review designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster regulatory review or approval process and, in any event, does not assure FDA approval of any product candidates we may develop.

If the FDA determines that a product candidate we may develop offers major advances in treatment or provides a treatment where no adequate therapy exists, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. We may request priority review for any product candidates we may develop. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate we may develop is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not necessarily mean a faster regulatory review process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or thereafter.

We may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for product candidates we may develop, and even if we do, that exclusivity may not prevent regulatory authorities from approving other competing products.

In March 2023, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to DYNE-251 for the treatment of DMD in patients amenable to exon 51 skipping. In May and September 2023, respectively, the EMA and FDA granted orphan drug designation to DYNE-101 for the treatment of DM1. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the EMA in the European Union. Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

In order for the FDA to grant orphan drug exclusivity to one of our products, the agency must find that the product is indicated for the treatment of a condition or disease with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. The FDA may conclude that the condition or disease for which we seek orphan drug exclusivity does not meet this standard. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. In particular, the concept of what constitutes the “same drug” for purposes of orphan drug exclusivity remains in flux in the context of gene therapies, and the FDA has issued recent draft guidance suggesting that it would not consider two genetic medicine products to be different drugs solely based on minor differences in the transgenes or vectors. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be

lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition.

In 2017, the U.S. Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or the FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s pre-existing regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The new legislation reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority.

The FDA and the U.S. Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law.

On January 23, 2023, FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of the court’s order, FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA or Congress may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

Even if we, or any collaborators we may have, obtain marketing approvals for any product candidates we may develop, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our products could require the substantial expenditure of resources and may limit how we, or they, manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, if ever, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such medicine, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. For example, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. The FDA typically advises that patients treated with genetic medicine undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for a 15-year period. 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. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the medicine may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the medicine. Similar restrictions apply to the approval of products in the European Union.

Accordingly, assuming we, or any third parties we may collaborate with, receive marketing approval for one or more product candidates we may develop, we, and such collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we and such collaborators are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we and such collaborators could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or such collaborators’, ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our

ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any product candidates we may develop, a regulatory agency may:

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 ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and generate revenues.

Any product candidate we may develop for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to restrictions, such as the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, or may need to be withdrawn from the market, and we may be subject to substantial penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our medicines, when and if any of them are approved.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of medicines to ensure that they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other regulatory agencies impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use. 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 do not market our medicines for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing by the FDA and other federal and state enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice. Violation of the Federal Food, Product, and Cosmetic Act and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription products may also lead to investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use 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 of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown problems with our medicines, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

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 ability to commercialize any product candidates we develop and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, if any product candidates we may develop receive marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to ensure that the benefits outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to healthcare practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

We and our contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation. The manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements, which could materially harm our business.

All entities involved in the preparation of product candidates for clinical trials or commercial sale, including any contract manufacturers, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our contract manufacturer must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s cGLP and cGMP regulations enforced through its facilities inspection program. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of any product candidates we may develop or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, FDA approval of the products will not be granted.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit our manufacturing facilities or those of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time-consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.

If we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product, or revocation of a pre-existing approval. Any such consequence would severely harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we or any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage 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 contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage 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 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 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 could be suspended.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting 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 also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or business disruption. Any third-party contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage will also be subject to these and other environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws and regulations could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payers will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payers play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates that we develop for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payers and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, market, sell and distribute our medicines for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States and the United Kingdom, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual European Union Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct applicable in the European Union Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations 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 these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, 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 be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Legislative and regulatory changes may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any future collaborators to obtain reimbursement for our product candidates, if and when approved.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been 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 any product candidates we may develop, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any future collaborators, to profitably sell any products for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any future collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the Medicare Modernization Act, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. While the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the Medicare Modernization Act may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers.

The ACA, which became law in 2010, contains provisions of importance to our business. Our ability to commercialize and the prices we may obtain for any product candidates we may develop and that are approved for sale, may be affected by these provisions, including without limitation, the following:

In addition, other legislative changes have been adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2031. However, as a result of other legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous executive and legal challenges and U.S. congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Act, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, the U.S. Congress effectively repealed the “individual mandate” by reducing the applicable penalty to zero dollars. The modification of this provision, which required most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden revoked those Orders and issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product we might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our potential products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States and foreign jurisdictions are subject to considerable legislative and executive actions and could impact the prices we obtain for our products, if and when approved.

