e

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 001-41837

Mural Oncology plc

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: +353-1-905-8020

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 registrant's ordinary shares began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market on November 16, 2023. As of March 15, 2024, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting ordinary shares held by non-affiliates (without admitting that any person whose shares are not included in such calculation is an affiliate) computed by reference to the price at which the ordinary shares were last sold on March 15, 2024, was $81,397,466. The registrant has provided this information as of March 15, 2024 because the registrant was not a public company as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter and therefore there was no public market for the registrant’s ordinary shares as of such date.

As of March 15, 2024, the registrant had 16,922,550 ordinary shares outstanding.

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes 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 risks and uncertainties. All statements contained in this Annual Report, other than statements of historical facts, including statements about future events, future financial position, business strategy, budgets, projected costs, plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements that involve certain risks and uncertainties. Use of the words “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “believes,” “estimates,” “projects,” “potential,” “expects,” “plans,” “seeks,” “intends,” “evaluates,” “pursues,” “anticipates,” “continues,” “designs,” “impacts,” “affects,” “forecasts,” “target,” “outlook,” “initiative,” “objective,” “designed,” “priorities,” “goal” or the negative of those words or other similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements that represent our current judgment about possible future events, but the absence of these words does not necessarily mean that a statement is not forward-looking.

Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and assumptions regarding our business, the economy and other future conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, by their nature, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. As a result, our actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include statements about, among other things:

See Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” for a further description of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Although we have attempted to identify important risk factors, there may be other risk factors not presently known to us or that we presently believe are not material that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those made in or suggested by the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report. If any of these risks materialize, or if any of the above assumptions underlying forward-looking statements prove incorrect, actual results and developments may differ materially from those made in or suggested by the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report. For the reasons described above, we caution you against relying on any forward-looking statements, which should also be read in conjunction with the other cautionary statements that are included elsewhere in this Annual Report and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any forward-looking statement made by us in this Annual Report speaks only as of the date thereof. Factors or events that could cause our actual results to differ may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of them. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or to revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments, or otherwise, except as may be required by law.

Throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless the context requires otherwise, all references to “Mural,” “the Company,” “we,” “our,” “us” or similar terms refer to Mural Oncology plc, together with its consolidated subsidiaries.

SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

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 on Form 10-K. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage oncology company focused on discovering and developing immunotherapies that may meaningfully improve the lives of patients with cancer. By leveraging our core competencies in immune cell modulation and protein engineering, we have developed a portfolio of novel, investigational cytokine therapies designed to address areas of unmet need for patients with a variety of cancers. Our lead product candidate, nemvaleukin alfa (“nemvaleukin”), is an investigational, engineered interleukin-2 (“IL-2”) cytokine designed to capture and expand the therapeutic benefits of high-dose recombinant human IL-2 (“rhIL-2”), while mitigating its hallmark toxicities. In ARTISTRY-1, our clinical proof of concept study, nemvaleukin generated durable responses as a single agent and in combination with pembrolizumab across a range of tumor types. Nemvaleukin is currently in two potentially registrational studies, the ARTISTRY-6 (Cohort 2) trial for the treatment of mucosal melanoma as a monotherapy and the ARTISTRY-7 trial for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (“PROC”) in combination with pembrolizumab. We expect to report topline overall survival (“OS”) results for the interim analysis for our ARTISTRY-7 trial in PROC in the first quarter of 2025, subject to reaching the required number of events for the analysis, and topline results for Cohort 2 in our ARTISTRY-6 trial in mucosal melanoma in the first half of 2025, subject to patient enrollment. In addition to nemvaleukin, we are also developing engineered therapies targeting the interleukin-18 (“IL-18”) and interleukin-12 (“IL-12”) pathways, which have demonstrated therapeutic potential in third-party preclinical and clinical studies. We are currently conducting discovery-phase activities for our IL-18 and IL-12 programs, and we plan to nominate a product candidate in each program in 2024.

What are Cytokines?

Cytokines are biologically active proteins that play an essential role in immune cell function. These proteins regulate immune responses by acting as chemical messengers for the body’s immune cells through receptor site binding. In patients with cancer, cytokines can help prime, expand, activate, and/or enhance activity of the immune system to recognize and eliminate tumor cells. Because of these characteristics, various cytokine pathways have been investigated as cancer immunotherapies. However, administering unmodified cytokines as therapeutics can present challenges, including narrow therapeutic indexes and unmanageable side effect profiles. For example, while rhIL-2 has been shown to be an effective treatment, having demonstrated complete and durable responses in patients with metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (“RCC”), use of rhIL-2 has been significantly limited due to associated toxicities such as capillary leak syndrome (“CLS”) and end-organ dysfunction, which can be severe and life-threatening.

Our Programs

We are developing a portfolio of immunotherapies currently focused on proinflammatory cytokines that leverages our significant immune cell modulation expertise and protein engineering capabilities. When developing product candidates, we apply a consistent analytical framework to focus on targets with sound biologic rationale and what we believe to be a surmountable technical challenge (e.g., overexpansion of regulatory T cells (“Tregs”)) that has limited the mechanism to date. Once a target is identified, we apply our protein engineering capabilities to design a molecule that we believe can address the technical challenge. Our multi-faceted approach to cytokine engineering is aimed at maximizing the utility of identified cytokines and includes binding selectivity, tumor-targeting, half-life modification and in-vivo assembly. As shown in the figure below, our approach has yielded three distinct investigational immuno-oncology programs, each based on unique design approaches that we believe are potentially best suited for each cytokine:

Multi-Faceted Immuno-Oncology Approach to Molecular Design Grounded in Strong Scientific Rationale

Nemvaleukin Alfa

We used our protein engineering approach to design the molecular structure of nemvaleukin, our lead product candidate. Nemvaleukin is engineered to selectively bind to the intermediate-affinity IL-2 receptor (“IL-2R”) complex and preferentially expand tumor-killing immune cells, such as CD8+ T cells and natural killer cells (“NK cells”), with minimal expansion of immunosuppressive Tregs. Nemvaleukin is an intrinsically active, stable fusion protein and, once administered, does not degrade to unmodified IL-2, which we believe contributes to its potential for enhanced tolerability.

Objective Criteria to Assess Change in Tumor Burden. We assessed clinical response in ARTISTRY-1, our Phase 1/2 clinical proof of concept study for nemvaleukin in which nemvaleukin is administered intravenously (“IV nemvaleukin”), using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines version 1.1 (“RECIST 1.1”). RECIST 1.1 is a standardized and well-established method of tumor measurement commonly used in solid tumor oncology clinical trials.

Objective response rate (“ORR”), often used in oncology clinical trials, is the percentage of evaluable patients who had a complete response (“CR”) or partial response (“PR”), and disease control rate (“DCR”) is the percentage of evaluable patients who had a CR, PR, or stable disease (“SD”).

The nemvaleukin clinical program includes the completed ARTISTRY-1 and ARTISTRY-2 trials and three ongoing clinical studies, ARTISTRY-3, ARTISTRY-6, and ARTISTRY-7.

ARTISTRY-1 Clinical Trial. ARTISTRY-1 was designed to assess whether nemvaleukin could recapitulate the anti-tumor activity of high-dose rhIL-2 and to assess nemvaleukin’s safety profile. ARTISTRY-1 was a global, multicenter, open-label study with three parts: Part A (dose-escalation monotherapy, 46 subjects), Part B (dose-expansion monotherapy, 47 subjects with melanoma and 27 subjects with RCC), and Part C (combination therapy with pembrolizumab, 166 subjects including 43 subjects rolled over from Part A or Part B). The primary endpoints were the incidence of dose limiting toxicities (Part A), the incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (Parts A, B, and C), and the ORR based on RECIST 1.1 (Parts B and C). As ARTISTRY-1 was not designed to generate treatment comparisons, these endpoints are summarized descriptively.

We observed objective responses with nemvaleukin as monotherapy in cancers for which high-dose rhIL-2 obtained regulatory approval, such as melanoma and RCC. In ARTISTRY-1, among six evaluable mucosal melanoma patients as of March 27, 2023, we observed two PRs (one confirmed, which means it meets the RECIST 1.1 criteria for a PR in two consecutive scans) and two patients with SD, representing an ORR of 33.3% and an overall DCR of 66.7%.

Nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab has shown, in some patients, durable and deepening responses in a range of tumor types. A durable response is a response with a duration that exceeds the response generally observed with standard of care treatment. In the context of high unmet need disease states such as mucosal melanoma and PROC and taking into account standard of care treatment in these disease states, we regard a response that exceeds six months as durable. In ARTISTRY-1, among 14 evaluable patients with PROC as of March 27, 2023, treatment with nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab resulted in two CRs and two PRs (one confirmed), with a median duration of response of 65.5 weeks, and six patients with SD, representing an overall response rate of 28.6% and an overall DCR of 71.4%. A deepening response is a response in which

tumors have continued to shrink in subsequent scans. In ARTISTRY-1 (Part C), for example, one patient with PROC began treatment in February 2020, achieved a 55% reduction (a PR per RECIST 1.1 criteria) in tumor at Cycle 4, and complete resolution of the tumor twenty cycles later (a CR per RECIST 1.1 criteria). This patient remained on treatment for over two years. In addition to the responses in PROC, we also observed objective responses, or patients with PRs or CRs, in breast, bladder, cervical, gastrointestinal, head and neck, lung, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, melanoma, and renal cell cancers when nemvaleukin was administered in combination with pembrolizumab. All ARTISTRY-1 data is provided as of the dates noted herein; the final database lock occurred on September 27, 2023.

ARTISTRY-2 Clinical Trial. ARTISTRY-2 was a Phase 1/2 trial that evaluated safety, anti-tumor activity, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous (“SC”) nemvaleukin as monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. The Phase 1 trial explored doses ranging from 0.6 to 6 mg in a once every seven day (“Q7D”) regimen and doses ranging from 1 mg to 10 mg in a once every 21 days (“Q21D”) regimen. Based on the tolerability, pharmacodynamics and antitumor activity from Phase 1 of ARTISTRY-2, the recommended Phase 2 dose “(RP2D”) of SC nemvaleukin was identified as 3 mg Q7D. In Phase 2 of ARTISTRY-2, SC nemvaleukin at the RP2D plus pembrolizumab was administered to 59 patients in the following solid tumor cohorts: non–small-cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer, and PROC. Antitumor activity was observed, including two confirmed PRs in PROC, one confirmed PR in non-small-cell lung cancer and one unconfirmed PR (uPR) in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The final results were reported as of August 17, 2023. In conclusion, SC nemvaleukin at the RP2D of 3 mg Q7D plus pembrolizumab was generally well tolerated and demonstrated limited antitumor activity in patients with refractory solid tumors.

ARTISTRY-3 is a Phase 1/2 open-label trial of IV nemvaleukin in patients with selected advanced solid tumors who have previously received standard of care treatment(s). The trial is evaluating doses between 10 µg/kg and 40 µg/kg across three dosing regimens: once per three-week dosing cycle; days one and eight of a three-week dosing cycle; and days one and four of a three-week dosing cycle. After reviewing the data in collaboration with our safety review committee, 30 µg/kg administered on days one and eight of a three-week dosing cycle was selected as the RP2D.

ARTISTRY-6 and ARTISTRY-7 Clinical Trials. We are currently evaluating nemvaleukin in two potentially registrational studies: ARTISTRY-6, a Phase 2 study in which Cohort 2 is evaluating nemvaleukin as a monotherapy in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma, and ARTISTRY-7, a Phase 3 study which is evaluating nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with PROC. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has granted Orphan Drug designation (“ODD”) to nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma. The FDA also has granted Fast Track designation (“FTD”) to nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma and to nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of PROC. We expect to report topline OS results for the interim analysis for our ARTISTRY-7 trial in PROC in the first quarter of 2025, subject to reaching the required number of events for the analysis, and topline results for Cohort 2 in our ARTISTRY-6 trial in mucosal melanoma in the first half of 2025, subject to patient enrollment. The dosing strategy of this cohort was based on extensive pharmacodynamic modeling that helped us predict the pharmacodynamic profile of IV nemvaleukin in lymph nodes and tumors.

ARTISTRY-6 is a global, Phase 2 multi-center, open-label cohort study of nemvaleukin monotherapy in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma or advanced mucosal melanoma who have previously received anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (“PD-L1”) therapy. The primary endpoint for each cohort is ORR based on RECIST 1.1 while secondary endpoints include duration of response, progression-free survival (“PFS”), DCR, time to response and safety and tolerability. ARTISTRY-6 is planned to enroll up to 196 patients, including up to 106 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma and approximately 90 patients with advanced mucosal melanoma. Subjects will be enrolled into one of three cohorts based on tumor type: advanced cutaneous melanoma (Cohorts 1 and 3) and advanced mucosal melanoma (Cohort 2). The sample size for Cohort 1 was 56. The sample size for Cohort 2 was increased from 70 to 90 in January 2024 in order to provide a more robust assessment of the response rate. The study endpoints will be summarized descriptively and analyzed and reported separately for each cohort and dosing schedule tested in the study. We expect to provide topline results for Cohort 2 in the first half of 2025, subject to patient enrollment. Cohort 3 is also expected to evaluate a newly recommended less frequent IV dosing of nemvaleukin as a monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in a total of approximately 50 patients with cutaneous melanoma. We expect to report top-line monotherapy data from Cohort 3 of ARTISTRY-6 in the first half of 2025 and top-line combination data from Cohort 3 of ARTISTRY-6 in the second half of 2025.

ARTISTRY-7 is a global, Phase 3 multicenter, open-label, randomized study of nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab compared to investigator’s choice chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. The primary endpoint was changed in January 2024 from PFS to OS, with PFS and ORR as secondary efficacy endpoints. The rationale for the change in primary endpoint is our belief that OS is the more appropriate endpoint to objectively demonstrate clinical benefit in the target population, especially taking into consideration the poor prognosis of PROC patients and the number of previous lines of systemic therapy allowed per protocol for the trial. Additionally,

we believe OS is the preferred endpoint in this setting among regulatory agencies and payors and may also better capture the effects of an immuno-oncology doublet combination therapy as compared to a PFS endpoint. This study is planned for approximately 448 patients across four arms: approximately 183 patients in the combination therapy arm, 27 patients in the pembrolizumab monotherapy arm, 55 patients in the nemvaleukin monotherapy arm, and approximately 183 patients in the investigator’s choice chemotherapy arm. Summary statistics will be provided by treatment arm, and a statistical comparison will be conducted between the combination therapy arm and the chemotherapy arm. The pembrolizumab and nemvaleukin monotherapy arms are included in the study to discern the treatment effect of nemvaleukin and pembrolizumab individually; we do not plan to conduct statistical comparison on these arms. For each of ARTISTRY-6 and ARTISTRY-7, we have established an Independent Data Monitoring Committee that, pursuant to its charter, periodically reviews the accruing clinical trial data.

We expect to report topline results from Cohort 2 of ARTISTRY-6 in mucosal melanoma in the first half of 2025, subject to patient enrollment, and topline results for the interim analysis of OS from ARTISTRY-7 in PROC in the first quarter of 2025, subject to reaching the number of events required for the analysis. We expect to report the final OS data from ARTISTRY-7 in the second quarter of 2026. If the data from one or both of these potentially registrational clinical studies are positive and we, in consultation with the FDA, determine that the results of either or both of these studies are sufficient to support the filing of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for nemvaleukin, we may submit one or more BLAs to the FDA to obtain approval to market nemvaleukin in the United States. Subsequently, we may pursue similar marketing authorizations in other jurisdictions.

To explore nemvaleukin’s potential broad utility and ability to offer more flexible and convenient options to patients, caregivers, and providers, we are also evaluating subcutaneous dosing and alternative intravenous (“IV”) dosing frequencies in a variety of studies. ARTISTRY-2 and Cohort 1 of ARTISTRY-6 were designed to evaluate nemvaleukin in subcutaneous dosing. ARTISTRY-3 and Cohort 3 of ARTISTRY-6 are designed to evaluate nemvaleukin in a less frequent IV dosing regimen.

Our IL-18 and IL-12 Programs

We are also developing engineered IL-18 and IL-12 cytokines, which are currently in the discovery phase. We expect to nominate a product candidate in each program in 2024. For each cytokine pathway, we have developed what we believe is an innovative protein engineering solution designed to address the therapeutic limitations of the native molecules. For IL-18, we are engineering variants that are resistant to the naturally occurring IL-18 binding protein (“IL-18BP”), with an aim to enhance pharmacokinetic (“PK”) properties, including half-life extension, and IL-18 signaling activity. For IL-12, we are developing a tumor-targeted IL-12 molecule that is delivered in the form of inactive subunits that assemble and activate within the tumor, potentially avoiding toxicities associated with systemic exposure.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to discover and develop immunotherapies that may help meaningfully improve the lives of patients with cancer. Leveraging our immune cell modulation expertise and protein engineering capabilities, we aim to discover, develop and ultimately commercialize, immunotherapies designed to address serious unmet patient needs. Key elements of our strategy include:

Disease and Investigational Therapeutic Background

Cancer Immunotherapies and Cytokines

The introduction of immunotherapies has ushered in a new era of cancer treatments and has brought significant benefits for patients beyond those achieved with previous standards of care such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. The goal of immunotherapy is to harness the natural immune system to fight cancer. Immunotherapy approaches have evolved and expanded to consider a multitude of mechanisms targeting multiple steps across the cancer immunity cycle. These include targeting of immunoinhibitory pathways (e.g., immune CPIs) and immunostimulatory pathways (e.g., IL-2 and antitumor vaccines). Checkpoint modulation has driven the growth of the immuno-oncology field and is forecasted to reach approximately $100

billion by 2027 according to GlobalData Thematic Research: Immuno-Oncology; however, there remains significant unmet need for patients.

Cytokines are biologically active proteins that play an essential role in immune cell function within both innate and adaptive elements of the immune system. Cytokines regulate immune responses by acting as chemical messengers for the body’s immune cells through receptor site binding. Interleukins, such as IL-2, IL-12, IL-18 and interferon alpha (“IFN-α”), are specific types of cytokines produced primarily by cells of the immune system to signal and organize immune responses. In cancer, cytokines can help prime, expand, activate, and/or enhance activity of the immune system to recognize and eliminate tumor cells. Because of these characteristics, various cytokines have been investigated as cancer immunotherapies.

Despite advances in immunotherapy, significant unmet need remains, as not all patients are able to derive benefit from existing immunotherapies, and further, certain of those patients who initially respond to existing immunotherapies experience a subsequent relapse in their cancer. With respect to cytokines specifically, although high-dose rhIL-2 and IFN-α are approved immunotherapies, cytokine therapies have not achieved broad therapeutic success due to a variety of limitations, including limited efficacy and severe toxicity. Additional research and new approaches to harness the potential of immunotherapies, including cytokine immunotherapies, are needed.

IL-2 Pathway as a Therapeutic Target

The IL-2 pathway is an important and validated target in the immuno-oncology field. IL-2 is a naturally occurring cytokine that plays a pivotal role in regulating immune responses and can activate both immunosuppressive and antitumor mechanisms. IL-2 binds both the high-affinity trimeric IL-2R complex expressed on immunosuppressive CD4+ Tregs and vascular endothelial cells, and the intermediate-affinity dimeric IL-2R complex expressed predominantly on subsets of cells associated with antitumor activity including CD8+ T cells and NK cells.

High-dose rhIL-2 was one of the first approved immuno-oncology agents. It has been shown to be an effective treatment, demonstrating complete and durable responses, including in metastatic melanoma and RCC. In certain cases, patients with RCC remained disease free for ten years following surgical resection of residual disease. However, in clinical studies, only a fraction of patients achieved complete responses using this therapy; 6% in metastatic melanoma patients and 7% in metastatic RCC patients. Further, the use of high-dose rhIL-2 has been significantly limited due to associated toxicities such as CLS and end-organ dysfunction, which can be severe and life-threatening.

Mechanistically, the therapeutic potential of high-dose rhIL-2 is thought to be limited due to its potent binding to the high-affinity IL-2R, resulting in preferential expansion of immunosuppressive Tregs, and due to the toxicities associated with upregulation of the high-affinity IL-2R on vascular endothelial cells.

A long-standing challenge in the immuno-oncology field has been to design a molecule that can leverage, and expand upon, the established antitumor effects of high-dose rhIL-2 while mitigating its hallmark toxicities. We believe this may be accomplished by designing a therapy that preferentially activates the intermediate affinity IL-2R, as described below in the section titled “Nemvaleukin Program.”

IL-18 Pathway

IL-18 is a potent stimulator of innate and adaptive immunity that has been shown to activate CD8+ T cells and NK cells. IL-18 was initially discovered as an IFN-g–inducing factor and recent research has shown IL-18’s functional capacity to reinvigorate exhausted T cells and mature dendritic cells. However, the observed activity in third-party clinical studies of IL-18 has been limited by rapid upregulation of the checkpoint protein IL-18BP, which neutralizes and inhibits IL-18 signaling.

IL-12 Pathway

IL-12 is a heterodimeric protein consisting of two covalently linked subunits, p35 and p40, whose antitumor activity is driven through activation of both innate and adaptive immune compartments and production of immune-stimulating cytokines. IL-12 is recognized as a highly potent proinflammatory cytokine that has shown preclinical responses and clinical activity when delivered intratumorally by strongly activating CD8+ T and NK cells. However, the clinical utility of IL-12 therapy has been limited due to severe toxicities.

Potential for Combination Therapies

Strategic combinations of therapies with complementary—and potentially synergistic—mechanistic effects may enhance the effectiveness of cancer treatments. For example, combining immunotherapies that target different steps in the cancer immunity cycle may provide an opportunity to enhance antitumor activity. Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy may result in further enhancement of tumor killing and an increased durability of response. Additionally, combining immunotherapies with targeted therapies is another potential approach that may yield a synergistic benefit to augment antitumor effects.

Our Approach

We are developing immunotherapies designed to optimize immune cell activity, a key driver of immune response, to treat a variety of cancers and improve patient outcomes. We are initially focused on proinflammatory cytokines, which can modulate multiple immune pathways and act across several phases of the cancer immunity cycle. Our investigational cytokine-based therapies are designed to expand, activate, and reinvigorate T cells and NK cells, while aiming to mitigate the negative effects associated with unmodified cytokines.

Cytokines have the potential to be potent immunotherapies against cancer. However, using unmodified cytokines as therapeutics presents challenges, including narrow therapeutic indexes and unmanageable side effect profiles. Furthermore, there are challenges in transforming cytokines into immunotherapies that are specific to each cytokine. Leveraging our significant immune cell modulation expertise and protein engineering capabilities, we approach each cytokine in a customized fashion with the goals of addressing its specific limitations and seeking to optimize its impact on immune cell activities. Our approach has yielded three distinct investigational immuno-oncology programs, each based on unique design approaches that we believe are potentially best suited for each cytokine.

When developing our therapeutic candidates, we apply a consistent analytical framework to focus on targets with sound biologic rationale and what we believe to be a surmountable technical challenge (e.g., overexpansion of Tregs) that has limited the mechanism to date. Once a mechanism is identified, we apply our protein engineering capabilities to design a molecule that we believe can address the technical challenge. Our multi-faceted approach to cytokine engineering is aimed at maximizing the utility of identified cytokines, and includes binding selectivity, tumor-targeting, half-life modification and in-vivo assembly.

Our Programs

Our Pipeline

Leveraging our protein engineering capabilities, we have advanced our lead product candidate, nemvaleukin, into potentially registrational clinical trials. Our clinical-stage pipeline showing the current status of nemvaleukin development across multiple indications is shown in the figure below.

Clinical-Stage Pipeline Overview

In addition to nemvaleukin, we have also applied our protein engineering capabilities to our IL-18 and IL-12 programs, which are currently in discovery phase and outlined in the figure below.

Discovery Programs

Nemvaleukin Program

Goal

Our nemvaleukin program seeks to leverage and expand upon the established antitumor effects of high-dose rhIL-2, while mitigating its hallmark toxicities. We believe a molecule that achieves this goal could have potential applicability beyond those indications for which high-dose rhIL-2 therapy is approved, across a broad range of tumor types and as a complementary combination partner to a wide range of therapeutic approaches to cancer.

Systematic Approach and Differentiation

We have taken an intentional and systematic approach throughout our development of nemvaleukin, from the structure of the molecule to its clinical development, including designing the clinical development program to assess whether nemvaleukin could replicate and potentially expand the established clinical activity of high-dose rhIL-2, as measured by RECIST 1.1, while mitigating its associated toxicities. We believe that nemvaleukin is differentiated from other IL-2 variants in development by its unique molecular design and resulting pharmacology, and the clinical development approach that we have taken:

Design of the Nemvaleukin Molecule

Nemvaleukin is an investigational, engineered cytokine designed to potentially capture and expand the therapeutic benefits of high-dose rhIL-2. Nemvaleukin selectively binds to the intermediate-affinity IL-2R to preferentially activate antitumor effector cells, including CD8+ T cells and NK cells, while mitigating both IL-2-associated expansion of Tregs, which dampen immune responses against cancer, and activation of vascular endothelial cells that express the high-affinity IL-2R, which are associated with severe toxicities, including vascular leak syndrome.

To achieve this selectivity for the intermediate affinity IL-2R, we focused on the natural biology of IL-2 and its receptors, which we leveraged to confer differentiated properties to nemvaleukin. As shown in the figure below, nemvaleukin consists of a fusion between IL-2 and IL2R alpha (“IL-2Rα”), which sterically occludes, or spatially blocks, nemvaleukin from binding to the high-affinity receptor. By combining the native IL-2 and IL-2Rα sequences, we engineered a stable fusion protein that is designed to be highly selective for the intermediate affinity IL-2 receptor. Furthermore, nemvaleukin is designed to be inherently active

without requiring any metabolic or proteolytic conversion, and does not degrade into native IL-2, which is associated with a lack of receptor binding specificity and hallmark IL-2 toxicity. These properties ensure that the molecule is immediately active and precludes conversion to a potentially more toxic form of IL-2.

Nemvaleukin Molecule Design

This molecule design has been supported by the clinical data we have generated to date. Cell expansion data from ARTISTRY-1 has shown that nemvaleukin expanded and activated cancer fighting CD8+ T cells and NK cells both systemically and in the tumor microenvironment (“TME”). We believe that activation and expansion of these effector cells in the periphery may be crucial in driving anti-tumor responses. Importantly, consistent with its design, in its clinical trials, nemvaleukin has only been shown to cause treated subjects minimal expansion of immunosuppressive Tregs, which, as previously noted, dampen immune responses against cancer. We believe these properties of nemvaleukin may widen its potential therapeutic window.

The figure below shows results from cell expansion analyses from Part A of ARTISTRY-1. The graphic shows the absolute count of immune cell expansion over time. In this cohort, administration of nemvaleukin resulted in dose-dependent expansion of CD8+ T cells and NK cells with minimal non-dose-dependent effects on Tregs. Our ongoing, potential registrational clinical trials are evaluating whether, and the manner in which, the clinical pharmacodynamic data may correlate with response to treatment in mucosal melanoma and PROC.

Clinical Pharmacodynamic Effects of Nemvaleukin

Nemvaleukin data are from the 6 mg/kg cohort in Part A of ARTISTRY-1. For fold change plots, data are mean + SE (N=10). For time course plot, data are mean + SD (N=12).

1. Bhatt et al. Poster P123 presented at SITC 2018.

Fmax, maximum fold change; HD, high-dose; IL-2, interleukin-2; IV, intravenous; NK, natural killer; PD, pharmacodynamic; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; TID, 3 times daily; Treg, regulatory T cell.

Nemvaleukin Clinical Data To-Date

The nemvaleukin clinical program includes the completed ARTISTRY-1 and ARTISTRY-2 trials and three ongoing clinical studies, ARTISTRY-3, ARTISTRY-6, ARTISTRY-7.

ARTISTRY-1

ARTISTRY-1, a global, open-label Phase 1/2 study, was the first-in-human study of nemvaleukin and generated our largest and most mature clinical data set. Its clinical trial design and dosing regimen are described in the figure below.

ARTISTRY-1 Trial Design and Dosing Regimen

NCTO2799095

We established a clear set of objectives for ARTISTRY-1, designed to demonstrate nemvaleukin’s differentiated profile.

First, we aimed to validate nemvaleukin’s molecular design by demonstrating a dose-dependent and selective expansion of CD8+ and NK cells, with minimal expansion of Tregs, as described above.

Second, we sought to demonstrate that this immunological response could translate into clinical activity, with a focus on demonstration of monotherapy antitumor activity in tumor types where high-dose rhIL-2 obtained regulatory approval, as we believed this an essential element of validating potential therapeutic benefit and supporting advancement of our clinical program.

Third, we designed ARTISTRY-1 to evaluate nemvaleukin’s potential clinical benefit in combination with pembrolizumab in a wide range of advanced solid tumor types, including both anti-programmed death 1 (“PD-1”) and PD-L1 approved and unapproved tumors, and in CPI-experienced patients and patients rolling over from the nemvaleukin monotherapy cohorts.

Finally, we aimed to establish a differentiated safety and tolerability profile for nemvaleukin, both as monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab, with a particular focus on mitigation of the hallmark toxicities associated with high-dose IL-2.

Monotherapy Activity

ARTISTRY-1 Part B was designed to assess single-agent safety and antitumor activity in patients with RCC or melanoma, two tumor types where high-dose rhIL-2 has shown monotherapy activity. We enrolled a total of 74 patients in Part B in an RCC cohort or a melanoma cohort. In contrast to the original studies evaluating high-dose rhIL-2, which were conducted more than 20 years ago and before the discovery of CPIs and other targeted agents, the majority of patients in the ARTISTRY-1 Part B monotherapy cohorts were previously treated with CPIs and had progressed during treatment. Patients in these cohorts had a median of two to three prior lines of treatment, although some patients had up to eight prior lines of treatment.

Clinically meaningful responses were observed with nemvaleukin monotherapy in both patients with RCC and melanoma. All responders had been previously treated with CPI therapy and their disease had progressed. Overall, as of the data cut-off date of March 27, 2023, 10 objective responses were observed in the Part B monotherapy cohorts. In the melanoma cohort, among 46 evaluable patients, two PRs (one confirmed) were observed in patients with mucosal melanoma and four PRs (three confirmed) were observed in patients with cutaneous melanoma. In the RCC cohort, among 22 evaluable patients, four PRs (three confirmed) were observed. See figures below for details on the melanoma monotherapy cohort, including ORR, DCR, and time on therapy. All ARTISTRY-1 data is provided as of the dates noted herein.

The swimmers plot graphic below outlines the duration of treatment across the melanoma cohort patient population, as well as observed responses and durability of response. As of the data cut-off date of March 27, 2023, a number of the monotherapy responders had been on treatment for over a year, including one mucosal melanoma patient who had been on therapy for over two years.

IV Nemvaleukin Monotherapy Responses in Melanoma (Part B)

The table below summarizes our clinical data in the melanoma monotherapy cohort as of the data cut-off date of March 27, 2023.

IV Nemvaleukin Monotherapy Response Summary in Melanoma (Part B)

a Excludes 1 patient who did not meet tumor-evaluable criteria. b Patients with mucosal, cutaneous, uveal, acral included in ‘All’. c Includes four confirmed PRs, two unconfirmed PRs. d One confirmed PR. e DOR for Part B only and does not include patients who rolled over to Part C; some patients may still be on treatment. f DCR is defined as the proportion of patients with objective evidence of CR, PR, or SD. For SD, no minimal interval from the study entry is required.

CR = complete response; PR = partial response; SD = stable disease; PD = progressive disease; ORR = objective response rate; DCR = disease control rate; DOR = duration of response; CI = confidence interval

As shown in the table above, among the six evaluable patients in this study with mucosal melanoma, a challenging patient population with limited treatment options, nemvaleukin monotherapy resulted in two PRs (one confirmed) and two patients achieved stable disease, representing an overall DCR of 66.7%.

These data supported the FDA’s grant of ODD and FTD, and an ILAP designation by the MHRA, in each case for nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma and led to our design and initiation of our ongoing ARTISTRY-6 trial, which includes potentially registrational Cohort 2, being conducted in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma.

Combination Activity with Pembrolizumab

ARTISTRY-1 Part C was a dose expansion cohort of the study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab across a variety of cohorts, including in patients with CPI-unapproved tumor types and patients from Parts A and B who had progressed or showed stable disease after at least four cycles on monotherapy.

Responses were observed across a range of tumor types, with several patients continuing on therapy at the time of the data cut-off on March 27, 2023. Overall, among the 144 evaluable patients in ARTISTRY-1 Part C, 24 objective responses were observed (five CRs, 19 PRs (14 confirmed)).

These responses were observed in both PD-1 and PD-L1 approved and unapproved tumor types including melanoma, ovarian, esophageal, cervical, bladder, breast, pancreatic, colorectal, renal cell, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lung, and head and neck cancer.

Of particular note, among 14 evaluable patients with PROC, two CRs and two PRs (one confirmed) were observed, and six patients achieved stable disease, representing an overall DCR of 71.4%. Importantly, the median duration of response was 65.5 weeks. These data supported the FDA’s grant of FTD for nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab in PROC and led to the design and initiation of ARTISTRY-7, another potentially registrational study of nemvaleukin, which is currently ongoing.

The chart below describes the experience of the 42 patients in Cohort 1 of Part C in Artistry-1. This cohort included patients who were pretreated with PD-L1 unapproved medications. The 14 PROC patients described previously were in this cohort.

ARTISTRY-1 Part C Combination Responses (Unapproved Tumor Type Cohorts)

PD-L1 unapproved cohorts (cohort 1)

Data cut off March 27, 2023.

PD-L1 approved/unapproved indication based on FDA prescribing information and may have changed over time. Responses per RECIST v1.1. BEV, bevacizumab; CBP, carboplatin; CDDP, cisplatin; CR, complete response; DOC, docetaxel; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; GEM, gemcitabine; mo, month; NIR, niraparib; PAC, paclitaxel; PCA, paclitaxel albumin; PD, progressive disease; PD-L1, programmed death (ligand) 1; PLD, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; TAM, tamoxifen; TOP, topotecan; uPR, unconfirmed PR.

ARTISTRY-1 Part C Combination Responses (Approved Tumor Type Cohorts)

PD-L1 approved cohorts (Cohorts 2 and 3)

Data cut off March 27, 2023.

PD-L1 approved/unapproved indication based on FDA prescribing information and may have changed over time. Responses per RECIST v1.1. CR, complete response; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; mo, month; NE, neuroendocrine; PD, progressive disease; PD-L1, programmed death (ligand) 1; PLD, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

ARTISTRY-1 Overall Clinical Activity Summary

The figure below provides a summary of the objective responses observed across ARTISTRY-1 with IV nemvaleukin as of March 27, 2023. Monotherapy responses are denoted in green boxes and responses in combination with pembrolizumab are denoted in white boxes. We observed objective responses as well as stable disease when nemvaleukin was used as both monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab across a wide array of tumor types.

Safety Observations

Nemvaleukin’s adverse event profile in ARTISTRY-1 was consistent with its mechanism of action. Nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab had a similar safety profile as monotherapy nemvaleukin, with no additive toxicities observed.

As set forth in the figure below, as of March 27, 2023, the most frequent nemvaleukin-related adverse events (>30%) reported were consistent with those expected from a cytokine-based therapy: pyrexia, chills, nausea, neutropenia/neutrophil count decrease, hypotension and aspartate transaminase (“AST”) increase. The majority of the adverse events were grade 1/2 in nature.

ARTISTRY-1 Safety Summary

Data cut off March 27, 2023

The most frequent Grade 3-4 nemvaleukin-related adverse event was neutrophil count decrease/neutropenia, with certain instances considered nemvaleukin-related serious adverse events. These neutropenic events were generally not associated with fever or infection and generally did not require growth factor support. We believe the events are associated with the overall mechanism of action of nemvaleukin and a margination of overall cell populations, as the majority of events were transient in nature (lasting a shorter duration of approximately 4 days although recovery overall could be longer), and most did not lead to discontinuation of treatment. Only a small number of patients had a nemvaleukin-related adverse event leading to discontinuation: 4.1% and 3.6% of patients using nemvaleukin as monotherapy and in combination, respectively. No CLS events have been reported in this study.

As set forth in the figure below, as of March 27, 2023, we have observed the following nemvaleukin-related serious adverse events in Parts B and C.

All Nemvaleukin-Related Serious Adverse Events in Parts B and C of ARTISTRY-1 by Preferred Term

No new patients were enrolled after the March 27, 2023 data cut; twenty patients were ongoing in the study. A final database lock was performed at the time of study closure on September 27, 2023 with no resulting changes in the overall conclusions on the safety and efficacy of nemvaleukin alpha, either as a monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab.

Ongoing Potential Registrational Programs

Cohort 2 of ARTISTRY-6

ARTISTRY-6 is a global, Phase 2 multi-center, open-label cohort study of nemvaleukin monotherapy in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma or advanced mucosal melanoma who have previously received anti-PD-L1 therapy. The primary endpoint for each cohort is ORR based on RECIST 1.1 while secondary endpoints include duration of response, PFS, DCR, time to response and safety and tolerability. ARTISTRY-6 is planned to enroll up to 196 patients, including up to 106 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma and approximately 90 patients with advanced mucosal melanoma. Subjects will be enrolled into one of three cohorts based on tumor type: advanced cutaneous melanoma (Cohorts 1 and 3) and advanced mucosal melanoma (Cohort 2). The sample size for Cohort 1 was 56. The sample size for Cohort 2 was increased from 70 to 90 in January 2024 in order to provide a more robust assessment of the response rate. The study endpoints will be summarized descriptively and analyzed and reported separately for each cohort and dosing schedule tested in the study. We expect to provide topline results for Cohort 2 in the first half of 2025, subject to patient enrollment. Cohort 3 is also expected to evaluate a newly recommended less frequent IV dosing of nemvaleukin as a monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in a total of approximately 50 patients with cutaneous melanoma. We expect to provide top-line monotherapy data readout from Cohort 3 of ARTISTRY-6 in the first half of 2025 and top-line combination data readout from Cohort 3 of ARTISTRY-6 in the second half of 2025.

The trial design of Cohort 2 of ARTISTRY-6 is outlined below.

Cohort 2 of ARTISTRY-6 Trial Design

Abbrev.: CTLA-4: cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4; DCR: disease control rate; DOR: duration of response; ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; IV: intravenous; ORR: objective response rate; PD-L1: programmed death (ligand) 1; PFS: progression-free survival; RECIST: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; TTR: time to response

Cohort 2 of ARTISTRY-6 is expected to have a topline data readout in the first half of 2025. If the data readout from the potentially registrational Cohort 2 of this clinical study are positive, the data may support submission of a BLA to the FDA for marketing approval in the U.S.

Unmet Need and Competitive Landscape for Mucosal Melanoma

Mucosal melanoma is a highly aggressive variant of malignant melanoma, with a 5-year survival rate of approximately 25% (as compared to cutaneous melanoma, which has a 5-year survival rate of approximately 80%).