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

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted SIP proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, the regulation has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Order directs the HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” On September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (1) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (2) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (3) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.

More recently, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, the U.S. Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years.

Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. In addition, the IRA potentially raises legal risks with respect to individuals participating in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan who may experience a gap in coverage if they required coverage above their initial annual coverage limit before they reached the higher threshold, or “catastrophic period” of the plan. Individuals requiring services exceeding the initial annual coverage limit and below the catastrophic period must pay 100% of the cost of their prescriptions until they reach the catastrophic period. Among other things, the IRA contains many provisions aimed at reducing this financial burden on individuals by reducing the co-insurance and co-payment costs, expanding eligibility for lower income subsidy plans, and price caps on annual out-of-pocket expenses, each of which could have potential pricing and reporting implications.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co., Inc., filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Subsequently, other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, AstraZeneca L.P. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost

disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for any product candidates we may develop or additional pricing pressures.

In addition, in some countries including those member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices, and in certain instances render commercialization in certain markets infeasible or disadvantageous from a financial perspective. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product and/or our product candidates to other available products in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third party payors or government authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels. If reimbursement of our products, if any, is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, the commercial launch of our product candidates may be delayed, possibly for lengthy periods of time, we or our collaborators may not launch at all in a particular country, we may not be able to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, and there could be a material adverse effect on our business.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, consultants, partners and the principal investigators in our clinical trials. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in the European Union and other jurisdictions, provide accurate information to the FDA, the European Commission 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, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such

misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct 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 this 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 these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Laws and regulations governing any international operations we may have in the future may preclude us from developing, manufacturing and selling certain product candidates outside of the United States and require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs.

We are subject to numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction outside the United States in which we operate. The creation, implementation and maintenance of international business practices compliance programs is costly and such programs are difficult to enforce, particularly where reliance on third parties is required.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing the provision of money or anything of value, directly or indirectly through third parties, to any foreign official, official of a public international organization, or political party official or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA are enforced primarily by the Department of Justice. The SEC is involved with enforcement of the books and records provisions of the FCPA.

Compliance with the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws potentially applicable to our business is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, compliance with the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials.

Various U.S. export and sanctions laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of certain products and technical data relating to those products. Furthermore, such export and sanctions laws include restrictions or prohibitions on the sale or supply of certain products and services to United States embargoed countries or sanctioned countries, governments, persons and entities. Our expansion outside of the United States has required, and will continue to require, us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing or selling certain drugs and drug candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial penalties, including suspension or debarment from government contracting. Violation of the FCPA and export and sanctions laws can result in significant civil and criminal penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences. Indictment alone under the FCPA can lead to suspension of the right to do business with the U.S. government until the pending claims are resolved. Conviction of a violation of the FCPA can result in long-term disqualification as a government contractor. The termination of a government contract or relationship as a result of our failure to satisfy any of our obligations under laws governing international business practices would have a negative impact on our operations and harm our reputation and ability to procure government contracts. The SEC also may

suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

We are subject to stringent privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies, and contractual obligations and failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

We are subject to data privacy and protection laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations that apply to the collection, transmission, storage and use of personally-identifying information, which among other things, impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of personal information, including comprehensive regulatory systems in the U.S., European Union and United Kingdom. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve in jurisdictions worldwide, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues with the potential to affect our business. Failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could result in enforcement action against us, including fines, claims for damages by affected individuals, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information. In particular, regulations promulgated pursuant to HIPAA establish privacy and security standards that limit the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or protected health information, and require the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information and ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information. Determining whether protected health information has been handled in compliance with applicable privacy standards and our contractual obligations can be complex and may be subject to changing interpretation. These obligations may be applicable to some or all of our business activities now or in the future.

If we are unable to properly protect the privacy and security of protected health information, we could be found to have violated these privacy and security laws and/or breached certain contracts. Further, if we fail to comply with applicable privacy laws, including applicable HIPAA privacy and security standards, we could face significant civil and criminal penalties. HHS enforcement activity can result in financial liability and reputational harm, and responses to such enforcement activity can consume significant internal resources. In addition, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations that threaten the privacy of state residents. We cannot be sure how these regulations will be interpreted, enforced or applied to our operations. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures and systems.

In addition to potential enforcement by HHS, we are also potentially subject to privacy enforcement from the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC. The FTC has been particularly focused on the unpermitted processing of health and genetic data through its recent enforcement actions and is expanding the types of privacy violations that it interprets to be “unfair” under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as well as the types of activities it views to trigger the Health Breach Notification Rule, which the FTC also has the authority to enforce. The FTC is also in the process of developing rules related to commercial surveillance and data security that may impact our business. We will need to account for the FTC’s evolving rules and guidance for proper privacy and data security practices in order to mitigate our risk for a potential enforcement action, which may be costly. If we are subject to a potential FTC enforcement action, we may be subject to a settlement order that requires us to adhere to very specific privacy and data security practices, which may impact our business. We may also be required to pay fines as part of a settlement, depending on the nature of the alleged violations. If we violate any consent order that we reach with the FTC, we may be subject to additional fines and compliance requirements.

States are also active in creating specific rules relating to the processing of personal information. In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which is further described below, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of the "sale" of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA and other California privacy laws, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities.

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

Similar to the laws in the U.S., there are significant privacy and data security laws that apply in Europe and other countries. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the European Economic Area, or the EEA, and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is regulated by the GDPR, which went into effect in May 2018 and which imposes obligations on companies that operate in our industry with respect to the processing of personal data and the cross-border transfer of such data. The GDPR imposes onerous accountability obligations requiring data controllers and processors to maintain a record of their data processing and policies. If our or our service providers’ privacy or data security measures fail to comply with the GDPR requirements, we may be subject to litigation, regulatory investigations, enforcement notices requiring us to change the way we use personal data and/or fines of up to 20 million Euros or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, as well as compensation claims by affected individuals, negative publicity, reputational harm and a potential loss of business and goodwill.

The GDPR places restrictions on the cross-border transfer of personal data from the European Union to countries that have not been found by the European Union to offer adequate data protection legislation, such as the U.S. There are ongoing concerns about the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the European Union to other countries. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term

viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the U.S.

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

Following the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. In relation to data transfers, both the UK and the European Union have determined, through separate “adequacy” decisions, that data transfers between the two jurisdictions are in compliance with the UK Data Protection Act and the GDPR, respectively. The UK and the U.S. have also agreed to a to develop a U.S.-UK "Data Bridge", which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer data from the UK to the United States. In addition to the UK, Switzerland is also in the process of approving an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which would function similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the United States). Any changes or updates to these developments have the potential to impact our business.

Beyond GDPR and similar laws in the United States, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world. While many loosely follow GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws may impact our ability to conduct our business activities.

While we continue to address the implications of the recent changes to data privacy regulations, data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect and continued legal challenges, and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices, which could adversely affect our business. We must devote significant resources to understanding and complying with this changing landscape. Failure to comply with federal, state and international laws regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Any such failure to comply with data protection and privacy laws could result in government-imposed fines, penalties or orders requiring that we change our practices, claims for damages or other liabilities, regulatory investigations and enforcement actions, litigation and significant costs for remediation, reputational harm, diminished profits and earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight, any of which could adversely affect our business, our results of operations or prospects. We also face a threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Risks related to employee matters, managing growth and other operational matters

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, financial, operational and other business expertise of our executive officers, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical teams. Although we have entered into employment offer letters with our executive

officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees. Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, accounting, legal and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success.

The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms 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 strategy. 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. Our success as a public company also depends on implementing and maintaining internal controls and the accuracy and timeliness of our financial reporting. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

We expect to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and potentially implement sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of February 29, 2024, we had 141 full-time employees. As our development progresses, we expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development, clinical, regulatory affairs and, if any product candidate we may develop receives marketing approval, sales, marketing, distribution and coverage and reimbursement capabilities. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

As a growing biotechnology company, we are actively pursuing new platforms and product candidates in many therapeutic areas and across a wide range of diseases. Successfully developing product candidates for, and fully understanding the regulatory and manufacturing pathways to, all of these therapeutic areas and disease states requires a significant depth of talent, resources and corporate processes in order to allow simultaneous execution across multiple areas. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage this simultaneous execution and the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, legal or regulatory compliance failures, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected development and expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or increase our revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to compete effectively and commercialize our product candidates, if approved, will depend in part on our ability to effectively manage the future development and expansion of our company.