There are no therapies currently approved specifically for mucosal melanoma, and there have been no randomized controlled trials addressing the activity of CPIs in this patient population. Instead, treatment of metastatic disease for mucosal melanoma generally involves the same therapies approved for cutaneous melanoma, such as chemotherapy and CPI-based approaches, despite evidence that such therapies are less effective in the mucosal melanoma setting. Other current treatments include targeted therapies for those with relevant mutations, and CPI immunotherapy as monotherapy or in combination with anti-PD-1 (e.g., pembrolizumab or nivolumab) and/or anti-CTLA-4 therapy (e.g., ipilimumab). Benefits from these therapies are usually short-lived, with a median PFS rate of three months or fewer. Moreover, upon recurrence/progression, treatment options in the post-CPI setting are even more sparse and often associated with worse outcomes, further highlighting the persistent and significant unmet need for new therapies. It is estimated that there are nearly 2,000 mucosal melanoma patients in the U.S. and Europe.

ARTISTRY-7

Based on the responses observed with nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with PROC in the ARTISTRY-1 study, we initiated ARTISTRY-7, an ongoing, global, Phase 3, open-label, randomized potentially registrational study evaluating the antitumor activity and safety of IV nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab compared to investigator’s choice chemotherapy in patients with PROC (n=448). This study is being conducted in collaboration with the Gynecologic Oncology Group (“GOG”), the European Network of Gynecological Oncological Trial groups (“ENGOT”), and the Asia-Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group (“APGOT”). GOG, ENGOT and APGOT are large, regional cooperative groups that coordinate and promote clinical research involving patients with gynecological cancers. We have contracted with these groups to assist us with the implementation and execution of the ARTISTRY-7 study globally, including in the selection of clinical trial sites. In addition, these groups provide oversight and advice regarding the conduct of the ARTISTRY-7 study within their respective regions in collaboration with our contract research organizations (“CROs”) that operationalize the ARTISTRY-7 study. This study is also being conducted in collaboration with MSD International GmbH and MSD International Business GmbH (“MSD”), which provides pembrolizumab for the study. We will jointly own with MSD any clinical data and inventions (including patents that cover such inventions) that result from the combined use of nemvaleukin and pembrolizumab in the ARTISTRY-7 clinical trial, but each will retain all data and intellectual property rights relating solely to their respective compounds.

In order to enroll in this study, patients must have received ≥1 prior line of systemic anti-cancer therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting and ≤5 prior lines of therapy in the platinum-resistant setting, including bevacizumab, and a poly ADP-ribose polymerase (“PARP”) inhibitor for eligible patients with certain genetic mutations.

There are four arms in the study: IV nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab, IV nemvaleukin monotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy, and investigators’ choice (“IC”) chemotherapy. The primary objective is to compare OS in the nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab arm as compared to the IC chemotherapy arm. The trial design for ARTISTRY-7 is shown in the graphic below.

ARTISTRY-7 Trial Design

1. Herzog T et al. Poster presented at the Society for Gynecologic Cancers Annual Meeting (SGO), Phoenix, AZ, March 18-21, 2022

ARTISTRY-7 is expected to have an OS data readout from an interim analysis in the first quarter of 2025 and final OS data readout in the second quarter of 2026, subject to reaching the required number of events for the analysis. The FDA has granted FTD to nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of PROC and, if the data readouts from this potentially registrational clinical study are positive, such data may support submitting a BLA to the FDA for marketing approval in the U.S.

Unmet Need and Competitive Landscape for PROC

Ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers identified as epithelial ovarian cancers (“EOC”) are life-threatening diseases and together comprise the seventh most common cause of cancer mortality in women. Standard frontline treatment for EOC is platinum-based chemotherapy with or without an anti-angiogenic, such as bevacizumab, which may be followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, a PARP inhibitor, or both, depending on biomarker status.

Platinum-based regimens provide clinically meaningful benefit for a majority of patients in the first instance; however, among those who initially respond, it has been estimated that approximately 70-80% have recurrent disease within two years of completing treatment. Patients may receive multiple rounds of platinum-based chemotherapy, but ultimately develop platinum-resistant disease. The standard of care for PROC is single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy (e.g., topotecan, gemcitabine, liposomal doxorubicin, oral etoposide, docetaxel or paclitaxel).

Importantly, the likelihood of durable response in the platinum-resistant setting is low, and the median OS drops significantly, with an expected OS timeframe of 8 to 13 months and PFS timeframe of three to four months. A subset of patients with folate receptor alpha (“FRα”) positive tumors can also be treated with mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx, an FRα-directed antibody and microtubule inhibitor.

However, durable and effective treatment options are still needed for the majority of patients with PROC, reflecting the high unmet medical need for this population. There are approximately 13,000 third-line PROC patients in the U.S. and Europe.

Exploring the Next Generation of Dosing

We believe that nemvaleukin has the potential to be utilized across a range of tumor types and in combination with multiple treatment options. The initial IV nemvaleukin dosing regimen that we studied is daily times five in 21-day cycles, which was modeled after the currently approved high-dose rhIL-2 dosing. To explore nemvaleukin’s potential broad utility and ability to offer more flexible and convenient options to patients, caregivers, and providers, we are also evaluating subcutaneous dosing and alternative IV dosing frequencies.

Subcutaneous dosing is being explored in Cohort 1 of ARTISTRY-6 in cutaneous melanoma patients following dose identification in our completed ARTISTRY-2 trial. ARTISTRY-2 was a Phase 1/2 open-label trial of subcutaneous nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. The RP2D for ARTISTRY-2 was established as 3 mg Q7D. We presented data from the ARTISTRY-2 expansion cohorts in selected solid tumors at the 2023 Society of Immunotherapy of Cancer meeting which showed three confirmed responses among 59 total patients.

ARTISTRY-3 is a Phase 1/2 open-label study of IV nemvaleukin in patients with advanced solid tumors after treatment failure or intolerance to one to three prior FDA-approved targeted therapies. ARTISTRY-3 is evaluating the safety and tolerability of higher doses of IV nemvaleukin administered on a less frequent IV dosing schedule of one or two doses per three-week cycle. The dosing strategy of this cohort was based on extensive pharmacodynamic modeling that helped us predict the pharmacodynamic profile of IV nemvaleukin in lymph nodes and tumors. The trial design is outlined in the graphic below.

ARTISTRY-3 Cohort 2 Trial Design (Cohort 2)

Q3W: Administered every 3 weeks.

We have recently completed evaluation of dosing schedules in ARTISTRY-3 with administration of nemvaleukin once or twice within a three-week cycle and have selected 30 µg/kg on days one and eight as our RP2D.

We plan to further evaluate safety, tolerability and antitumor activity of the selected dose and schedule in Cohort 3, a cutaneous melanoma expansion cohort of ARTISTRY-6, both for nemvaleukin as a single agent and in combination with pembrolizumab.

Future Expansion for Nemvaleukin

Potential Future Indications

We believe that nemvaleukin has the potential to benefit patients with other tumor types and intend to evaluate its therapeutic utility in additional indications, such as cutaneous melanoma and earlier lines of treatment for ovarian cancer, based on results we have seen in our trials and in additional tumor types for which we believe there is strong scientific rationale based on scientific literature. In our trials, we observed multiple responses in cutaneous melanoma using both nemvaleukin monotherapy and in combination with an anti-PD-1/L1 and multiple complete and partial responses in ovarian cancer using nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab.

Potential Combination Therapies

We also believe there is strong scientific rationale supporting the potential of nemvaleukin as a complementary, and potentially synergistic, combination treatment with standard of care therapies that result in immunogenic tumor cell death. In these combinations, nemvaleukin may provide an opportunity to augment the clinical activity associated with both agents.

In preclinical studies, we evaluated a mouse ortholog of nemvaleukin in combination with several growth factor pathway inhibitors, including lenvatinib. Nemvaleukin in combination with lenvatinib resulted in enhanced tumor suppression and survival in a mouse preclinical model, as shown in the figure below. Similar results were observed with nemvaleukin in combination with lucitanib, a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (“TKI”) and a mouse surrogate of bevacizumab, a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor.

Tumor Growth Inhibition in Preclinical Mouse Models

In addition to immunotherapies, agents that induce immunogenic cell death (“ICD”) may offer synergistic advantages in combination with nemvaleukin. Some examples of agents that are known to effectively induce ICD include chemotherapy, radiation, and targeted therapies such as growth factor inhibitors. These therapies have been known to induce cancer cell death leading to release of tumor specific antigens, which can be picked up by antigen presenting cells and drive new T cell activation. In combination with nemvaleukin, we believe this immune response may be further augmented. Our hypothesis is that the net result of utilizing agents that induce ICD with nemvaleukin would be further enhancement of tumor killing, with increased durability of response because of the resulting antitumor immunity.

Continued Clinical Development

Our clinical development strategy for nemvaleukin has been deliberate and systematic.

The current development program is designed to evaluate nemvaleukin as a potential new therapy for patients with limited treatment options and for whom few clinical advances have been made in recent years. The current clinical program is also designed to lay the foundation for exploration of nemvaleukin’s broad potential utility, from combination opportunities with CPIs in a range of tumor types and lines of therapy—building on the activity seen in PROC—to combination opportunities with other agents given nemvaleukin’s previously observed monotherapy activity.

Engineered IL-18 Program

IL-18 is a key cytokine with therapeutic potential whose clinical efficacy is limited by IL-18BP. Our IL-18 program is designed to create an IL-18 variant that is engineered to be resistant to IL-18BP and with adjusted potency and PK to achieve the desired IL-18 anti-tumor activity.

IL-18 is a multi-faceted cytokine that demonstrates a range of immune mechanisms with high therapeutic potential for solid tumors. Discovered as a Type 1 T helper polarizing cytokine, IL-18 stimulates both adaptive and innate elements of the immune system; antigen-experienced CD8+ T-cells are stimulated for cytotoxic activity and IFN-g production and exhausted CD8+

T-cells, which are dysfunctional in the tumor microenvironment, are re-invigorated for antitumor activity. IL-18 also stimulates the cytotoxic NK cells of innate immunity for proliferation and IFN-g production and matures dendritic cells for expansion and antigen-presentation. We believe this unique combination of immune functions has the potential to be transformative in the solid tumor cancer immunotherapy landscape.

IL-18BP is a soluble IL-18 decoy receptor that serves as a checkpoint of the IL-18 pathway. As its name implies, IL-18BP tightly binds to IL-18 and neutralizes its ability to bind and activate the IL-18 receptor. In Phase 1 clinical trials, recombinant human IL-18 (“rhIL-18”) rapidly upregulated IL-18BP. As IL-18BP levels increased, the pharmacodynamic response to rhIL-18 was significantly curtailed, thereby limiting clinical efficacy. Based on pre-clinical studies, tumors that support the potential of an IL-18 therapeutic include, but are not limited to: RCC, non-small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Our Solution: Engineered IL-18

Our IL-18 program is focused on engineering an IL-18 variant that has a half-life extension and is designed to be resistant to IL-18BP neutralization, while retaining and optimizing the activity of IL-18. To achieve this, we are introducing targeted mutations into IL-18 that prevent IL-18BP binding while retaining IL-18 signaling activity and cellular function. We also plan to fuse our IL-18BP-resistant variant to protein scaffolds to enhance PK and further optimize potential antitumor activity and patient experience.

With this engineered design, our goal is to create a molecule that has resistance to the IL-18BP checkpoint to unleash the therapeutic potential of IL-18. We believe an optimal molecule will also have (i) strong potency to activate the multi-faceted antitumor immune mechanisms of IL-18, including reinvigoration of exhausted CD8+ T cells and (ii) enhanced PK to support potential efficacy, safety and patient/clinician convenience.

Overview of Preclinical Studies and Data

We applied rational protein design and combinatorial approaches to generate a pool of IL-18 variants that we could screen for potency and resistance to IL-18BP. As shown in the graphic below, certain of these variants have displayed undetectable binding to IL-18BP (left panel) and potency stronger than or similar to wild-type (“WT”) IL-18 with maximal resistance to IL-18BP inhibition (right panel).

Our Engineered IL-18 Variants’ Activity and Resistance to IL-18BP

Solid tumors evoke immunosuppression in part by inducing a state of exhaustion in cytotoxic CD8+ T cells (“CD8+ Tex”). T-cell exhaustion also results in acquired resistance to existing checkpoint inhibitors. Our IL-18 program includes a focus on engineering an IL-18 variant that exhibits the maximal capacity to reinvigorate CD8+ Tex and thereby overcome significant hurdles of immune evasion and acquired immune-resistance. The figure below shows results from a preclinical study in which one of our variants restored IFN-g production in exhausted CD8+ T cells to a greater extent than WT hIL-18.

Engineered IL-18 Variant with the Maximal Capacity to Re-Invigorate Exhausted CD8+ T Cells

Current Status and Clinical Development Plan

Based on these data, we are currently advancing our IL-18 program to candidate nomination and Investigational New Drug (“IND”) enabling studies, including cell line development and manufacturing and non-clinical toxicology programs to support our planned IND submission and progression into clinical development. We plan to nominate a candidate for this program in 2024.

Tumor-targeted IL-12 Program

IL-12 is recognized as a highly potent proinflammatory cytokine that has shown preclinical responses and clinical activity when delivered intratumorally by strongly activating CD8+ T and NK cells. However, clinical utility of IL-12 as a therapeutic has been limited due to severe toxicities. Our tumor-targeted IL-12 program is designed to overcome these toxicity challenges by sequential administration of IL-12’s subunits, each enhanced with tumor-targeting antibody fragments, thereby reducing serum exposure while enabling self-assembly of functional IL-12 in the tumor microenvironment.

IL-12 is a key cytokine in the body’s response to pathogens that activates both innate and adaptive elements of the immune system. IL-12 is a powerful, proinflammatory cytokine produced by antigen-presenting cells such as macrophages, dendritic, and B cells in response to pathogenic infection. It comprises two subunits, p35 and p40, that are covalently linked intracellularly and then secreted as a functional heterodimer IL-12p70. IL-12 interacts with multiple immune cells, including T cells, NK cells, monocytes, and macrophages, and activates a proinflammatory response, suggesting significant potential as an oncology pathway. In third-party studies, IL-12 has repeatedly demonstrated activity in preclinical models in combination with other agents and to some extent as a monotherapy. rhIL-12 has also been evaluated in clinical trials, and antitumor activity was observed in a small number of patients across several tumor types.

However, use of systemic IL-12 therapy has historically been unsuccessful and caused severe adverse events in patients with cancer. The severe toxicity associated with rhIL-12 is generally attributed to a rapid upregulation of inflammatory cytokines IFN-g, TNFa, and IL-6, that cause cytokine storm syndrome characterized by systemic inflammation, multi-organ dysfunction, and immune cytopenias. Despite activity in local lesions, cancer can be a systemic disease that requires systemic treatment, especially in later stage disseminated disease. Therefore, to capitalize on IL-12’s potential, a safe and effective systemically delivered IL-12 therapeutic is needed.

The failure of systemic IL-12 to induce meaningful clinical activity is attributed to a poor therapeutic index, which limits the dose and prevents the ability to reach therapeutic concentrations within the TME. Thus, maximizing tumor IL-12 concentrations, while minimizing systemic exposure, is critical for initiating a safe and effective antitumor response.

Our Solution: Tumor-targeted IL-12

The goal of our IL-12 program is to create a self-assembling tumor-targeted split IL-12 therapeutic that maximizes tumor exposure and minimizes systemic exposure to functional IL-12. We have designed two separate inactive subunits, IL-12p35 and IL-12p40, that target the tumor for assembly. Each subunit includes the inactive component and is fused to a proprietary tumor-targeting antibody or fragment thereof. These subunits are designed to preferentially assemble and activate in the TME. Compared to localized IL-12 delivery, we believe this novel approach has the potential to achieve the desired tumor and systemic profile. We believe we can achieve an improved therapeutic index for systemically delivered IL-12 through careful engineering of the PK parameters of our molecules, use of an interval between doses to modulate systemic exposure of IL-12, not relying on extrinsic factors such as proteases to activate the molecule and targeting our subunits to a proprietary tumor-associated antigen (“TAA”).

Overview of Preclinical Studies and Data

Our preclinical data have shown that sequentially administered targeted split IL-12 subunits (p35 and p40) can target as well as be retained in tumors, modulate systemic exposure using an increasing interval between subunit injections, and function upon assembly.

Our initial preclinical data showed the accumulation of the TAA-targeted subunits as compared to non-targeted IL-12. We then observed that in-vitro and in-vivo targeting of the two subunits yielded a greater recovery in IL-12 activity compared to single chain IL-12, and enhanced tumor targeting compared to single targeted agents. Further preclinical studies showed that the dual-targeted combination resulted in higher levels of retention of assembled IL-12 in tumor-bearing mice versus single-targeted or untargeted combinations of the subunits. We then tested this approach by evaluating IFN-g, a pharmacodynamic measure of IL-12 activity, in a mouse model. As shown in the figure below, this approach showed that sequential administration of the two subunits can achieve a similar pharmacodynamic response in an apparent dose-dependent manner.

Sequential Administration of Split IL-12 Subunits Resulted in Dose-Dependent PD Response in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Humanized Network of Cancer Genes Mouse Model

We have generated several unique non-competitive antibodies against our TAA, allowing us to target both subunits to the antigen.

In our next phase of preclinical work, we sought to characterize the IL-12 subunits in mouse in order to select a candidate for each tumor-targeted subunit and delivery parameters to achieve optimal serum and tumor PK. Based on preclinical studies, we

have (i) selected antibody formats for each subunit, (ii) determined the dosing order of the subunits and dosing interval between the subunits, and (iii) observed that the sequentially administered targeted split IL-12 subunits are functional when combined.

Current Status and Clinical Development Plan

Currently our tumor-targeted IL-12 program is advancing to candidate nomination. We plan to nominate a candidate for this program in 2024.

Competition

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, sharp competition and strong emphasis on intellectual property. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and products that we commercialize will have to compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that our protein engineering capabilities, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages. However, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

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 approvals and achieving widespread market acceptance of approved products. 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 clinical trial patient recruitment and acquiring intellectual property that may be complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or earlier-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our lead product candidate nemvaleukin, if approved, may face competition from other IL-2-based cancer therapies. For example, Proleukin® (aldesleukin), a synthetic protein similar to IL-2, is approved and marketed for the treatment of metastatic melanoma as well as metastatic RCC. In addition, we are aware of several companies that have IL-2-based programs in development for the treatment of different cancers, including Anaveon AG, Ascendis, Inc., Cue Biopharma, Inc., Cullinan Oncology Inc., Medicenna Therapeutics Corp., Roche AG, Sanofi, Xilio Therapeutics Inc., and Werewolf Therapeutics Inc.

In addition to IL-2-based therapies, we may also face competition from other therapies targeting our current and future target indications for nemvaleukin. For example, we may face competition in melanoma from companies with approved and marketed therapies, and/or programs in development, including, but not limited to, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., Merck Inc., and Pfizer, Inc. In ovarian cancer, we may face competition from companies with approved and marketed therapies, and/or programs in development including, but not limited to, Immunogen Inc., Merck, Inc., and Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited.

With respect to our IL-18 program, while there are no approved IL-18 therapies currently on the market for the treatment of cancer, we are aware of several other companies that have IL-18-based cancer therapies that are in development, including, but not limited to, Bright Peak Therapeutics, Inc., and Simcha Therapeutics, Inc. Additionally, in December 2023, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Compugen Ltd. announced a licensing agreement for the development and commercialization of a pre-clinical program targeting IL-18 binding protein.