Future acquisitions or strategic alliances could disrupt our business and harm our financial condition and results of operations.

We may acquire additional businesses, technologies or assets, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products or product candidates resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction. The risks we face in connection with acquisitions, include:

Our failure to address these risks or other problems encountered in connection with any future acquisitions or strategic alliances could cause us to fail to realize the anticipated benefits of these transactions, cause us to incur unanticipated liabilities and harm the business generally. There is also a risk that future acquisitions will result in the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, amortization expenses or incremental operating expenses, any of which could harm our financial condition or results of operations.

Our internal information technology systems, or those of our vendors, collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, loss or leakage of data and other disruptions or compromise, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs, compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information, trigger contractual and legal obligations, potentially exposing us to liability, reputational harm or otherwise adversely affecting our business and financial results.

We are increasingly dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit confidential information (including, but not limited to, intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information). It is critical that we, and our vendors, collaborators or other contractors or consultants, do so in a secure manner to maintain the availability, security, confidentiality, privacy and integrity of such confidential information.

Despite the implementation of security measures, given the size and complexity of our internal information technology systems and those of our current and any future vendors, collaborators and other

contractors and consultants, and the increasing amounts of confidential information that they maintain, such information technology systems are vulnerable to damage or interruption from computer viruses, computer hackers, malicious code, employee error, theft or misuse, denial-of-service attacks, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures or other compromise. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, and we may not be able to implement preventive measures effective against all such security threats. The techniques used by cyber criminals change frequently, may not be recognized until launched, and can originate from a wide variety of sources, including outside groups such as external service providers, organized crime affiliates, terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments or agencies.

Although we seek to protect our information technology systems from system failure, accident and security breach, our efforts may not be successful. If such an event were to occur, it could result in a disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary or confidential information or other disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. If we were to experience a significant cybersecurity breach of our information systems or data, the costs associated with the investigation, remediation and potential notification of the breach to counterparties, data subjects, regulators or others could be material. In addition, our remediation efforts may not be successful. Moreover, if the information technology systems of our vendors, collaborators and other contractors and consultants become subject to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such an event, and to develop and implement protections to prevent future events of this nature from occurring. If we do not allocate and effectively manage the resources necessary to build and sustain the proper technology and cybersecurity infrastructure, we could suffer significant business disruption, including transaction errors, supply chain or manufacturing interruptions, processing inefficiencies, data loss or the loss of or damage to intellectual property or other proprietary information.

To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our or our vendors’, collaborators’ or other contractors’ or consultants’ data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability including litigation exposure, penalties and fines, we could become the subject of regulatory action or investigation, our competitive position and reputation could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed. As a result of such an event, we may be in breach of our contractual obligations. Furthermore, any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our customers or employees, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damage. Any of the above could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

The financial exposure from the events referenced above could either not be insured against or not be fully covered through any insurance that we maintain and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. In addition, we cannot be sure that our existing insurance coverage will continue to be available on acceptable terms or that our insurers will not deny coverage as to any future claim. There can be no assurance that the limitations of liability in our contracts would be enforceable or adequate or would otherwise protect us from liabilities or damages as a result of the events referenced above.

Our operations or those of the third parties upon whom we depend might be affected by the occurrence of a natural disaster, pandemic or other catastrophic event.

We depend on our employees, consultants, CMOs and CROs, as well as regulatory agencies and other parties, for the continued operation of our business. Although we maintain disaster recovery plans, they might not adequately protect us. Despite any precautions we take for natural disasters or other catastrophic events, these events, including terrorist attack, pandemics, hurricanes, fire, floods and ice and snowstorms, could result in significant disruptions to our research and development, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and, ultimately, commercialization of our products. Long-term disruptions in the infrastructure caused by events, such as natural disasters, the outbreak of war, the escalation of hostilities and acts of terrorism or other ‘‘acts of God,’’ particularly involving cities in which we have offices, manufacturing or clinical trial sites, could adversely affect our businesses. Although we carry business interruption insurance policies and typically have provisions in our contracts that protect us in certain events, our coverage might not respond or be adequate to compensate us for all losses that may occur. Any natural disaster or catastrophic event affecting us, our CMOs or CROs, regulatory agencies or other parties with which we are engaged could have a significant negative impact on our operations and financial performance.

Risks related to ownership of our common stock and our status as a public company

The price of our common stock is volatile and fluctuates substantially, which could result in substantial losses for our stockholders.

Our stock price has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. The stock market in general, and the market for smaller biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price volatility and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price they paid for their shares. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Any lawsuit to which we are a party, with or without merit, may result in an unfavorable judgment. We also may decide to settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms. Any such negative outcome could result in payments of substantial damages or fines, damage to our reputation or adverse changes to our offerings or business practices. Such litigation may also cause us to incur other substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources.

If securities analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports or publish misleading, inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of our stock, the price and trading volume of our stock could decline.

The trading market for our common stock relies, in part, on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have control over these analysts. There can be no assurance that existing analysts will continue to cover us or that new analysts will begin to cover us. There is also no assurance that any covering analysts will provide favorable coverage. If one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our stock, which in turn could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition, stock price and results of operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. For example, the 2008 global financial crisis caused extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital and credit markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn resulting from a pandemic, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including weakened demand for any product candidates we may develop. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption. If the current equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly, and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could impair our ability to achieve our growth strategy, could harm our financial performance and stock price and could require us to delay or abandon clinical development plans. In addition, there is a risk that our current or future service providers, manufacturers or other collaborators may not survive such difficult economic times, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget. We cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

Our executive officers and directors and their affiliates, if they choose to act together, have the ability to significantly influence all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

Our executive officers and directors and their affiliates, in the aggregate, beneficially owned shares representing approximately 23.3% of our common stock as of February 29, 2024. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to significantly influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs, even though some of these persons or entities may have interests different than yours. For example, these stockholders, if they choose to act together, could significantly influence the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

This concentration of ownership may:

We have broad discretion in the use of our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities and may not use them effectively.

Our management has broad discretion in the application of our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities and could use such funds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common stock or in ways that our stockholders may not agree with. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could cause the price of our common stock to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest these funds in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders for the foreseeable future.

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the market in the near future, which could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock or impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of equity securities in the future. As of February 29, 2024, we had 81,958,068 shares of common stock outstanding.

All of our outstanding shares of common stock are available for sale in the public market, subject to applicable securities laws.

Moreover, holders of a substantial number of shares of our common stock and shares of our common stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding options have rights, subject to specified conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. We have also filed registration statements on Form S-8 to register all of the shares of common stock that we are able to issue under our equity compensation plans. Shares registered under these registration statements on Form S-8 can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates, vesting arrangements and exercise of options.

We are an “emerging growth company” and a “smaller reporting company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” or EGC, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. We are also a "smaller reporting company," as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act. We may remain an EGC until December 31, 2025, although if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of June 30, 2024 or if we have annual gross revenues of $1.235 billion or more in 2024, we would cease to be an EGC as of December 31 of the applicable year. We also would cease to be an EGC if we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. For so long as we remain an EGC, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not EGCs. These exemptions include:

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may continue to qualify as a smaller reporting company, which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. In addition, if we are a smaller reporting company with less than $100.0 million in annual revenue, we would not be required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404. We would cease to be a smaller reporting company if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $250.0 million and we had annual revenues in excess of $100.0 million or if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million, each as determined on an annual basis.

We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act permits an EGC to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of such extended transition period, which means that when a standard is issued or revised and it has different application dates for public or private companies, we will adopt the new or revised standard at the time private companies adopt the new or revised standard and will do so until such time that we either irrevocably elect to “opt out” of such extended transition period or no longer qualify as an EGC. We may choose to early adopt any new or revised accounting standards whenever such early adoption is permitted for private companies.

We have incurred and will continue to incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management has devoted and will continue to be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an EGC or a smaller reporting company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not previously incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Select Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel devote and will need to continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, particularly as we hire additional financial and accounting employees to meet public company internal control and financial reporting requirements and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly compared to when we were a private company. For example, as a public company it is more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantial costs. The impact of these events could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

We cannot predict or estimate the amount of costs we may incur to continue to operate as a public company, nor can we predict the timing of such costs. These rules and regulations are often subject to

varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

Pursuant to Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an EGC or a smaller reporting company with less than $ 100 million in annual revenue, 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 within the prescribed period, we are engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, including through hiring additional financial and accounting personnel, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, is designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could harm our business and have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an EGC under the JOBS Act or a smaller reporting company with less than $100 million in annual revenue, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of our company, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current directors and members of management.

Provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of our company that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which our stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be

willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or the DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Our restated certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States of America as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers and employees.

Our restated certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for the following types of actions or proceedings under Delaware statutory or common law:

These choice of forum provisions will not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all such Securities Act actions. Accordingly, both state and federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims. To prevent having to litigate claims in multiple jurisdictions and the threat of inconsistent or contrary rulings by different courts, among other considerations, our restated certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for the resolution of any claims arising under the Securities Act. While the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive forum provisions. In such instance, we would expect to vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive forum provisions of our restated certificate of incorporation. This may require significant additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions and there can be no assurance that the provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions.

These exclusive forum provisions may limit the ability of our stockholders to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholders find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees. If a court were to find either exclusive forum provision contained in our restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur further significant additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, all of which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

General Risk Factors

Changes in patent law in the United States or worldwide could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect any product candidates we may develop and our technology.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws in the United States and worldwide, including patent reform legislation such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of any owned or in-licensed patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of any current in-licensed issued patents and issued patents we may own or in-license in the future. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These changes include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents, and enable third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent at USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first-to-file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. As such, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our in-licensed issued patents and issued patents we may own or in-license in the future, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the

validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim unpatentable even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to review patentability of our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. As one example, in the case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable simply because they have been isolated from surrounding material. Moreover, in 2012, the USPTO issued a guidance memo to patent examiners indicating that process claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or a naturally occurring relation or correlation that do not include additional elements or steps that integrate the natural principle into the claimed invention such that the natural principle is practically applied and the claim amounts to significantly more than the natural principle itself should be rejected as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, in view of the guidance memo, there can be no assurance that claims in our patent rights covering any product candidates we may develop or our technology will be held by the USPTO or equivalent foreign patent offices or by courts in the United States or in foreign jurisdictions to cover patentable subject matter. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our patent rights and our ability to protect, defend and enforce our patent rights in the future.

Changes in tax laws or regulations or in their implementation or interpretation may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business or financial condition. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. For example, on December 22, 2017, the U.S. government enacted the Tax Act, as amended by the CARES Act, which reduces the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21% and, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, imposes a limit on the deduction for NOLs arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 to 80% of current year taxable income (though any such NOLs may be carried forward indefinitely). In addition, beginning in 2022, the Tax Act eliminates the option to deduct research and development expenditures currently and generally requires corporations to capitalize and amortize them over five years or 15 years (for expenditures attributable to foreign research).

Additionally, economic relief legislation containing tax provisions was enacted in 2020 and 2021 as part of the U.S. Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the IRA, which introduced a number of new tax provisions, was signed into law in August 2022. The IRA in particular imposes a 1% excise tax on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded corporations. Regulatory guidance under the Tax Act, the IRA, and additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen the impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to such legislation.

Inadequate funding for the FDA , the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve or certify new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA, other agencies and authorities may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA, other agencies, and authorities may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, foreign regulatory authorities, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

We are subject to certain reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements or insufficient disclosures due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

We understand the importance of preventing, identifying, assessing and managing material risks associated with cybersecurity threats. Cybersecurity processes to identify, assess and manage risks from cybersecurity threats have been incorporated as a part of our overall risk assessment process and are designed to help protect our information assets and operations from internal and external cyber threats and protect employee and patient information from unauthorized access or attack, as well as secure our network and systems. We have implemented into our operations these cybersecurity processes, technologies and controls to identify, assess and manage material risks. Specifically, we engage a third-party cybersecurity firm to assist with network and endpoint monitoring, cloud system monitoring and assessment of our incident response procedures. Further, we employ periodic internal and external

penetration testing by an independent cybersecurity firm to inform our risk identification and assessment of critical, high, medium and minor material cybersecurity threats.

To manage our material risks from cybersecurity threats and to protect against, detect, and prepare to respond to cybersecurity incidents, we undertake the below listed activities:

Our incident response plan coordinates the activities that we and our third-party cybersecurity providers take to prepare to respond and recover from cybersecurity incidents, which include processes to triage, assess severity, investigate, escalate, contain, and remediate an incident, as well as to comply with potentially applicable legal obligations and mitigate brand and reputational damage.

As part of the above processes, we engage with subject matter expert consultants to review our cybersecurity program to help identify areas for continued focus, improvement, and compliance.