With respect to our IL-12 program, while there are no approved IL-12 therapies currently on the market for the treatment of cancer, we are aware of several other companies that have modified IL-12 or intra-tumoral IL-12 delivery programs in development for the treatment of cancer, including, but not limited to, Amunix, Inc., a subsidiary of Sanofi, Cullinan Oncology Inc., DragonFly Therapeutics, Inc., Moderna Inc., Merck KGaA, Werewolf Therapeutics Inc., Xencor, Inc. and Xilio Therapeutics, Inc.

License Agreements

We and the Former Parent entered into a separation agreement, dated November 13, 2023, in connection with our Separation from the Former Parent, which contained intellectual property licenses pursuant to which each party granted a license to certain intellectual property and/or technologies to the other company. Under the terms of the separation agreement, the Former Parent granted us a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid-up license (or, as the case may be, sublicense) to

intellectual property controlled by the Former Parent as of the distribution date to allow us to use such intellectual property for the oncology business, and we granted the Former Parent a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid-up license (or, as the case may be, sublicense) to intellectual property transferred to us as part of the Separation for use outside of the oncology business.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, substantially on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical development and expect to continue to rely on third parties for commercial manufacturing of any of our products that receive marketing approval. For example, we have entered into certain agreements with external partners in the U.S. and China for the manufacture of preclinical and clinical product candidates. We require all third-party manufacturing facilities that we engage to attest that all materials manufactured for human use are manufactured in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) requirements. We believe that we will be able to maintain and/or continue to negotiate third-party manufacturing arrangements on commercially reasonable terms and that it will not be necessary for us to obtain internal manufacturing capabilities to develop or, if approved, commercialize our products. Nonetheless, we may experience unanticipated difficulties in maintaining or negotiating such arrangements with third parties. In addition, we may experience challenges related to the quality, quantity and timeliness of the supply of our preclinical, clinical or future commercial requirements due to our reliance on third-party manufacturers and circumstances that may be outside of our control.

Intellectual Property

All intellectual property relating to the oncology business was assigned to us under the terms of the separation agreement and we own the patents and patent applications described below.

Our intellectual property is critical to our business and we strive to protect it, including by seeking to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and internationally to cover our product candidates and potential future products, their respective methods of use and processes for their manufacture and any other inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. Our oncology patent portfolio includes patents and patent applications with composition of matter and method of use claims with respect to our product candidates, nemvaleukin, IL-18 and IL-12. In general, for our product candidates, we will initially pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter and methods of use. Throughout the development of our product candidates, we seek to identify additional opportunities for obtaining patent protection that has potential to enhance commercial success, including through additional methods of use, processes for manufacture, formulation and dosing regimen-related claims.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our current and future products and product candidates, novel discoveries, product development technologies, trade secrets, and know-how, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and non-U.S. patents and patent applications related to technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely, or may rely in the future, on trademarks, trade secrets, copyright protection, know-how, continuing technological innovation and confidential information to develop and maintain our proprietary position. For the product candidates we develop and plan to commercialize if approved, as a normal course of business, we have been granted and intend to continue to pursue composition and method of manufacture and use patents, including therapeutic use patents, as well as patents related to novel indications for our products and product candidates. We also have obtained and will continue to seek patent protection with respect to novel discoveries. We have also sought and plan to continue to seek patent protection, either alone or jointly with our collaborators or other third parties, as our relevant agreements may dictate.

In some instances, we submit patent applications directly with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as provisional patent applications. Provisional applications for patents were designed to provide a lower-cost first patent filing option in the U.S. Corresponding non-provisional patent applications must be filed not later than 12 months after the provisional application filing date. The corresponding non-provisional application benefits in that the priority date(s) of the patent application is/are the earlier provisional application filing date(s), and the patent term of the finally issued patent is calculated from the later non-provisional application filing date. This system allows us to obtain an early priority date, add material to the patent application(s) during the priority year, and obtain a later start to the patent term and to delay prosecution costs, which may be useful in the event that we decide not to pursue examination in an application. While we intend to timely file non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether any such patent applications will result in the issuance of patents that provide us with any competitive advantage or at all.

We file U.S. non-provisional applications and non-U.S. applications in other territories (including via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”)), that claim the benefit of the priority date of earlier filed provisional applications, when applicable, under the Paris Convention. The PCT system allows a single application to be filed within 12 months of the original priority date of the patent application, and designation of up to 153 PCT member states in which national patent applications can later be pursued based on the patent application filed under the PCT. The PCT searching authority performs a patentability search and issues a non-binding patentability opinion which can be used to evaluate the chances of success for the national applications in non-U.S. countries prior to having to incur the filing fees. Although a PCT application does not issue as a patent, it allows the applicant to seek protection in any of the member states through national-phase applications. At the end of the period of two and a half years from the first priority date of the patent application, separate patent applications can be pursued in any of the PCT member states either by direct national filing or, in some cases by filing through a regional patent organization, such as the European Patent Organization. The PCT system delays expenses, allows a limited evaluation of the chances of success for national/regional patent applications and enables substantial savings where applications are abandoned within the first two and a half years of filing.

For all patent applications, we determine our claiming strategy on a case-by-case basis, considering advice of counsel and our business strategy and needs. We file patent applications containing claims for protection of all applications of our proprietary technologies and products that we believe to be useful, as well as new applications and/or uses we discover for existing technologies and products that we believe may have strategic value. We continuously reassess the number and type of patent applications, as well as existing patent claims, to ensure that maximum coverage and value are sought for our processes and compositions, given existing patent office rules and regulations. Further, claims may be modified during patent prosecution, or new applications may be filed, to meet our intellectual property and business needs.

We recognize that the ability to obtain patent protection and the degree of such protection depends on a number of factors, including the extent of the prior art, the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention and the ability to satisfy the enablement requirement of the patent laws. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted or further altered even after patent issuance. Consequently, we may not obtain or maintain adequate patent protection for any of our current and future product candidates or future products. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties.

Our oncology portfolio of patents and patent applications comprises three distinct portfolios related to nemvaleukin, IL-18 and IL-12, which include patents and patent applications that are in various stages of the patent application filing and examination process in various jurisdictions worldwide and include claims to our product candidates. Our patents and patent applications related to nemvaleukin include:

The issued U.S. patents, and the U.S. patent applications referenced above, if issued as patents, are expected to expire on various dates from 2033 through to 2041, in each case without taking into account any possible extension of patent term that may be available.

We have a pending U.S. non-provisional patent application and PCT application related to IL-18. We intend to file national phase applications before the applicable deadlines. The pending U.S. non-provisional patent application, if issued as a patent, is expected to expire in 2043, without taking into account any possible extension of patent term that may be available.

Our patent applications related to IL-12 include a pending U.S. non-provisional application and patent applications based on the corresponding PCT application, including pending applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Eurasia, the European Patent Office, Israel, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa. The pending U.S. non-provisional patent application, if issued as a patent, is expected to expire in 2042, without taking into account any possible extension of patent term that may be available.

Our patent portfolio for each of our product candidates is summarized in further detail below.

Nemvaleukin

We have 10 patent families related to nemvaleukin. One of the families includes two issued U.S. patents and two issued European patents with composition of matter claims directed to nemvaleukin, and a pending patent application in the U.S. that claims compositions of matter of nemvaleukin. The 20-year term for patents in this family runs through 2033, excluding any extension of patent term that may be available.

A second patent family has an issued U.S. patent directed to methods of treating cancer via subcutaneous dosing regimens of nemvaleukin alone or in combination with other therapeutic agents, and pending patent applications in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, the European Patent Office, Eurasia, India, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and South Africa. The 20-year term for patents in this family runs through 2040, excluding any extension of patent term that may be available.

A third patent family has an issued U.S. patent directed to methods of treating cancer with nemvaleukin in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor, and pending patent applications in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, the European Patent Office, Eurasia, India, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and South Africa. The 20-year term for patents in this family runs through 2040, excluding any extension of patent term that may be available.

The additional patent families include pending U.S. non-provisional applications and corresponding applications filed under the PCT to various nemvaleukin intravenous dosing regimens and combination therapies, combination therapies with TKIs, manufacturing processes and intravenous and subcutaneous formulations. Patent applications based on the corresponding PCT applications are filed in Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, the European Patent Office, Eurasia, India, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and South Africa. The 20-year term for patents in these families, if issued, runs from 2040 to 2043, excluding any extension of patent term that may be available.

IL-18

We have a pending U.S. non-provisional application directed at IL-18 composition of matter and a pending PCT application. This pending U.S. non-provisional application, if issued as a patent, is expected to expire in 2043, without taking into account any possible extension of patent term that may be available. We intend to file national phase applications in various non-U.S. jurisdictions based on the PCT application before applicable deadlines.

IL-12

We have a pending U.S. non-provisional application and national phase applications based on the corresponding PCT application to compositions of self-assembling tumor targeted split IL-12 subunits. The national phase applications are filed in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Patent Office, Eurasia, Israel, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa. The pending U.S. non-provisional application, if issued as a patent, is expected to expire in 2042, without taking into account any possible extension of patent term that may be available.

Patent Term and Extensions

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the U.S., the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In addition, in certain instances, the term of a U.S. patent can be extended to compensate a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug, biological product or medical device approved pursuant to a pre-market approval may also be eligible for extension of patent term when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the extension of patent term is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”), permits an extension of patent term of up to five years beyond the expiration date set for the patent. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be granted an extension and only those claims reading on the approved drug are extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other non-U.S. jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. We will, in general, pursue available extension of patent terms in the U.S. and in non-U.S. jurisdictions that provide for extension

of patent terms, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the U.S., will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

Trademarks, Trade Secrets and Know-How

In connection with the ongoing development of our product candidates in the U.S. and various international jurisdictions, we seek to create protection for our marks and enhance their value by pursuing trademarks where available and when appropriate.

In addition to patent and trademark protection, we rely upon trade secrets, know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our partners, collaborators, employees and consultants and contractors, as well as invention assignment agreements with our employees and selected consultants. 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.

Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. In addition, we have licensed rights under proprietary intellectual property of third parties to develop, manufacture and commercialize specific aspects of our future products and services. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or future commercial strategies, alter our processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. The expiration of patents or patent applications licensed from third parties or our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to develop or commercialize our future products may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties file patent applications in the U.S. that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention.

For more information regarding risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Government Regulation

In the U.S., biological products are subject to regulation by the FDA under the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”) and the Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”), and under other U.S. federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, advertising and promotion, export and import of biological products. FDA clearance of an IND must be obtained before clinical testing of a biological product candidate in the U.S., and FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before marketing of a biological product in the U.S. Similar laws and regulations are in place outside the U.S. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Biological Products Development Process

The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be licensed for marketing in the U.S. generally involves the following:

Before testing any biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate is evaluated in preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, that include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with applicable U.S. federal regulations and requirements including GLP.

An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical trial protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical trial on a full or partial clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. A full clinical hold will suspend the full study while a partial clinical hold would limit a trial, for example, to certain doses or for a certain length of time or to a certain number of subjects. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on an IND or a clinical trial at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance issues. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, clinical trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA.

Clinical trials generally involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the study sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s GCP regulations, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study participants and considers factors such as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each study subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as post-marketing studies or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

In March 2022, the FDA released a final guidance titled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how drug developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology drug development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by the FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to drug development and reduce developmental costs and time.

In December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“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 plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, 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 addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans. In January 2024, the FDA issued draft guidance setting out its policies for the collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived by the FDA. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the trial data as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee (“IEC”), and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical trials. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical study investigators. Annual reports detailing the progress and results of preclinical studies and clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals 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 receives the safety information and 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. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before licensure and commercial marketing of the biological product may begin. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the biological product candidate to the satisfaction of the FDA. The FDA must determine that the expected benefits of the proposed product outweigh its potential risks to patients. This assessment is informed by 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 specific risks.

The fee required for the submission of a BLA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, is substantial (for example, for federal fiscal year 2024, this application fee is approximately $4,048,695), and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, currently set at $416,734 per eligible prescription drug product for federal fiscal year 2024. These fees are typically adjusted annually, and exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances, including where the applicant is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, as amended (“PREA”), a BLA and certain supplements to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological 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. A sponsor that is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“iPSP”), within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 trial. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the iPSP and any amendments to the iPSP. The FDA may grant deferrals of required pediatric assessments or reports or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. For example, a sponsor who is planning to submit an original application for a new active ingredient that is subject to the molecularly targeted cancer drug provision of PREA (i.e., where the drug that is the subject of the application is intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and is directed at a molecular target that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer) is also required to submit an iPSP, regardless of whether the drug is for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and 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. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assess whether the clinical studies were conducted in compliance with GCP requirements. To assure cGMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval in its discretion. Data obtained from clinical studies are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor. If the agency decides not to approve a BLA in its submitted form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter (“CRL”) that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor (e.g., requiring labeling changes) or major (e.g., requiring additional clinical studies). Additionally, the CRL may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application, or request a hearing.

If a product receives regulatory approval, an approval letter authorizes licensure and commercial marketing of the biological product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. The approval may be significantly limited to specific conditions of use, or the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. The FDA may impose conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or may require post-marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical studies, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, or surveillance programs to monitor the safety of an approved product.

One of the performance goals agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) is to review 90% of standard BLAs within 10 months of the 60-day filing date and 90% of priority BLAs within six months of the 60-day filing date, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

U.S. Orphan Drug Designation

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

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than its orphan designation, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union (“EU”) has similar, but not identical, benefits.

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

U.S. Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the development and review of new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for FTD if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. FTD applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request that the FDA designate the drug or biologic as a Fast Track product at any time during the development of the product. One of the benefits of FTD is that the sponsor can submit completed sections of its BLA on a rolling basis for review by FDA rather than waiting until every section of the BLA is completed before the entire application can be reviewed, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application.

In addition, a product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates that such product may have substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation. A product designated as a Breakthrough Therapy is eligible for all the benefits of the Fast Track program, as well as an organizational commitment by the FDA to involve senior management at the agency to provide timely advice to help the sponsor design and conduct an efficient development program.

Any product—including a product candidate that has received Fast Track and/or Breakthrough Therapy designation—may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product may be eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or if the product represents a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening illness and has an effect on

a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies, and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”) the FDA may require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date accelerated approval is granted. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Maintaining compliance with applicable U.S. federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP. We will rely on third parties for the production of clinical and future commercial quantities of any future products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products, and those supplying products, ingredients, and components of them, are generally required to comply with cGMP requirements and 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 GMPs and other laws. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include adverse event reporting, submitting annual reports and maintaining certain records. New safety or effectiveness data that emerge after approval may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications or implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly discovered safety issue.

We also must comply with the FDA’s and other jurisdictions’ advertising and promotion regulations and rules, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising and promotion to healthcare professionals. Although physicians may prescribe a product for uses that are not in the product’s FDA-approved prescribing information, manufacturers may not market or promote such unapproved uses. In addition, promotional materials for an FDA-approved product must be submitted to the FDA at the time of their first use.

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. Consequences could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with healthcare professionals, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited extension of patent term under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent and within 60 days of product approval. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any extension of patent term or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical studies and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

A biological product may also be eligible to obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, runs from the end of other regulatory exclusivity protection and may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study that fairly responds to an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted twelve years of exclusivity from the date of first licensure of the reference product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the reference biological product was approved in the U.S.; however, date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and therefore, a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency.

Healthcare and Privacy Laws

In addition to restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of U.S. state/federal laws and trade association membership codes of conduct have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. These laws include Anti-Kickback and false claims statutes. The U.S. federal healthcare program Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. A person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from U.S. federal healthcare programs. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration to those who prescribe, purchase, or recommend pharmaceutical and biological products, including certain discounts, or engaging healthcare professionals or patients as speakers or consultants, may be subject to scrutiny if they do not fit squarely within the exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Moreover, there are no safe harbors for many common practices, such as educational and research grants or patient assistance programs.

The U.S. federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payers if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the U.S. federal government alleging violations of the False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, certain pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have faced enforcement actions under the U.S. federal False Claims Act for, among other things, allegedly submitting false or misleading pricing information to government health care programs and providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill U.S. federal programs for the product. Other companies have faced enforcement actions for causing false claims to be submitted because of the company’s marketing the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. U.S. federal enforcement agencies also have showed increased interest in pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement and co-pay support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. In addition, the Affordable Care Act amended U.S. federal law to provide that the government, or a “whistleblower” bringing an action on behalf of the government, may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the U.S. federal

civil False Claims Act. In addition to the civil False Claims Act, there is a U.S. federal criminal statute that prohibits making or presenting a false or fictitious or fraudulent claim to the U.S. federal government.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), also created several new U.S. federal crimes, including healthcare fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The healthcare fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The U.S. federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, being implemented as the Open Payments Program, requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to engage in extensive tracking of payments and other transfers of value to physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses and teaching hospitals, including physician ownership and investment interests, and public reporting of such data. Pharmaceutical and biological manufacturers with products for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program are required to track such payments, and must submit a report on or before the 90th day of each calendar year disclosing reportable payments made in the previous calendar year. A number of other countries, states and municipalities have also implemented additional payment tracking and reporting requirements, which if not done correctly may result in additional penalties.

In addition, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (“FCPA”), prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any official of another country, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in that capacity. In many other countries, healthcare professionals who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by government entities, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities. Our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers may be subject to the FCPA.

Other countries, including a number of EU member states, have laws of similar application, including anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws such as the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010 (the “UK Bribery Act”). The UK Bribery Act prohibits giving, offering, or promising bribes to any person, as well as requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting bribes from any person. Under the UK Bribery Act, a company that carries on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom (“UK”) may be held liable for bribes given, offered or promised to any person in any country by employees or other persons associated with the company in order to obtain or retain business or a business advantage for the company. Liability under the UK Bribery Act is strict, but a defense of having in place adequate procedures designed to prevent bribery is available.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”) and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in U.S. federal courts to enforce the U.S. federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing U.S. federal civil actions. In California the California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2020 and was amended effective January 1, 2023, establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expanded definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for consumers in the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, and creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. While clinical trial data and information governed by HIPAA are currently exempt from the current version of the CCPA, other personal information may be applicable and possible changes to the CCPA may broaden its scope. Other states, including Virginia (effective January 1, 2023), Colorado (effective July 1, 2023), Connecticut (effective July 1, 2023), and Utah (effective December 31, 2023) have passed privacy legislation and more states may do so in the future, including Iowa, where the Iowa state legislature passed a comprehensive privacy legislation on March 15, 2023. State and non-U.S. laws, including for example the EU General Data Protection Regulation, 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.

The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the U.S. federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of

the payer. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states now require pharmaceutical companies to report expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of pharmaceutical products in those states, to report gifts and payments to individual health care providers in those states, marketing expenditures, and drug pricing information. Some of these states also prohibit certain marketing-related activities including the provision of gifts, meals, or other items to certain health care providers. Certain state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Because of the breadth of these various healthcare and privacy laws, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Such a challenge could have material adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In the event governmental authorities conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare and privacy laws and regulations, they may impose sanctions under these laws, which are potentially significant and may include civil monetary penalties, damages, exclusion of an entity or individual from participation in government health care programs, criminal fines and imprisonment, as well as the potential curtailment or restructuring of our operations. 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 financial condition and divert the attention of our management from operating our business.

Government Regulation Outside of the U.S.

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical studies and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in non-U.S. countries prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the U.S. have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application (“CTA”), much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical studies. In the EU, for example, a CTA must be submitted for each clinical trial to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and the IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, the corresponding clinical study may proceed.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

The new Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 536/2014) (the “Regulation”) in the EU replaced the previous Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on 31 January 2022 and overhauled the system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. The transitory provisions of the new Regulation provide that, by January 31, 2025, all ongoing clinical trials must have transitioned to the new Regulation. Specifically, the new Regulation, which is directly applicable in all Member States (meaning that no national implementing legislation in each Member State is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the new Regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point through the Clinical Trials Information System; 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 contains scientific and medicinal product documentation and Part II contains the national and patient-level documentation). Part I is assessed by a coordinated review 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) of a draft report prepared by a Reference Member State. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have also been established for the assessment of CTAs.

To obtain regulatory approval of a product under the EU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. A centralized marketing authorization is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the EMA, and is valid throughout the EU, and in the additional Member States of the European Economic Area (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines), and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that

constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU. The EU also provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity. Upon receiving a marketing authorization in the EU, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity (and the grant of the relevant generic or biosimilar marketing authorization). 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. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if an innovative medicinal product gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on a marketing authorization application with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the U.S. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as an orphan product if its sponsor can establish that (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication during which time no “similar medicinal product” for the same indication may be placed on the market, subject to certain limited exceptions. 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 application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for a marketing authorization. Orphan designation itself does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of our products will also be subject to EU Member States’ laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices, as well as other EU Member State legislation that may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s approved labeling. The off-label promotion of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The applicable laws at the EU level and in the individual EU Member States also prohibit the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict communications concerning the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on our promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

The national laws of certain EU Member States require payments made to physicians by qualifying pharmaceutical companies to be publicly disclosed. In addition, agreements with physicians must often be submitted for prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, the competent professional organization, and/or the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States.

The above-mentioned EU rules are also generally applicable in the additional countries of the European Economic Area (Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway).

The UK left the EU on January 31, 2020 and the UK and the EU concluded a trade and cooperation agreement (the “TCA”) which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not provide for wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework continues to apply in Northern Ireland for the time being). Except in respect of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation, the regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore largely aligns with current EU medicines regulations, however it is

possible that these regimes will diverge more significantly in future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation. The extent to which the regulation of clinical trials in the UK will mirror the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation in the long term is not yet certain, however, in March 2023 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) the UK’s medicines regulator, has published a detailed response to the consultation on a set of proposals designed to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation, which ran in early 2022. The MHRA has stated they will now take forward new legislation to update the UK clinical trials legislation in line with the detailed response to the consultation. The key purpose of the new legislation will be to provide a more flexible regime to make it easier to conduct trials in the UK, increase the transparency of clinical trials conducted in the UK and make trials more patient centered.

However, notwithstanding that there is no wholesale recognition of EU pharmaceutical legislation under the TCA, under the new framework which will be put in place by the MHRA, from January 1, 2024, the MHRA has stated that it will consider decisions on the approval of marketing authorizations from the EMA (and certain other regulators) when considering an application for a Great Britain marketing authorization. On February 27, 2023, the UK 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 UK. In particular, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. A single UK-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, so the UK Government and the EU will enact legislative measures to bring it into law.

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

If we fail to comply with applicable non-U.S. regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, warning letters or untitled letters, injunctions, civil, administrative, or criminal penalties, monetary fines or imprisonment, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, suspension of ongoing clinical studies, refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to applications filed by us, suspension or the imposition of restrictions on operations, product recalls, the refusal to permit the import or export of our products or the seizure or detention of products.

Pricing, Coverage and Reimbursement

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

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any drug products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the U.S., the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payers tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payers. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payer to payer. The process for determining whether a payer will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payer will pay for the drug product. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. Third-party payers may provide coverage, but place stringent limitations on such coverage, such as requiring alternative treatments to be tried first. These third-party payers are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety, efficacy, and overall value. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare

products. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to incurring the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically reasonable or necessary or cost-effective.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of drug products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate systems under which products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of studies or analyses of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to set their own prices for medicines, but exert cost controls in other ways, including but not limited to, placing revenue caps on product sales, providing reimbursement for only a subset of eligible patients, mandating price negotiations after a set period, or mandating that prices not exceed an average basket of prices in other countries. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, European governments may periodically review and decrease prices based on factors, including but not limited to, years-on-market, price in other countries, competitive entry, new clinical data, lack of supporting clinical data, or other factors.

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payers fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, the emphasis on managed care in the U.S. has increased and we expect will continue to exert downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement. Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and pharmaceutical pricing regulations may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare Reform and Pharmaceutical Price 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 drug and biologic products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for medical products and other changes to the healthcare system in the U.S.

In March 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), which, among other things, included changes to the coverage and payment for pharmaceutical products under government healthcare programs. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”), which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. 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 rescinded those orders and issued a new executive order that directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit access to healthcare, 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 under the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, 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 (“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. A number of other states have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 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 rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”), which is discussed in more detail below, further delayed implementation of this rule 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 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.

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; and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program beginning in 2025. The IRA permits the Secretary of 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 additional Part D drugs in 2027, 15 additional Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 additional Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine 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 the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

At the state level, individual state legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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. A number of states, for example, require pharmaceutical manufacturers and other entities in the supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Human Capital Resources

As of March 1, 2024, we had 117 full-time employees and no part-time employees and approximately 34 of our employees hold M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Approximately 90 employees were in our discovery research and drug development organizations and approximately 27 were in general and administrative functions. None of our employees are expected to be subject to a collective bargaining agreement or represented by a trade or labor union. We consider our employee relations to be good.

Our Corporate Information

We are an Irish incorporated public limited company, which was established as a shelf company in May 2017 as a private company limited by shares and was de-shelved to hold Alkermes’ oncology business in connection with our Separation from Alkermes. On August 21, 2023, we altered our legal status under Irish law to that of a public limited company by re-registering it as a public limited company and changing our name to Mural Oncology plc. Prior to our Separation from Alkermes, the oncology business was held and conducted within Alkermes. Our U.S. operations are conducted by our wholly-owned subsidiary Mural Oncology, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

Available Information

We are subject to the information and reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) under which we file periodic reports, proxy and information statements and other information with the SEC. Copies of the reports, proxy statements and other information are available on the SEC’s website, https://www.sec.gov.

Financial and other information about us is available on our website (www.muraloncology.com). The information on our website, or that may be accessed by links on our website, is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive textual reference only. We make available on our website, free of charge, copies of our annual reports 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 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such material electronically or otherwise furnishing it to the Securities and Exchange Commission. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% shareholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. Copies are available in print to any shareholder upon request in writing to Attention: Investor Relations, Mural Oncology plc, 852 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

You should consider carefully the following risks and uncertainties, together with all the other information contained in this Annual Report, including our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, when evaluating our ordinary shares. The impact from these risks and uncertainties may be materially adverse to our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. The risks described below are not the only risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or those we currently view to be immaterial also may materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. As a result, the trading price of our ordinary shares could decline, which could decrease the value of our ordinary shares that you hold.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs

Because we have a very limited operating history as a standalone company, valuing our business and predicting our prospects is challenging.

Historically and through the date of our Separation from Alkermes plc (the “Former Parent” or “Alkermes”), our business was conducted by the Former Parent. As a result, we have a very limited operating history as a standalone company. We are developing a pipeline of immunotherapies that may meaningfully improve the lives of patients with cancer and have progressed our lead product candidate, nemvaleukin alfa (“nemvaleukin”), into potentially registrational clinical trials. The conduct of our business by the Former Parent prior to the Separation and our operations to date have focused primarily on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, identifying potential product candidates, and conducting clinical trials and preclinical studies for our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an independent ability to successfully complete any registrational clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a clinical- or commercial-scale product, or conduct the sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Following the Separation, the Former Parent will continue to provide some of these functions to us for a specified time period, as described in Note 1, Organization and Description of Business, in the notes to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report. We have made and will need to continue to make investments to replicate or outsource from other providers certain manufacturing facilities, systems, infrastructure and personnel to which we no longer have access following our Separation from the Former Parent. Any initiatives to develop an independent ability to operate without access to the Former Parent’s existing operational and administrative infrastructure will include implementation costs. We may not be able to operate our business efficiently or at comparable costs to our pre-Separation operations. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability in the development and commercialization of biopharmaceutical products may not be as accurate as they could have been if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products. We expect our operating and financial results to be subject to frequent fluctuations. We expect to encounter challenges frequently experienced by clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully navigate such challenges independently. If we do not address the challenges we face successfully, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.

We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. We may never generate any revenue or become profitable or, if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain it.

To date, we have not generated any revenue from our product candidates or product sales, we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products for a number of years and we may never generate revenue from the sale of products. Our ability to generate product revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of expenses we may incur in connection with these activities prior to generating product revenue. In addition, we may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough 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. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product candidates or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our shareholders to lose all or part of their investment.

Our business has incurred significant losses and we anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

Our business has incurred operating losses to date due to costs incurred in connection with our research and development activities and general and administrative expenses associated with our operations and we have not yet generated any revenue as a standalone company, nor did our business when operated by the Former Parent generate any revenue. If our product candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any product revenue from product sales. Our net losses for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 were $207.4 million and $189.8 million, respectively. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase substantially as our product candidates advance through clinical trials, and as we expand our clinical, regulatory, quality and manufacturing capabilities and incur additional costs associated with operating as an independent public company. If we obtain marketing and regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we will incur significant commercialization expenses for marketing, sales, manufacturing and distribution. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will need to develop commercial capabilities, and we may not be successful in doing so. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year.

We will need to raise additional funding to advance our product candidates, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to obtain additional funding when needed, we may have to delay or scale back some of our programs or grant rights to third parties to develop and market our product candidates.

As of December 31, 2023, our cash and cash equivalents were $270.9 million. Our management believes that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our current operating plan into the fourth quarter of 2025.

We will require significant additional funding to advance our product candidates as we continue to expend substantial resources developing and commercializing new and existing product candidates, including costs associated with research and development, acquiring new technologies, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, manufacturing products, and establishing marketing and sales capabilities to commercialize our product candidates. Conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain process that can take years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that may not be commercially available for several years, if ever. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. We may raise additional funds through public or private equity financings, debt financings, collaborative arrangements, licensing arrangements or other sources. Volatility in the financial markets due to unfavorable global economic conditions, including disruptions in the banking industry and inflationary pressures, has generally made equity and debt financing more difficult to obtain and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our fundraising needs. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our

shareholders, and the issuance of additional securities by us, whether equity or debt, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants that could restrict our business activities. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, scale back, or eliminate expenditures for some of our development programs, including restructuring our operations, refinancing or restructuring our debt, or granting rights to third parties to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to internally develop and market. If we grant such rights, the ultimate value of these product candidates to us may be reduced. Regardless of the terms of any debt or equity financings we may enter into, our agreements and obligations under the tax matters agreement with the Former Parent may limit our ability to issue ordinary shares to raise capital during the four-year period beginning two years before and ending two years after the Distribution by the Former Parent of our ordinary shares to the Former Parent’s shareholders. For more information, see “—Risks Related to the Separation and the Distribution” in this Annual Report.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, or if revenues from collaboration arrangements or product sales are less than we anticipate, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research and development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates 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.

Adverse developments affecting the financial services industry could adversely affect our current and projected business operations and our financial condition and results of operations.

Adverse developments that affect financial institutions, such as events involving liquidity that are rumored or actual, have in the past and may in the future lead to bank failures and market-wide liquidity problems.

Although we assess our banking relationships as we believe necessary or appropriate, our access to cash in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our current and projected future business operations could be significantly impaired by factors that affect the financial institutions with which we have banking relationships, and in turn, us. These factors could include, among others, events such as liquidity constraints or failures, the ability to perform obligations under various types of financial, credit or liquidity agreements or arrangements, disruptions or instability in the financial services industry or financial markets, or concerns or negative expectations about the prospects for companies in the financial services industry.

In addition, widespread investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. Any decline in available funding or access to our cash and liquidity resources could, among other risks, adversely impact our ability to meet our operating expenses, financial obligations or fulfill our other obligations, result in breaches of our financial and/or contractual obligations or result in violations of U.S. federal or U.S. state wage and hour laws. Any of these impacts, or any other impacts resulting from the factors described above or other related or similar factors not described above, could have material adverse impacts on our liquidity and our current and/or projected business operations and financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, one or more of our vendors, third-party manufacturers, or other business partners could be adversely affected by any of the liquidity or other risks that are described above, which in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our current and/or projected business operations and results of operations and financial condition. Any business partner bankruptcy or insolvency, or any breach or default by a business partner, or the loss of any significant supplier relationships, could result in material adverse impacts on our current and/or projected business operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Discovery, Product Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

Biopharmaceutical product development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional unexpected costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our business depends heavily on the successful execution of our clinical development plan, regulatory approvals and commercialization of nemvaleukin and other product candidates. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidate, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that such product candidate is safe and effective for use in humans. Designing, conducting, and completing a clinical development program is complex and expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. We have incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial expenses for preclinical testing, clinical trials, and other activities related to our clinical development programs.

We may be unable to establish clinical outcomes that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful, and a clinical trial can fail at any stage of testing. Our current product candidates, as well as any we may discover in the future, will require substantial additional development and testing, and regulatory approvals, prior to commercialization.

Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate benefit-risk profile for its intended use in its intended patient population. In some instances, significant variability in safety or efficacy appear in different clinical studies of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in study protocols, differences in the number and characteristics of the enrolled subjects, variations in the dosing regimen and other clinical study parameters or the dropout rate among study participants. Product candidates in later stages of clinical studies often fail to demonstrate adequate safety and efficacy despite promising preclinical testing and earlier clinical studies. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in later-stage clinical studies. Most product candidates that begin clinical studies are never approved for commercialization by regulatory authorities.

Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), a marketing authorization application to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and similar marketing applications to comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities for each product candidate, as applicable, and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates.

Although we are currently conducting two potentially registrational clinical trials for nemvaleukin, we do not know whether these trials, our other current clinical trials or any future clinical trials will be successful, as completion of these trials and the outcomes of the trials could vary based on a multitude of factors, including study start up, country approvals, and overall regional differences in treatments and outcomes.

We may experience delays in initiating or completing clinical trials and preparing for regulatory submissions. We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any current or future clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to develop our product candidates or receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs of the institutions in which such clinical trials are being conducted, or the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, or recommended for suspension or termination by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for such clinical trial. A suspension or termination may be imposed due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or clinical trial site by the FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product or treatment, failure to establish or achieve clinically meaningful trial endpoints, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions, lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial, or changes in treatment standards that could impact the relevance of our clinical trial. Clinical trials of any product candidates may fail to show acceptable safety or efficacy or produce negative or inconclusive results and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Further, the FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data from clinical trials. Regulatory authorities also may change the requirements for approval even after they have reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials, including if subsequent changes in standard of care impact the appropriateness of the design of our clinical trials.

In addition, conducting clinical trials in non-U.S. countries, as we may do for our product candidates, may present additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These potential risks include the failure of enrolled patients in non-U.S. countries to adhere to clinical protocols as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with non-U.S. regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such non-U.S. countries. Further, in January 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. This regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. However, it is uncertain as to whether the regulation will achieve those goals and as to how it will be interpreted and implemented.

In addition, we are, or may become, subject to various U.S. federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and recommendations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices, the experimental use of animals, and the use and

disposal of hazardous substances, including radioactive compounds and infectious disease agents, used in connection with our research work. If we fail to comply with the laws and regulations pertaining to our business, we may be subject to sanctions, including the temporary or permanent suspension of operations, product recalls, marketing restrictions, and civil and criminal penalties.

Finally, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted 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 stayed the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various conditions adopted under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”). In reaching that decision, the district court made a number of findings that may negatively impact the development, approval and distribution of drug products in the U.S. Among other determinations, the district court held that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that FDA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving mifepristone without sufficiently considering evidence bearing on whether the drug was safe to use under the conditions identified in its labeling. Further, the district court read the standing requirements governing litigation in federal court as permitting a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve an NDA or establish requirements under a REMS based on a showing that the plaintiff or its members would be harmed to the extent that FDA’s drug approval decision effectively compelled the plaintiffs to provide care for patients suffering adverse events caused by a given drug. This matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is typically selected from a more extensive amount of available information. Regulatory authorities, investors, and or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product candidate or our business.

Clinical trials are expensive, and our operational, development and research and development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

Delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in our clinical trials could cause our clinical development activities to be delayed or otherwise adversely affected, which could materially impact our business.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites.

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or might require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, slow down or halt our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to seek and obtain the marketing approval required to commence product sales and generate revenue, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing, if needed.

If our clinical trials fail to replicate positive results from earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by us or third parties, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates.

Our preclinical studies or early clinical trials of our product candidates, whether conducted by us or third parties, may not necessarily be predictive of the results of later clinical trials that we conduct. Similarly, even if we are able to complete our planned clinical trials of our product candidates, positive results from such clinical trials may not be replicated in our subsequent preclinical studies or clinical trials or in real-world results. For example, our results in our ARTISTRY-1 trial are not necessarily indicative of results we may achieve in our ARTISTRY-6 and ARTISTRY-7 trials. We additionally intend to pursue development of nemvaleukin for other indications or with different dosing regimens, and results from our trials to date are not necessarily predictive of results in those potential future trials.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authority approval. Furthermore, the approval policies or regulations of the FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner that may render our clinical data insufficient for approval, which may lead to the FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities delaying, limiting or denying approval of our product candidates.

Interim, “topline” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more data become available, are not necessarily predictive of the final results of the completed study or the results of other ongoing or future studies and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes.

From time to time, we may announce, publish or report preliminary, topline or interim data from our clinical trials, including those in the ARTISTRY development program for nemvaleukin. Such data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patients continue progressing through the study (for example, in oncology studies, a patient may progress from a complete or partial response to progressive disease), as patient enrollment continues and/or as more patient data become available, and such data may not be indicative of final data from such trials, data from future trials or real-world results. In addition, such data may remain subject to audit confirmation and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary, topline or interim data disclosed. As a result, all preliminary, topline and interim data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse differences between preliminary, topline or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

We may seek approval of our product candidates, where applicable, under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. This pathway may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval confirmatory study or studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date of approval for a product that is

granted accelerated approval. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. FDORA also gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw accelerated approval on an expedited basis if the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, send the necessary updates to the FDA, or if such post-approval studies fail to verify the drug’s predicted clinical benefit; and to take action, such as issuing fines, against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory study or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, the FDA generally requires pre-approval of promotional materials for products receiving accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Prior to seeking accelerated approval of any of our product candidates, we would expect to seek feedback from the FDA and to otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval or that we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. Thus, even if we seek to utilize the accelerated approval pathway for nemvaleukin or other product candidates, we may not be able to obtain accelerated approval, and even if we do, that product may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process. In addition, receiving accelerated approval does not assure the product’s accelerated approval will eventually be converted to a traditional approval.

We are conducting, and intend in the future to conduct, clinical trials for certain of our product candidates at sites outside the U.S. The FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations and the conduct of trials outside the U.S. could subject us to additional delays and expense.

We are conducting, and intend in the future to conduct, our clinical trials globally, including at sites outside the U.S. For example, we currently conduct or plan to conduct clinical trials in Canada, Australia, South Korea, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, the United Kingdom (“UK”), Italy, Austria, Israel, Singapore, Germany, Belgium, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Norway, Denmark, and France. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S., acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., 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 good clinical practice (“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 satisfies certain conditions. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with GCP. The FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if necessary. The trial population must also have a similar profile to the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful, except to the extent the disease being studied does not typically occur in the U.S. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to applicable local laws, the FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of the U.S. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the U.S., it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of our product candidates.

In addition, the conduct of clinical trials outside the U.S. could have a significant adverse impact on us or the trial results. Risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include clinical practice patterns and standards of care that vary widely among countries; non-U.S. regulatory authority requirements that could restrict or limit our ability to conduct our clinical trials; administrative burdens of conducting clinical trials under multiple non-U.S. regulatory authority frameworks; non-U.S. exchange rate fluctuations; and diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries. In addition, global economic or political unrest could result in delays in our clinical trials, or the ability of third parties on whom we rely to conduct our clinical trials in a timely manner. Any such delay could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Side effects, serious adverse events, or other undesirable properties could arise from the use of our product candidates and, in turn, could delay or halt clinical trials, delay or prevent regulatory approval, result in a restrictive label for our products, if approved, or result in significant negative consequences following any marketing approval.

Undesirable side effects or serious adverse events caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay, or halt clinical trials and could result in a restrictive label for any approved products or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities.

Any related drug side effects or serious adverse events, or unforeseen side effects or serious adverse events in our clinical trials could affect clinical trial patient recruitment or the ability or desire of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trial, could result in suspension or termination of our clinical trials, or potential product liability claims.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects or serious adverse events caused by such product, a number of potentially significant consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of such product.

Preclinical development is uncertain. Our discovery-stage and preclinical programs may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Our interleukin-18 (“IL-18”) and interleukin-12 (“IL-12”) programs are still in the discovery stage of development, and their risk of failure is high. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned Investigational New Drug applications (“IND”) in the U.S., or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or other regulatory authorities will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our programs. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications for our current or future preclinical programs on the timelines we expect, or at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications in other jurisdictions will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates.

Although we intend to explore other therapeutic opportunities in addition to the product candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify or discover viable new product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. If we fail to identify additional potential product candidates, our business could be materially harmed.

Research programs to pursue the development of our existing and planned product candidates for additional indications and to identify new product candidates and disease targets require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not they are ultimately successful. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential indications and/or product candidates, yet fail to yield results for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our current product candidates or to develop suitable additional product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects.

The regulatory approval process for our product candidates will be lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval, if any, of our product candidates.

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

The FDA’s approval of a BLA is not guaranteed, and the review and approval process is expensive, uncertain and may take several years. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the approval process. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for BLA approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or the condition that the product candidate is designed to treat and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. Despite the time and expense associated with preclinical studies and clinical trials, failure can occur at any stage.

The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an advisory committee (“Advisory Committee”), to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data from our clinical studies to support approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval in the U.S. of any product candidate that we develop based on the completed clinical trials.

In addition, public concern regarding the safety or efficacy of biopharmaceutical products could delay or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval, result in the inclusion of unfavorable information in our labeling or require us to undertake other activities that may entail additional costs. We have not obtained FDA approval for any product as a standalone entity. This lack of experience may impede our ability to obtain FDA approval in a timely manner, if at all, for any current or future product candidates.

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

Any delay or failure in seeking or obtaining required approvals would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from any particular product candidates we are developing and for which we are seeking approval.

Manufacturing of biological products is complex, and we may experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs.

The manufacturing of biologics is complex and difficult and we and the third parties upon whom we rely for manufacturing may experience production issues or interruptions for our product candidates, including raw material or starting material variability in terms of quality, cell line viability, productivity or stability issues, shortages of any kind, shipping, distribution, storage and supply chain failures, growth media contamination, equipment malfunctions, operator errors, facility contamination, labor problems, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, terrorist activities, or “acts of God” that are beyond our control or the control of our third-party manufacturers and other third parties.

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination during manufacturing. Any contamination could materially harm our ability to produce product candidates on schedule and could harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage. Some of the raw materials that we anticipate will be required in our manufacturing process are derived from biological sources. Such raw materials may be difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall.

Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims, insufficient inventory or potentially delay progression of our preclinical or clinical development of any product candidates we may develop. If we successfully develop product candidates, we may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality that meet FDA, EMA, or other comparable applicable non-U.S. standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs. Our ability to scale our manufacturing and maintain the manufacturing process at the same levels of quality and efficacy that we are currently manufacturing is yet to be established. If we or our third-party manufacturers are unable to scale our manufacturing at the same levels of quality and efficiency, we may not have sufficient supply for our clinical trials or commercial supply. A material shortage, contamination or manufacturing failure in the manufacture of any product candidates we may develop or other adverse impact or disruption in the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material could materially harm our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We also face risks related to our reliance on our current and any future third-party manufacturers. For example, we and our third-party manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our product candidates. All entities involved in the manufacturing of our biological product candidates for clinical trials and, if approved, for commercial sale, including any third-party manufacturers of any product candidates we may develop, are subject to extensive regulation, including that such product candidates must be manufactured in accordance with applicable current Good Manufacturing Practices (“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 third-party manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s current good laboratory practices and cGMP regulations, as applicable. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of our third-party manufacturers 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. In addition, certain Chinese biotechnology companies and contract manufacturers that supply us with drug product 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.

Regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit our third-party manufacturers’ facilities. 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.

If we or any third-party manufacturer with which we contract for manufacturing and supply fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new drug product or biological product, or revoke an existing approval. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.

Currently, we depend on single source manufacturers for certain elements of the manufacturing processes for certain of our product candidates. We cannot ensure that these manufacturers will remain in business or have sufficient capacity or supply to meet our needs. If the third-party manufacturers on whom we rely have insufficient capacity or experience supply, labor or other interruptions, or experience manufacturing challenges related to quality, failure relating to materials, the supply and quality of active pharmaceutical ingredients and other product components and any potential shortage of raw materials, safety issues, utility or transportation disruptions or other site-specific incidents, environmental incidents, and others, our development and commercialization plans for our product candidates may be disrupted. Our use of single source manufacturers exposes us to several other risks, including price increases or manufacturing delays beyond our control. Moreover, reliance on third-party manufacturers generally entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates or components of the product candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully commercialize future products. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of production.

Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, such as could be the case with our current third-party manufacturer, there could be a significant disruption in supply. While we believe there are alternate manufacturers who can provide the manufacturing processes required to develop our product candidates, if we have to switch to a replacement manufacturer, the manufacture and delivery of our product candidates could be interrupted for an extended period, which could adversely affect our business. Furthermore, an alternative manufacturer would need to be pre-approved by the FDA through a BLA supplement which could result in further delay. The regulatory authorities may also require additional bridging 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.

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, nemvaleukin, as well as the other product candidates in our pipeline. If we are unable to successfully complete clinical development of, obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize our product candidates, or if we experience delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Our business and future success is highly dependent on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and if approved, successfully launch and commercialize, our current product candidates, including our most advanced product candidate, nemvaleukin. Additionally, we have a portfolio of programs that are in preclinical development and may never advance to clinical-stage development.

Commencing clinical trials in the U.S. is subject to acceptance by the 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 our clinical trials may be delayed. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from these regulatory authorities, the FDA or other regulatory authorities 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. In addition, emerging data from other clinical trials and regulatory approvals of other product candidates could impact the acceptability of our clinical trial designs. There are equivalent processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications in other countries, including countries in the European Union (“EU”).

While we have interacted with the FDA in the development of our study design and protocols for our ARTISTRY clinical development program, we may experience issues that require revisions to our trial design and trial protocols. We have had no interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities with respect to our IL-18 and IL-12 programs, and the FDA or other regulatory authorities may not agree with our development strategy or plans for such programs.

We also may experience difficulties with patient recruitment and enrollment, quality and provision of clinical supplies, or early safety signals.

Even if we succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for a product candidate, we do not currently have an infrastructure for the sale, marketing, market access, patient service and distribution of pharmaceutical products. In order to market our product candidates, we must build our sales, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities, or arrange with third parties to perform these services. There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product candidate launch. If commercialization is delayed or does not occur, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred such expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our commercialization personnel.

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support and distribution services, our product revenue or potential profitability from such product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop ourselves. In addition, we may fail to enter into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may 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 commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, or if we are unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if approved and our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially harmed.

The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate any revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our current and any future product candidates, which may never occur. It may be years before we are able to demonstrate clinical trial safety and efficacy data sufficient to warrant submission for approval for commercialization, and we may never be able to do so. If we are unable to develop, or obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, successfully commercialize our current or any future product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

The FDA or other regulatory authorities may not agree with our regulatory approval strategies or components of our filings for our products and may not approve, or may delay approval of, our products.

We must obtain government approvals before marketing or selling our products. The FDA in the U.S., and comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, impose substantial and rigorous requirements for the development, manufacture and commercialization of biological products, the satisfaction of which can take a significant number of years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product.

In addition, regulation is not static, and regulatory authorities, including the FDA, evolve in their staff, interpretations and practices and may impose more stringent requirements than currently in effect, which may adversely affect our plans for product development, manufacture and/or commercialization. Additionally, changes in laws or regulations, particularly if there are changes in or the enactment of additional statutes, promulgation of regulations or issuance of guidance during preclinical or clinical development, may require us to change our trial designs or conduct additional trials. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of 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. The approval procedure and the time required to obtain approval also varies among countries. Regulatory authorities may have varying interpretations of the same data, and approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In addition, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may choose not to communicate with or update us during clinical testing and regulatory review periods and the ultimate decision by the FDA or other regulatory authorities regarding drug approval may not be consistent with prior communications.

Regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities can be delayed, limited or not granted at all for many reasons, including because regulatory authorities may not agree with our regulatory approval strategies, plans for accelerated development timelines, components of our filings such as clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies, or the sufficiency of our submitted data to meet their requirements for product approval. Regulatory authorities might not approve our or our licensees’ manufacturing processes or facilities, or those of the CROs and contract manufacturing organizations who conduct research or manufacturing work on our or our licensees’ behalf. Regulatory authorities also may change their requirements for approval or post-approval marketing. For example, we expect that the data from Cohort 2 of ARTISTRY-6 will be sufficient for traditional approval of nemvaleukin for mucosal melanoma. However, FDA could grant accelerated approval for nemvaleukin pending clinical trial results, further understanding of the treatment landscape, and the rarity of the disease and timeframe needed to conduct a confirmatory trial. If the FDA grants accelerated approval to nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma, the FDA is permitted to require that one or more post-approval confirmatory studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after accelerated approval is granted. The FDA may require us to conduct another clinical trial to convert accelerated approval to traditional approval for nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma. The treatment of cancer is a rapidly evolving field and will continue to evolve. By such time, if ever, as we may receive necessary regulatory approvals for our product candidates, the standard of care for the treatment of the relevant cancers may have evolved such that it would be necessary to modify our plans for regulatory approval, and the prospects for regulatory approval and commercial acceptance of our products may be limited by a change in the standard of care.

Any failure to obtain, or delay in obtaining, regulatory approval for our products will prevent or delay their commercialization and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. In addition, any failure to obtain, or delay in obtaining, approval for our products could have a material impact on our shareholders’ confidence in the strength of our development capabilities and/or our ability to generate significant revenue from our development program and could result in a significant decline in our share price.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and other U.S. government agencies or the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities 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, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve 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 FDA and other regulators have fluctuated in recent years as a result. 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, EMA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, in recent years, including in 2018 and 2019, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. In addition, disruptions may result in events similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. In the event of a similar public health emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. facing similar circumstances may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to a similar public health emergency and may also experience delays in their regulatory activities.

Accordingly, 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.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of any product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-marketing information, including both U.S. federal and state requirements in the U.S. and

requirements of comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with cGMP and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with cGMP and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, EMA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any BLA or other marketing application and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. Certain endpoint data we hope to include in any approved product labeling also may not make it into such labeling, including exploratory or secondary endpoint data such as patient-reported outcome measures. In addition, if the FDA, EMA or a comparable non-U.S. regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

Even if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities, the approved label for the product may not be consistent with our initial expectations or commercial plans. For example, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may impose limitations on the clinical data that may be included in the label or grant narrower indications for use than we sought or add a limitation on us or may require us to engage in deferred pediatric studies where such studies may be required under the Pediatric Research Equity Act. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also restrict the manner in which the product may be marketed, require labeling statements such as a boxed warning or contraindications, or impose additional post-approval requirements, such as a REMS, with which we would need to comply in order to maintain the approval of such product. Our business could be seriously harmed if we do not complete these post-approval requirements or if such post-approval requirements significantly restrict the marketing, sale or use of such product, impose costly requirements on our activities, or place us at a competitive disadvantage to other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

The FDA may impose consent decrees or withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or 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-marketing studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The policies of the FDA, EMA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted in the U.S. for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labelling, or in other jurisdictions for uses that differ from the labelling or uses approved by the applicable regulatory authorities. While physicians may prescribe products for off-label uses, the FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities actively enforce laws and regulations that prohibit the promotion of off-label uses by companies, including promotional communications made by companies’ sales force with respect to off-label uses that are not consistent with the approved labelling, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties.

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

If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. 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.

The sizes of the potential markets for our product candidates are difficult to estimate and, if any of our assumptions are inaccurate, the actual markets for our product candidates may be smaller than our estimates.

The potential market opportunities for our product candidates are difficult to estimate and, if our product candidates are approved, will ultimately depend on, among other things, the indications for which our product candidates are approved for sale, any products with which our product candidates are co-administered, the success of competing therapies and therapeutic approaches, acceptance by the medical community, patient access, product pricing, reimbursement and our ability to create meaningful value propositions for patients, prescribers and payors. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for our product candidates are predicated on many assumptions, which may include industry knowledge and publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. Although we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, these assumptions involve the exercise of significant judgment on the part of our management, are inherently uncertain, and their reasonableness has not been assessed by an independent source. If any of the assumptions proves to be inaccurate, the actual markets for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of the potential market opportunities.

We may seek certain designations for our product candidates, including Fast Track, Priority Review, and Breakthrough Therapy designations in the U.S., Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway in the UK, and PRIME Designation in the EU, but we might not receive such designations, and even if we do, such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We have obtained Fast Track designations (“FTD”) for nemvaleukin in mucosal melanoma and for nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (“PROC”). The FDA may grant FTD to a product candidate 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 products granted FTD, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA, and a sponsor can submit completed sections of

its BLA on a rolling basis for review by FDA rather than waiting until every section of the BLA is completed before the entire application can be reviewed.

We may seek certain designations for one or more of our product candidates that could expedite review and approval by the FDA. We may seek a priority review designation for one or more of our product candidates. If the FDA determines that a product candidate 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 after the 60-day filing date of an original application, rather than the standard review period of ten months after the 60-day filing date of an original application.

We may also seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for one or more of our product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy product is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious 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. For products that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens.

These designations are within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for these designations, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Further, even if we receive a designation, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies for these designations, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

In January 2023, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the “MHRA”) granted an Innovation Passport designation for nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma, under the UK’s Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (the “ILAP”). The ILAP aims to accelerate the time to market and facilitate patient access to certain types of medicinal products in development which target a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition, or where there is a significant patient or public health need. To access the ILAP, an applicant applies for an Innovation Passport designation. Once an Innovation Passport designation is granted, the MHRA and its partner agencies (including The All Wales Therapeutics and Toxicology Centre, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium) work with the Innovation Passport designee to define a Target Development Profile (“TDP”). The TDP sets out a unique product-specific roadmap toward patient access in the UK, and provides access to a toolkit to support all stages of the design, development and approvals process, including continuous benefit-risk assessment, increased support for novel development approaches and enhanced patient engagement. Although the goal of the ILAP is to reduce the time to market and enable earlier patient access, access to the ILAP does not mean that the regulatory requirements are less stringent, nor does it ensure that a marketing authorization application will be approved within a particular timeframe or at all.

Finally, in the EU, we may seek PRIME designation for some of our product candidates in the future. PRIME is a voluntary program aimed at enhancing the EMA’s role to reinforce scientific and regulatory support in order to optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of new medicines that are of major public health interest with the potential to address unmet medical needs. The PRIME program focuses on medicines that target conditions for which there exists no satisfactory method of treatment in the European Union or even if such a method exists, the product candidate may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. PRIME is limited to medicines under development and not authorized in the European Union and the applicant intends to apply for an initial marketing authorization application through the centralized procedure. To be accepted for PRIME designation, a product candidate must meet the eligibility criteria in respect of its major public health interest and therapeutic innovation based on information that is capable of substantiating the claims. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a rapporteur of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use to provide continued support and help to build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review, meaning reduction in the review time for an opinion on approvability to be issued earlier in the application process. PRIME designation enables an applicant to request parallel EMA scientific advice and health technology assessment advice to facilitate timely market access. Even if we receive PRIME designation for any of our product candidates, the designation may not result in a materially faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional EMA procedures. Further, obtaining PRIME designation does not assure or increase the likelihood of EMA’s grant of a marketing authorization.

We have received Orphan Drug designation for nemvaleukin in mucosal melanoma and may seek additional Orphan Drug designations for other indications or for our other product candidates. However, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining, or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug designation including the potential for market exclusivity.

We have received Orphan Drug designation (“ODD”) from the FDA for nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma and may seek additional ODD for additional indications or for our other product candidates. Even if we receive orphan drug exclusivity, the exclusivity may be revoked under certain circumstances, such as if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. We will also be required to submit annual reports describing any changes that may affect the orphan drug status of the product. Further, even if we receive orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition during the exclusivity period because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition, and the same product can be approved for different uses. Also, in the U.S., even after an orphan drug is approved and receives orphan drug exclusivity, the FDA may subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the latter drug is not the same drug, including because it has been shown to be clinically superior to the drug with exclusivity because it is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the EU, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product to an authorized orphan product for the same orphan indication if:

The FDA and 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.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court’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. 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.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, the European Commission or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the U.S., including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the U.S., a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining non-U.S. regulatory approvals and compliance with non-U.S. regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

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

If any product candidate we develop receives marketing approval, whether as a single agent or in combination with other therapies, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. If our product candidates receive marketing approval but 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, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If we obtain marketing approval for a product but such product does not achieve an adequate level of market acceptance, we may not generate or derive significant revenue from that product and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We have no history of commercializing products approved for marketing, and we have not yet implemented any commercialization operations. There can be no assurance that we will successfully establish our commercialization capabilities if any of our product candidates are approved.

We have never commercialized a product candidate and we currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. Historically and through the date of the Separation, our business was conducted by the Former Parent. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates. Establishing commercialization capabilities will require substantial investment of time and money and may divert significant management focus and resources. In addition, we would be competing with larger biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with established commercialization and marketing capabilities as we seek to recruit suitable personnel. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that our efforts to set up commercialization capabilities will be successful. We may pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products, if approved, however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. Further, if we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales and marketing services, our product revenues, if any, may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.

Furthermore, developing a sales and marketing organization requires significant investment, is time-consuming and could delay the launch of our product candidates. We may not be able to build an effective sales and marketing organization in the U.S., the EU or other key global markets. If we are unable to build our own distribution and marketing capabilities or to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our product candidate, we may have difficulties generating revenue from them.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the U.S. or overseas.

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

We have chosen to initially develop nemvaleukin for the treatment of mucosal melanoma and in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of PROC. Our development efforts are currently focused on certain cancer types and we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities in other cancer types that may prove to have greater potential. Likewise, we may forego or delay the pursuit of opportunities with other potential product candidates that may prove to have greater commercial potential.

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 product candidates. 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 similar arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to the product candidate.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which we obtain and maintain favorable insurance coverage, adequate reimbursement levels and cost-effective pricing policies with third-party payors.

The availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors, including governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care organizations, and private health insurers, are essential for most patients to be able to afford prescription medications such as our product candidates, if approved. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for products by third-party payors will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the U.S., the EU or elsewhere will be available for our product candidates, if approved, or any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated in the future.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidates, pricing of existing third-party therapeutics may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidates. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in our product candidates, if approved. Even if our product candidates are approved and we obtain coverage for our product candidates by a third-party payor, such products may not be considered cost-effective and/or the resulting reimbursement payment rates may be insufficient or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Interim reimbursement levels for new medicines, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Net prices for medicines may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of medicines from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on our product candidates.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new medicines vary widely from country to country. In the U.S., third-party payors play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models in the U.S. for how third-party payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and other third-party payors in the U.S. and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they

may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted U.S. federal and U.S. state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs further discussed below. We cannot predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the U.S. and coverage and reimbursement for products can therefore differ significantly from payor to payor and coverage and reimbursement by one payor does not guarantee coverage and reimbursement by another payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Our ability to demonstrate to these third-party payors that any of our approved product candidates creates a meaningful value proposition for patients, prescribers and payors will be important to gaining market access and reimbursement and there is no guarantee that we will be successful in doing so. Furthermore, we expect that 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 receive for any approved product. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals or clearances of our product candidates, if any, may be.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain reimbursement for any of our candidate products that do receive marketing approval.

In the U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we 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 may receive for any approved products. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”). In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by the U.S. Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. 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 legal challenges and U.S. Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the U.S. Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. 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 U.S. 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 issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021 and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among

others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or U.S. Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such other challenges to repeal or replace the ACA or the health reform measures of the Biden Administration will impact the ACA or our business.

Current and future legislative efforts may limit the prices for our products, if and when they are licensed for marketing, and that could materially impact our ability to generate revenues.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the U.S. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and U.S. 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, former 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, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“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, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the U.S. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 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 rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) further delayed implementation of this rule 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 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 U.S. 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: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) 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 (c) 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.

In August 2022, the IRA was signed into law. The IRA includes several provisions that will impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one rare disease designation and are approved for only that rare disease or condition. If a product receives multiple rare disease designations or has multiple approved indications, it will not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general are not yet known.

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

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 and price disclosure and transparency measures. Some states have adopted measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare organizations 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. Further, if any of our products are approved, we would be required to calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price, and best price. The calculations necessary to determine the prices reported are complex and penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for our products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government 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 U.S. state and U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that U.S. federal and U.S. state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Finally, outside the U.S., in some nations, including those of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed.

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

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies among others. We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that develop immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. There are other companies working to develop immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer including divisions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of various sizes. Some of these competitive 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. For more information, see “Business—Competition” in this Annual Report.

We are developing our initial product candidates for the treatment of cancer and have not yet received marketing approval for any of our product candidates. There are already a variety of available therapies marketed for cancer and some of the currently approved therapies are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved therapies are well-established and widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products. We expect that if our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. This may make it difficult for us to achieve our business strategy of using our product candidates in combination with existing therapies or replacing existing therapies with our product candidates. Competition may further increase with advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries.

We are aware of a number of companies that are developing interleukin-2 (“IL-2”)-based product candidates for the treatment of cancer, as well as different modalities, including monoclonal antibodies, cell therapies, oncolytic viruses and vaccines.

Nemvaleukin, if approved, may face competition from other IL-2-based cancer therapies, or other therapies targeting our initial indications. For example, Proleukin (aldesleukin), a synthetic protein similar to IL-2, is approved and marketed for the

treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and melanoma. In addition, we are aware of several companies that have IL-2-based programs in development for the treatment of cancer.

Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. We also compete with these organizations in establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, which could negatively affect our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel product candidates or to in-license novel product candidates that could make our product candidates less competitive or obsolete. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, including through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. The availability of competing products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for product candidates we commercialize, if any. The inability to compete with existing or subsequently introduced drugs would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We expect the product candidates we develop will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and therefore they may be subject to biosimilar competition.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biologic products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biologic product. Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of non-patent exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. 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 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 the other company’s product. 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 same first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product and the exclusivity period may be shared amongst multiple first interchangeable products. More recently, in October 2023, the FDA issued its first interchangeable exclusivity determination under the BPCIA.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biologic product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our investigational medicines to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biologic products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

If competitors are able to obtain regulatory approval for biosimilars referencing our product candidates, our product candidates may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize, any potential product candidates.

We depend upon third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and to conduct our clinical trials, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic partners and others. We expect to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third parties, any delays in the negotiation of budgets and contracts with such third parties may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

Historically and through the date of the Separation, our business was conducted by the Former Parent. Following the Separation, we plan to continue to build our infrastructure and hire personnel necessary to execute our operational plans. We expect to rely especially heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and, as a result, may have limited control over the investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with investigational products produced under cGMP requirements and may require a large number of patients which may increase the costs and expenses related to our clinical development programs.

Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be adversely affected if any of these third parties violates U.S. federal or U.S. state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting aspects of our preclinical studies or our clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical studies and clinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our development timelines, including clinical development timelines, may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed or precluded entirely.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third parties or to do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely fashion.

Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management’s time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, investigators and other third parties, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We have not yet manufactured our product candidates on a commercial scale and expect to rely on third parties to produce and process commercial quantities of our product candidates, if approved.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers if we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates. To the extent that we enter into future manufacturing arrangements with third parties for commercial supply of our product candidates, if approved, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance.

The facilities used by our third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities following inspections that will be conducted after we submit an application to the FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities. We do not directly control the manufacturing process of, and will be substantially dependent on, our third-party manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP requirements for the manufacture of our product candidates. If our third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, EMA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no direct control over the ability of our third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, EMA or a comparable non-U.S. regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture

of our product candidates or if it withdraws any 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 our product candidates, if approved.

We are developing, and may develop in the future, certain of our product candidates in combination with third-party drugs and we will have limited or no control over the safety, supply, regulatory status or regulatory approval of such drugs.

We intend to develop nemvaleukin, and likely other future product candidates, in combination with third-party cancer drugs, which may be either approved or unapproved. For example, in ARTISTRY-7, an ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial, we are evaluating nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab, an anti-programmed cell death 1 agent, for the treatment of PROC. Our ability to develop and ultimately commercialize our current product candidates, and any future product candidates, when used in combination with third-party drugs will depend on our ability to access such drugs on commercially reasonable terms for clinical trials and their availability for use with our commercial product, if approved. We cannot be certain that current or potential future commercial relationships will provide us with a steady supply of such drugs on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Any failure to maintain or enter into new successful commercial relationships for the supply of such third-party investigational or approved medicinal products, or the expense of purchasing such third-party drugs in the market, may delay our development timelines, increase our costs and jeopardize our ability to develop our current product candidates and any future product candidates as commercially viable therapies. If any of these occur, our business, financial condition, operating results, or prospects may be materially harmed.

Moreover, the development of product candidates for use in combination with another product or product candidate may present challenges that are not faced for single agent product candidates. For example, our plans to evaluate nemvaleukin in combination with other agents may result in adverse events based on the combination therapy that may negatively impact the reported safety profile of nemvaleukin as a monotherapy in clinical trials. In addition, the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require us to use more complex clinical trial designs in order to evaluate the contribution of each product and product candidate to any observed effects. It is possible that the results of such trials could show that any positive trial results are attributable to the third-party drug and not our product candidate. Developments related to the third-party drug may also impact our clinical trials for the combination as well as our commercial prospects should we receive regulatory approval. Such developments may include changes to the third-party drug’s safety or efficacy profile, changes to the availability of the third-party drug, or quality, and manufacturing and supply issues with respect to the third-party drug.

If we are able to obtain marketing approval, the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require that products used in conjunction with each other be cross labeled for combined use. To the extent that we do not have rights to the third-party drug, this may require us to work with such third-party to satisfy such a requirement. We would also continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the third-party drug used in combination with our product candidate or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with such drug. Similarly, if the third-party drugs we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials to demonstrate the continued efficacy of the combination. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own products, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

We may seek third-party collaborators or licensors for the research, development and commercialization of certain of our current or future product candidates. 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 potential collaboration.

Collaborations, licenses or similar arrangements involving our research programs or any product candidates pose numerous risks to us, including the following:

If our collaborations, licenses or similar transactions do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates, or if one of our collaborators or licensors terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments, as applicable, under such agreement. 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 licensor or for us to attract new collaborators or licensors, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected.

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 shareholders, or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we could face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration or license agreement will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the resources and expertise of such third-party collaborator or licensor and the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration or license. Further, if we license rights for use in 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.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We could be unsuccessful in obtaining or maintaining adequate patent protection for one or more of our product candidates, or the scope of our patent protection could be insufficiently broad, which could result in competition and a decrease in the potential market share for our product candidates.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our product candidates, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment and development that are important to our business. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property rights, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. To protect our proprietary position, we file patent applications in the U.S. and abroad related to our product candidates that are important to our business. If we are unable to secure or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates and any proprietary products and technology we develop, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

We cannot be certain that patents will be issued or granted with respect to applications that are currently pending, or that the scope of the currently-pending patent applications will not be altered before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), or non-U.S. patent offices. The standards applied by the USPTO, and non-U.S. patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. The patent positions of therapeutic polypeptide and antibody companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted or further altered even after patent issuance. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending patent applications, or the scope of the pending patent applications may change. As such, we cannot predict with certainty the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology.

Changes to patent laws in the U.S. or other jurisdictions may diminish the value of our patents, and patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products or product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications, and the enforcement or defense of issued patents.

These changes may affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. The U.S. Supreme Court, and other U.S. courts, have ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Additionally, there have been recent proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the U.S. and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to enforce our patents. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO, and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Legislation passed by U.S. Congress, for example, the IRA, could potentially impact drug pricing and rebates depending on the success of drug products and the marketplace.

Issued patents covering one or more of our products or product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in patent office proceedings or in court.

The validity or enforceability of our patents may be challenged in district court, before the USPTO, or in a non-U.S. jurisdiction by a competitor. Alternatively, if we or one of our partners were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace.

Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet one or more statutory requirements for patentability, including, for example, lack of patent eligible subject matter, lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description, lack of definiteness, or non-enablement. In addition, patent validity challenges may, under certain circumstances, be based upon non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting, which, if successful, could result in a finding that the claims are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting or the loss of patent term, including a patent term adjustment granted by the USPTO, if a terminal disclaimer is filed to obviate a finding of obviousness-type double patenting.

While we are not aware of any such grounds, someone could allege that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Additionally, third parties are able to challenge the validity of issued patents through administrative proceedings in the patent offices of certain countries, including the USPTO and the European Patent Office.

Despite the due diligence we have conducted regarding our patent portfolio strategy, the outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one of our products and product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

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

Filing, prosecuting, defending, and enforcing patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of non-U.S. countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. In addition, our intellectual property license agreements may not always include worldwide rights. Consequently, competitors and other third

parties may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our products and product candidates in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents or where any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing with us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in non-U.S. intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the U.S. and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, including India, China, Russia, and other developing countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights, particularly those relating to biotechnology products and/or intellectual property rights owned by U.S. entities, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation, or other violation of our patents or other intellectual property rights.

Claims that our product candidates or, if approved, the sale or use of any such approved products infringe the patent rights of third parties could result in costly litigation or could require substantial time and money to resolve, even if litigation is avoided.

Despite the measures we take to obtain and maintain our patents, we cannot guarantee that our product candidates or, if approved, the use of any such approved products, will not infringe third-party patents. Third parties might allege that we are infringing their patent rights or that we have misappropriated their trade secrets. Such third parties might resort to litigation against us. The basis of such litigation could be existing patents or patents that may be issued in the future.

It is also possible that we failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are published publicly approximately 18 months after the earliest filing, which is referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our products or the use of our products.

In order to avoid or settle potential claims with respect to any of the patent rights described above or any other patent rights of third parties, we may choose or be required to seek a license from a third party and be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or our strategic partners were able to obtain a license, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This could harm our business significantly.

Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time-consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed. Furthermore, confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets, technical know-how, and proprietary information concerning our business strategy in order to protect our competitive position. In the course of our research, development and business activities, we often rely on confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary information. Such confidentiality agreements are used, for example, when we talk to potential strategic partners. In addition, each of our employees is required to sign a confidentiality agreement upon joining our company. We take steps to protect our proprietary information, and we seek to carefully draft our confidentiality agreements to protect our proprietary interests.

Nevertheless, there can be no guarantee that an employee or an outside party will not make an unauthorized disclosure of our proprietary confidential information. This might happen intentionally or inadvertently. It is possible that a competitor will make use of such information, and that our competitive position will be compromised, in spite of any legal action we might take against persons making such unauthorized disclosures.

Trade secrets are difficult to protect. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific collaborators might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the U.S. sometimes are less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.

Our research and development strategic partners may have rights to publish data and other information to which we have rights. In addition, we sometimes engage individuals or entities to conduct research relevant to our business. The ability of these individuals or entities to publish or otherwise publicly disclose data and other information generated during the course of their research is subject to certain contractual limitations. These contractual provisions may be insufficient or inadequate to protect our confidential information. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication, or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under any license, collaboration, or other agreement, we may be required to pay damages and could lose intellectual property rights that are necessary for developing and protecting our products or product candidates.

We rely, in part, on license, collaboration, and other agreements with our strategic partners relating to intellectual property, including know-how and trade secrets. Although we have contractual provisions in place, there may be circumstances wherein a strategic partner may violate an agreement, or conclude that a violation has occurred. Enforcing or defending against an alleged breach may result in legal actions that may ultimately be costly.

In addition, the agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology to or from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could modify 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 financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Unfavorable outcomes in an intellectual property litigation could limit our research and development activities and/or our ability to commercialize certain products or product candidates.

If third parties successfully assert intellectual property rights against us, we might be barred from developing and commercializing related products or product candidates. Prohibitions against commercializing specified product or product candidates, could be imposed by a court or by a settlement agreement between an adverse party and us.

In addition, if we are unsuccessful in defending against allegations of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets, we may be forced to pay substantial damage awards to the plaintiff. There is inevitable uncertainty in any litigation, including intellectual property litigation. There can be no assurance that we would prevail in any intellectual property litigation, even if the case against us is weak or flawed.

An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights. This could require us to obtain a license from the patent owner in order to continue our research and development programs or our partnerships or, if approved, to market our product(s). Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

An intellectual property litigation could lead to unfavorable publicity that could harm our reputation and cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline.

Given that we are a new standalone public company with a developing reputation, during the course of any patent litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our products, programs, or intellectual property could be diminished. If such events were to occur, the market price of our ordinary shares may decline.

Intellectual property rights may not address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

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:

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

A variety of risks associated with operating our business internationally could adversely affect our business.

We face risks associated with our international operations, including possible unfavorable political and tax conditions, which could harm our business. We are subject to numerous risks associated with international business activities, including:

Our business activities outside of the U.S. are subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate. The FCPA and similar anti-corruption laws generally prohibit offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to non-U.S. government officials in order to improperly influence any act or decision, secure any other improper advantage, or obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the company and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the health care providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, any dealings with these prescribers and purchasers may be subject to regulation under the FCPA. Recently the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the U.S. Department

of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to pharmaceutical companies. In addition, under the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), private individuals who report to the SEC original information that leads to successful enforcement actions may be eligible for a monetary award. We are engaged in ongoing efforts that are designed to ensure our compliance with these laws, including due diligence, training, policies, procedures and internal controls. However, there is no certainty that all employees and third-party business partners (including our distributors, wholesalers, agents, contractors, and other partners) will comply with anti-bribery laws. In particular, we do not control the actions of manufacturers and other third-party agents, although we may be liable for their actions. Violation of these laws may result in civil or criminal sanctions, which could include monetary fines, criminal penalties, and disgorgement of past profits, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

We are or may become subject to tax audits in Ireland, the U.S. or other countries into which we expand our operations, and such jurisdictions may assess additional income tax against us. The final determination of tax audits could be materially different from our recorded income tax provisions and accruals. The ultimate results of an audit could have a material adverse effect on our operating results or cash flows in the period or periods for which that determination is made and could result in increases to our overall tax expense in subsequent periods.

These and other risks associated with our international operations may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we lose key management personnel, or if we fail to recruit additional highly skilled personnel, our ability to pursue our business strategy will be impaired, could result in loss of markets or market share and could make us less competitive.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biopharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements for these individuals, could harm our business.

Competition for skilled personnel in our industry is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms, in a timely manner or at all. To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we intend to provide equity incentive awards that vest over time. The value to employees of equity awards that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our share price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams are at-will employees and may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Given the stage of our programs and our plans to expand operations, our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior personnel across our organization.

Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors 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, statutory or contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the U.S. and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the U.S. federal False Claims Act, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. See the section titled “Business – Government Regulation – Healthcare and Privacy Laws” in this Annual Report.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. Pharmaceutical companies may also be subject to U.S. federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. U.S. federal and state enforcement bodies continue to closely scrutinize interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and 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, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in U.S. federal and state funded healthcare programs, contractual damages and the curtailment or restricting of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is 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. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a biopharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.

We are subject to certain U.S. and non-U.S. anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations.

Among other matters, U.S. and non-U.S. anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations (collectively, “Trade Laws”) prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting or receiving, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We also expect our non-U.S. activities to increase in time. We plan to engage third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations and other regulatory approvals and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities.

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

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, CROs, consultants, commercial partners, vendors and, if we commence clinical trials, our principal investigators. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in the EU and other jurisdictions, provide accurate information to the FDA, the European Commission and other regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the U.S. 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. Even with appropriate policies and procedures, it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent such activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with 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.

We expect to grow our organization, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of March 1, 2024, we had approximately 117 employees. We may experience significant growth over time in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical development, regulatory affairs, finance and, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities to devote time to managing these growth activities. To manage these growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Our inability to effectively manage the expansion of our operations may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, and could give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our potential ability to generate revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or following commercial sale, and any product liability insurance we may obtain may not cover all damages from such claims.

We are exposed to potential product liability risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of biopharmaceutical products. The use of product candidates by us in clinical trials, and any sale of approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts.

Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval thereof, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit or cease the development or commercialization of our product candidates or any products for which we may have received marketing approval. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we will seek to procure and maintain product liability insurance coverage, we may be unable to secure such insurance, and any insurance coverage we obtain may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage each time we commence a clinical trial and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. As the expense of insurance coverage is increasing, 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 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 materially harmed.

If we or any third-party 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 costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We and any third-party manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous U.S. 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 responsible use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials.

Compliance with applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations may impair our research and product development efforts.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting requirements. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and permitting requirements also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or business disruption, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Additionally, any third-party 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 have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our operations or those of the third parties upon whom we depend might be affected by the occurrence of a catastrophic event, such as a terrorist attack, war or other armed conflict, geopolitical tensions or trade wars, pandemic or natural disaster.

We depend on our employees, consultants, third-party manufacturers, CROs, as well as regulatory agencies and other parties, for the continued operation of our business. While we maintain disaster recovery plans, they might not adequately protect us. Despite any precautions that we or any third parties on whom we depend take for catastrophic events, including terrorist attacks, wars or other armed conflicts, geopolitical tensions or trade wars, pandemics or natural disasters, these events could result in significant disruptions to our research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and, ultimately, if approved, the commercialization of our products. Long-term disruptions in the infrastructure caused by these types of events, such as natural disasters, which are increasing in frequency due to the impacts of climate change, the outbreak of wars or other armed conflicts, the escalation of hostilities, geopolitical tensions or trade wars, acts of terrorism or “acts of God,” particularly involving geographies in which we or third parties on whom we depend have offices, manufacturing or clinical trial sites, could adversely affect our businesses. For example, the current military conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and in the Middle East could disrupt or otherwise adversely impact our operations and those of third parties upon which we rely. In particular, sanctions imposed by the U.S., the EU and other countries in response to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the potential response to such sanctions could adversely affect our business and/or our supply chain, our CROs, third-party manufacturers and other third parties with which we conduct business. While we do not currently conduct business in these geographies, we cannot be certain what the overall impact of these events will be on our business or on the business of any third parties on whom we depend. Although we carry business interruption insurance policies and typically have provisions in our contracts that protect us in certain events, our coverage might not include or be adequate to compensate us for all losses that may occur. Any catastrophic event affecting us, our third-party manufacturers, our CROs, regulatory agencies or other parties with which we are engaged could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial performance.

Compliance with state, national and international privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to a variety of harms, including significant fines and penalties, litigation and reputational damage, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We are subject to laws and regulations covering data privacy and the protection of personal information, including health information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues which may affect our business. In the U.S., numerous U.S. federal and U.S. state laws and regulations, including state security breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and U.S. federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of personal information. Most prominently, in California the California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act

(“CPRA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2023, establishes a privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expansive definition of personal information, establishing data privacy rights for consumers and employees in the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, and creating a potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. The CPRA also created a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. While clinical trial data is currently exempt from the current version of the CCPA, other personal information may be applicable and possible changes to the CCPA may broaden its scope.

Certain other U.S. state laws impose similar privacy obligations, and we also anticipate that more U.S. states will increasingly enact legislation similar to the CCPA. The CCPA has prompted a number of proposals for new U.S. federal and U.S. state-level privacy legislation and in some states efforts to pass comprehensive privacy laws have been successful. For example, in addition to California, at least eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2023 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2024 and beyond, including New Hampshire and New Jersey. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state 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 (including Vermont) are considering such legislation for 2024. 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.

Further, each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we could be subject to penalties or sanctions, including criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information from a covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HIPAA”).

Numerous other countries have, or are developing, laws governing the collection, use and transmission of personal information as well. The EU and other jurisdictions have adopted data protection laws and regulations, which impose significant compliance obligations. For example, the collection and use of personal information, including health information, in the EU are governed by the provisions of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”), as well as transposing and supplementary national data protection legislation in force in relevant Member States. While the UK is no longer a Member State of the EU, the EU GDPR forms part of the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “UK GDPR”, together with the EU GDPR the “GDPR”) and is supplemented by the Data Protection Act 2018 in the UK. The GDPR and relevant national laws impose a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to them, such as including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal data relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the European Economic Area (“EEA”) (or in the case of the UK GDPR, outside of the UK), providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal data, implementing safeguards to keep personal data secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal data, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates in certain circumstances, reporting security and privacy breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

To enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA or the UK, safeguards must be implemented in compliance with European and UK data protection laws.

One such safeguard is reliance on a decision determining that a country outside the EEA or the UK provides an “adequate” level of protection for personal data. Although the UK is a third country under EU GDPR, the European Commission has issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EEA to the UK remain unrestricted. This decision is subject to review and has an expiry date of 27 June 2025. If not renewed or revoked, transfers of personal data originating in the EEA to the UK would require a form of appropriate

safeguard, such as those detailed below, to be put in place to allow transfers to continue in compliance with the EU GDPR, which could disrupt our business. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that it considers the EU as providing adequate protection for personal data so personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

In the absence of an adequacy decision, the most commonly used appropriate safeguard is the standard contractual clauses issued by the European Commission. On June 4, 2021, the European Commission issued new forms of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EEA (or otherwise subject to the GDPR) to controllers or processors established outside the EU/EEA (and not subject to the GDPR). The SCCs are a contract between a data exporter and a data importer where the parties agree to the provision of specific protections for personal data and the terms cannot generally be amended by the parties. As of December 27, 2022, the new SCCs must be used for all transfers outside of the EEA in place of the SCCs that were adopted previously under the EU Data Protection Directive. The UK is not subject to the European Commission’s new SCCs but has published the UK International Data Transfer Agreement (the “IDTA”) and International Data Transfer Addendum to the new SCCs (the “UK Addendum”), which provides modifications to the European Commission’s SCCs to enable transfers from the UK in compliance with UK GDPR. For new transfers, the IDTA or the UK Addendum needs to be in place. For any existing transfers relying on pre-Brexit EU SCCs, the IDTA or the UK Addendum must be in place for all transfers from the UK from March 21, 2024. In addition to SCCs, following a ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU, in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems, Case C-311/18, companies relying on SCCs to govern transfers of personal data to third countries (in particular the U.S.) need to perform a transfer impact assessment (“TIA”) to assess whether the data importer can ensure that personal data will be subject to an essentially equivalent level of protection as under the GDPR in the jurisdiction to which the data is imported. Where the TIA concludes that the level of protection will not be essentially equivalent, the data importer must consider whether it can implement additional guarantees to safeguard the personal data and ensure that the level of protection for the personal data is raised. The TIA includes assessing whether third-party vendors can also ensure these guarantees. The same assessment is required for transfers governed by the IDTA. We are required to implement these new safeguards when conducting restricted data transfers under the GDPR and doing so will require significant effort and cost.

If we are investigated by a European or UK data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties, including bans on processing and transferring personal data. EU and UK data protection authorities have the power to impose administrative fines for violations of the GDPR of up to a maximum of €20 (£17.5) million or 4% of the data controller’s or data processor’s total worldwide global turnover for the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher, and violations of the GDPR may also lead to damages claims by data controllers and data subjects. An investigation by a European or UK data protection authority could be triggered by the authority acting of its own volition or by a complaint made to the authority by an individual data subject. Administrative fines are in addition to other corrective powers that an authority may exercise, e.g., orders to bring processing operations into compliance in a specified manner and within a specified time period or a temporary or permanent ban on processing activities. Such penalties are in addition to any civil litigation claims by data controllers, clients, and data subjects. As such, we will need to take steps to cause our processes to continue to be compliant with the applicable portions of the GDPR, but we cannot assure you that we will be able to implement changes in a timely manner or without significant disruption to our business, or that such steps will be effective, and we may face the risk of liability under the GDPR.

Although the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR currently impose substantially similar obligations, it is possible that over time the UK GDPR could become less aligned with the EU GDPR. The UK has also now introduced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (the “UK Bill”) into the UK legislative process with the intention for this bill to reform the UK’s data protection regime following the UK’s exit from the EU. If passed, the final version of the UK Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the UK and EU data protection regime and threaten the UK adequacy decision from the EU Commission. This may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk. An additional consequence of amendment to the data protection legal framework in the UK is that the UK would no longer be considered to provide an “adequate” level of protection for personal data and the European Commission adequacy decision in favor of the UK would be revoked. Such an action would remove the ability for data to flow freely between the EEA and the UK and would require that another appropriate safeguard is put in place for data transfers to continue in compliance with the EU GDPR.

Many jurisdictions outside of Europe where we may do business or conduct trials in the future are also considering and/or have enacted comprehensive data protection legislation. In addition, we also continue to see jurisdictions imposing data localization laws. These and similar regulations may interfere with our intended business activities, inhibit our ability to expand into those markets, require modifications to our products or services or prohibit us from continuing to offer services or conduct trials in those markets without significant additional costs.

Our computer systems, or those of our third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants, have in the past and may in the future suffer security breaches or fail, which may have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our computer systems and those of our current or future third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors and consultants have in the past and may in the future suffer security breaches or fail and are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Attacks on information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and they are being conducted by increasingly sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. In addition to extracting sensitive information, such attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. The prevalent use of mobile devices also increases the risk of data security incidents. If we experience a material system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our operations or the operations of third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors and consultants, it could result in significant reputational, financial, legal, regulatory, business or operational harm. For example, the loss of clinical trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed. Additionally, actual, potential or anticipated attacks may cause us to incur increasing costs, including costs to deploy additional personnel and protection technologies, train employees, and engage third-party experts and consultants. Further, it is possible that unauthorized access to our data may be obtained through inadequate use of security controls by suppliers or other vendors. We rely on such third parties to implement effective security measures and identify and correct any failures, deficiencies or breaches, and they may not always be successful in doing so. For example, we have been advised by one of our vendors that certain of our clinical data held by the vendor may have been accessed during a ransomware attack on the vendor’s systems.

Any failure or perceived failure by us or any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants to comply with our privacy, confidentiality, data security or similar obligations to third parties, or any data security incidents or other security breaches that result in the unauthorized access, release or transfer of sensitive information, including personally identifiable information, may result in governmental investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory fines, litigation or public statements against us. These events could cause third parties to lose trust in us or could result in claims by third parties asserting that we have breached our privacy, confidentiality, data security or similar obligations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations. Moreover, data security incidents and other security breaches can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm. Because the techniques used by computer programmers who may attempt to penetrate and sabotage our network security or our website change frequently and may not be recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques. While we have implemented data security measures intended to protect our information technology systems and infrastructure, there can be no assurance that such measures will successfully prevent service interruptions or data security incidents. Additionally, in the event of material failures, security breaches, cyberattacks or other related breaches of our computer systems or the computer systems of third parties with access to our data, our liability insurance may not be sufficient in type or amount to cover us against related claims.

Risks Related to the Separation and Distribution

We may not achieve some or all of the expected benefits of the Separation.

We may not be able to achieve the full operational, financial and strategic benefits expected to result from the Separation, or such benefits may be delayed or not realized at all. The Separation is expected to provide the following benefits, among others: (i) allowing us to focus exclusively on our business and distinct needs from those of the Former Parent, and pursue our own operational and strategic priorities and respond to trends, developments and opportunities in our target markets; (ii) reduce competition for capital allocation and (iii) more direct potential access to the capital markets as a standalone company.

These anticipated benefits are based on a number of assumptions and uncertainties, which may prove to be incorrect or incomplete and we may not achieve these and other anticipated benefits for a variety of reasons. As a standalone company, we may be more susceptible to market fluctuations and other adverse events than if we were still a part of the Former Parent; our business will be less diversified than the Former Parent’s business prior to completion of the Separation and the actions that have been required to separate the Former Parent’s and our respective businesses could disrupt our operations. If we fail to achieve some or all of the benefits expected to result from the Separation, or if such benefits are delayed, it could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

As an independent, publicly traded company, we may not enjoy the same benefits that we did as a part of the business of the Former Parent.

As an integrated company with the Former Parent, we were able to use the Former Parent’s size and purchasing power in procuring various goods and services related to the manufacture of our product candidates and to share economies of scope and scale in costs, employees, vendor relationships and customer relationships. Although the Former Parent will provide certain of these services for a specified time period pursuant to the transition services agreements we have entered into with the Former Parent this arrangement may not fully capture the benefits that have resulted from being integrated with the Former Parent and may result in us paying higher amounts than those allocated to us in the past for services provided on a centralized basis. As a separate, standalone company, we may be unable to obtain goods and services related to the manufacture of our product candidates at the prices and terms obtained prior to the Separation, which could impact our overall profitability. This could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows following the completion of the Separation.

We have a very limited history of operating as a standalone company and we expect to incur increased administrative and other costs by virtue of our status as an independent public company. Our historical combined financial information included in this report is not necessarily representative of the results that we would have achieved for the periods presented and may achieve as a separate, publicly traded company and should not be relied upon as an indicator of our future results.

Historically and through the date of the Separation, our business was conducted by the Former Parent. Our historical information provided in this report refers to our business as operated by and integrated with the Former Parent prior to the Separation. Our historical combined financial information through the date of the Separation included in this report is derived from the consolidated financial statements and accounting records of the Former Parent. Accordingly, the historical combined financial information included in this report may not reflect the operating results, financial condition or cash flows that we would have achieved as a separate, publicly traded company during the periods presented, or the financial results we will achieve in the future. In particular, our future financial results may vary from the historical combined financial information included in this report as a result of the following factors, among others:

Our financial condition and future results of operations will be different from results reflected in our historical financial statements included elsewhere in this report for periods prior to the Separation. As a result of the Separation, it may be difficult for investors to compare our future results to historical results or to evaluate our relative performance or trends in our business.

The Separation may result in disruptions to, and harm our relationships with, our strategic business partners.

Uncertainty related to the Separation may lead the suppliers, manufacturers, CROs, third-party manufacturers, and other parties with which we currently do business or may do business with in the future to terminate or attempt to negotiate material changes in our existing business relationships, or cause any of these parties to delay entering into business relationships with us or consider entering into business relationships with parties other than us. These disruptions could have a material and adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. The effect of such disruptions could be exacerbated by any delays in the completion of the Separation.

Our agreements with the Former Parent may not reflect terms that would have resulted from negotiations with unaffiliated third parties.

The agreements related to the Separation, including, among others, the separation agreement, the transition services agreements, the tax matters agreement and the employee matters agreement were entered into in the context of the Separation while we were still controlled by the Former Parent. Prior to the Distribution, the Former Parent effectively had the sole and absolute discretion to determine and change the terms of the Separation and the Distribution, including the terms of any agreements between the Former Parent and us. As a result, our agreements with the Former Parent may not reflect terms that would have resulted from negotiations between unaffiliated third parties in an arms-length transaction. For a more detailed description, see Note 1, Organization and Description of Business, in the notes to the consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report.

As we build our information technology infrastructure and transition our data to our own systems, we could incur substantial additional costs and experience temporary business interruptions.

We continue to install and implement information technology infrastructure to support our critical business functions, particularly in relation to areas outside the U.S., including collecting and storing proprietary and confidential data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information, systems relating to accounting and reporting, manufacturing process control, inventory control and trial and research data. We may incur temporary interruptions in business operations if we cannot transition effectively from the Former Parent’s existing transactional and operational systems and data centers and the transition services that support these functions as we replace these systems. We may not be successful in effectively and efficiently implementing our new systems and transitioning our data, and we may incur substantially higher costs for implementation than currently anticipated. Our failure to avoid operational interruptions as we implement the new systems and replace the Former Parent’s information technology services, or our failure to implement the new systems and replace the Former Parent’s services effectively and efficiently, could disrupt our business and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our ability to operate our business effectively may suffer if we do not, quickly and cost effectively, establish our own administrative and support functions necessary to operate as a standalone public company.

In connection with the Separation, we are creating our own financial, administrative, corporate governance, and public company compliance and other support systems, including for the services the Former Parent had historically provided to us, or we expect to contract with third parties to replace the Former Parent’s systems that we are not establishing internally. We expect this process to be complex, time consuming and costly. In addition, we are also establishing or expanding our own tax, treasury, internal audit, investor relations, corporate governance, and publicly listed company compliance and other corporate functions. These corporate functions fall beyond the scope of the operational service domains formerly provided by the Former Parent and will require us to develop new standalone corporate functions. We may need to make significant investments to replicate, or will need to outsource from other providers, these corporate functions to replace these additional corporate services that the Former Parent historically provided to us prior to the Separation. The Former Parent may continue to provide support for certain of our business functions, including financial, corporate, administrative and other support systems, after the Separation for a limited period of time, pursuant to the transition services agreements and certain other agreements we entered into with the Former Parent. Any failure or significant downtime in our own financial, administrative or other support systems or in the Former Parent’s financial, administrative or other support systems during the transitional period in which the Former Parent provides us with support could negatively impact our results of operations or prevent us from paying our suppliers and employees, executing business combinations and non-U.S. currency transactions, if required, or performing administrative or other services on a timely basis, which could negatively affect our results of operations.

Further, as a standalone public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not independently incur as part of the Former Parent. The provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and Nasdaq, have imposed various requirements on public companies. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain and periodically evaluate our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, we and our management will have to perform system and process evaluation and testing of our and their internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Although the Former Parent has historically tested its internal control over financial reporting on a regular basis, we have not previously done so as a standalone entity. Doing so for ourselves will require our management and other personnel to devote a substantial amount of time to establish these controls in order to comply with these requirements and will also increase our legal and financial compliance costs. In particular, compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act will require a substantial

accounting expense and significant management efforts. We cannot be certain at this time that all of our controls will be considered effective and our internal control over financial reporting may not satisfy the regulatory requirements when they become applicable to us.

The Former Parent may fail to perform under various transaction agreements that were executed as part of the Separation or we may fail to have necessary systems and services in place when certain of the transaction agreements expire.

In connection with the Separation, we and the Former Parent entered into a separation agreement and various other agreements, including transition services agreements, a tax matters agreement and an employee matters agreement. These agreements are discussed in greater detail in Note 1, Organization and Description of Business, in the notes to the consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report. Certain of these agreements provide for the performance of services by each company for the benefit of the other for a period of time after the Separation. We will rely on the Former Parent to satisfy its performance and payment obligations under these agreements. If the Former Parent is unable to satisfy its obligations under these agreements, including its indemnification obligations, we could incur operational difficulties or losses.

If we do not have in place our own systems and services, or if we do not have agreements with other providers of these services when the transaction or transitional agreements terminate, we may not be able to operate our business effectively and our profitability may decline. We are in the process of creating our own, or engaging third parties to provide, systems and services to replace many of the systems and services the Former Parent currently provides to us. We may not be successful in effectively or efficiently implementing these systems and services or in transitioning data from the Former Parent’s systems to our systems. These systems and services may also be more expensive or less efficient than the systems and services the Former Parent is expected to provide during the transition period.

In connection with the separation, we have assumed and agreed to indemnify the Former Parent for certain liabilities. If we are required to make payments pursuant to these indemnities to the Former Parent, we may need to divert cash to meet those obligations and our financial results could be harmed.

Pursuant to the separation agreement and certain other agreements we entered into with the Former Parent, we have assumed and agreed to indemnify the Former Parent for certain liabilities for uncapped amounts, which may include, among other items, associated defense costs, settlement amounts and judgments, as discussed further in Note 1, Organization and Description of Business, in the notes to the consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report. Payments pursuant to these indemnities may be significant and could harm our business, particularly indemnities relating to our actions that could impact the tax-free nature of the Separation and the Distribution and certain related transactions. Third parties could also seek to hold us responsible for liabilities of the Former Parent’s business. The Former Parent has agreed to indemnify us for liabilities of the Former Parent’s business, but such indemnity from the Former Parent may not be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, and the Former Parent may not fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from the Former Parent any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses ourselves. In addition, pursuant to the separation agreement and certain other agreements we entered into with the Former Parent, we have agreed to undertake certain obligations for the benefit of the Former Parent and its former employees who became employees of ours following the Separation. If we fail to comply with such obligations, we may be liable to the Former Parent. Each of these risks could harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The Separation may impede our ability to attract and retain key personnel, which could materially harm our business.

Our success will depend in large part upon the leadership and performance of our management team and other key employees. Operating as an independent company will demand a significant amount of time and effort from our management and other employees and may give rise to increased employee turnover. If we lose the services of members of our management team or other key employees, we may not be able to successfully manage our business or achieve our business objectives. Following the Separation, we will need to continue to attract and retain qualified key personnel in a highly competitive environment. Our ability to attract, recruit and retain such talent will depend on a number of factors, including the hiring practices of our competitors, the performance of our development programs, our compensation and benefits, work location and work environment and economic conditions affecting our industry generally. If we cannot effectively hire and retain qualified employees, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

Risks Related to Tax Matters

If the Separation and the Distribution from the Former Parent, in relevant part and together with certain related transactions, do not qualify as transactions that are tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain U.S. subsidiaries of the