Our processes also include assessing cybersecurity threat risks associated with our use of third-party services providers in normal course of business use, including those in our supply chain or who have access to patient and employee data or our systems. Third-party risks are included within our risk management process discussed above. In addition, we assess cybersecurity considerations in the selection and oversight of our third-party services providers, including due diligence on the third parties that have access to our systems and facilities that house systems and data.

We do not believe that there are currently any known risks from cybersecurity threats that are reasonably likely to materially affect our business strategy, results of operations or financial condition. However, cybersecurity threats may affect our business. See “Our internal information technology systems, or those of our vendors, collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, loss or leakage of data and other disruptions or compromise, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs, compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information, trigger contractual and legal obligations, potentially exposing us to liability, reputational harm or otherwise adversely affecting our business and financial results.” in "Item 1A. Risk Factors" of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of our cybersecurity risk assessment, risk management, incident response procedures and cybersecurity risks and provides updates to the Board of Directors regarding such oversight. Periodically during each year, the Audit Committee receives an overview from our Vice President, Head of Technology of our cybersecurity threat risk management and strategy processes, including potential impact on us, the efforts of management to manage the risks that are identified and our incident response preparations. Members of the Board of Directors regularly engage in discussions with management on cybersecurity-related news events and discuss any updates to our cybersecurity risk assessment, risk management and strategy programs.

Our cybersecurity risk assessment, management and strategy processes are led by our Vice President, Head of Technology. Our Vice President, Head of Technology has over 20 years of experience in various roles involving managing information security, managing privacy and data protection, developing cybersecurity strategy, and implementing cybersecurity programs. The Vice President, Head of Technology, a Certified Information Security Manager (CISM) with up-to-date credentials, is informed

about and monitors the prevention, mitigation, detection and remediation of cybersecurity incidents through management of the cybersecurity risk management and strategy processes described above, including our incident response plan.

Item 2. Properties.

Our principal facilities are located at 1560 Trapelo Road, Waltham, Massachusetts, where we lease and occupy approximately 68,000 square feet of office and laboratory space. The current term of our lease expires in March 2030, with an option to extend the lease for two successive five-year terms. We believe our facilities are adequate and suitable for our current needs and that should it be needed, suitable additional or alternative space will be available to accommodate our operations.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are not currently subject to any material legal proceedings.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock has traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “DYN” since September 17, 2020. Prior to that date, there was no public trading market for our common stock.

Holders

As of February 29, 2024, we had 14 holders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders is greater than the number of record holders, and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. The number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock since our inception. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and expansion of our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare and pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on then-existing conditions, including our results of operations, financial condition, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated by reference herein to Item 12 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

None.

Item 6. [Reserved]

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing at the end of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage muscle disease company focused on advancing innovative life-transforming therapeutics for people living with genetically driven diseases. We are utilizing our proprietary FORCE platform to overcome the current limitations of muscle tissue delivery and advance modern oligonucleotide therapeutics for muscle diseases. Our proprietary FORCE platform therapeutics consist of an oligonucleotide payload that we rationally design to target the genetic basis of the disease we are seeking to treat, a clinically validated linker and an antigen-binding fragment, or Fab, that we attach to the payload using the linker. With our FORCE platform, we have the flexibility to deploy different types of oligonucleotide payloads with specific mechanisms of action that modify target functions. We leverage this modularity to focus on muscle diseases with high unmet need, with etiologic targets and with clear translational potential from preclinical disease models to well-defined clinical development and regulatory pathways.

Using our FORCE platform, we are assembling a broad portfolio of muscle disease therapeutics, including our programs in myotonic dystrophy type 1, or DM1, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, and facioscapulohumeral dystrophy, or FSHD. In addition, we plan to expand our portfolio through development efforts focused on rare skeletal muscle diseases, as well as cardiac and metabolic muscle diseases and diseases involving the central nervous system, or CNS, including some with larger patient populations. We have identified product candidates for each of our DM1, DMD and FSHD programs that are in varying stages of preclinical and clinical development.

Our product candidate DYNE-101 is being evaluated in ACHIEVE, an ongoing Phase 1/2 global clinical trial in patients with DM1. ACHIEVE, which is designed to be a registrational trial, consists of a 24-week multiple ascending dose, or MAD, randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week open-label extension, or OLE, and a 96-week long-term extension.

Our product candidate DYNE-251 is being evaluated in DELIVER, an ongoing Phase 1/2 global clinical trial in patients with DMD who have mutations amenable to exon 51 skipping. DELIVER, which is designed to be a registrational trial, consists of a 24-week MAD, randomized, placebo-controlled period, a 24-week OLE and a 96-week long-term extension.

In January 2024, we announced positive initial clinical data from the ACHIEVE trial and the DELIVER trial which we believe validates the promise of the FORCE platform. For more information on the clinical data, see Item 1. “Business” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We were incorporated and commenced operations in 2017. Since our incorporation, we have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, conducting research and development activities and filing and prosecuting patent applications. We do not have any products for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales or otherwise. To date, we have principally raised capital through sales of equity securities.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our ability to generate any product revenue or product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more product candidates. For the years ended December 31,

2023 and 2022, we reported net losses of $235.9 million and $168.1 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $632.5 million.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We expect that our expenses and capital expenditure requirements will increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly if and as we:

We will not generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates we may develop. If we obtain regulatory approval for or otherwise commercialize any product candidates we may develop, we expect to incur significant expenses related to developing our commercialization capabilities to support product sales, marketing and distribution. Further, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

As a result, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. We may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other agreements or arrangements when needed, on favorable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise capital or enter into such agreements or arrangements as and when needed, we may have to significantly delay, reduce or eliminate the development or future commercialization of one or more product candidates we may develop.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations at planned levels, and as a result we may be forced to substantially reduce or terminate our operations.

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through 2025. We have based our estimates as to how long we expect we will be able to fund our operations on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. We could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect, in which case we would be required to obtain additional financing, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy. See “—Liquidity and capital resources” below.

Components of our results of operations

Revenue

We have not generated any revenue since our inception and do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the near future, if at all. If our development efforts are successful and we commercialize products, or if we enter into collaboration or license agreements with third parties, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales, as well as upfront, milestone and royalty payments from such collaboration or license agreements, or a combination thereof.

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for our research activities and development of our product candidates. These expenses include:

We expense research and development costs as incurred. Advance payments that we make for goods or services to be received in the future for use in research and development activities are recorded as prepaid expenses. The prepaid amounts are expensed as the related goods are delivered or the services are performed.

Our direct external research and development expenses consist of costs that include fees, reimbursed materials and other costs paid to consultants, contractors, CMOs and CROs in connection with our development, manufacturing and clinical activities. We have not allocated our direct external research and development costs to specific programs or product candidates that are not in clinical development.

Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. Accordingly, we expect that our research and development expenses will increase substantially as we advance DYNE-101 and DYNE-251 through clinical trials and in connection with our preclinical and clinical development activities if and as we advance any other product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials. At this time, we cannot accurately estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the preclinical and clinical development of any product candidates we may develop. The successful development of any product candidate is highly uncertain. This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, including the following:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of any product candidate we may develop could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate. We may never succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for any product candidate we may develop.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of employee-related expenses, including salaries, related benefits and stock-based compensation for employees in executive, finance, corporate and business development and administrative functions. General and administrative expenses also include legal fees relating to patent and corporate matters; professional fees for accounting, auditing, tax and administrative consulting services; insurance costs; administrative travel expenses; and facility-related expenses, which include allocated expenses for rent, depreciation and maintenance of facilities and other operating costs.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as we increase our headcount to support our growth strategy. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate and do not enter into a third-party commercialization collaboration, we expect to incur significant expenses related to building a sales and marketing team to support product sales, marketing and distribution activities.

Interest income

Interest income consists of interest earned on our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

Other income (expense), net

Other income (expense), net consists of realized gains and losses on sales of marketable securities and foreign currency gains and losses.

Income taxes

Since our inception, we have not recorded any U.S. federal or state income tax benefits for the net losses we have incurred in any year or for our earned research and development tax credits, due to our uncertainty of realizing a benefit from those items. As of December 31, 2023, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $273.5 million and $279.5 million, respectively. The federal net operating loss carryforwards are indefinite lived and the state net operating loss carryforwards begin to expire in 2038. As of December 31, 2023, we also had federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of $17.1 million and $2.9 million which begin to expire in 2039 and 2033, respectively.

Results of operations

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022:

Research and development expenses

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022: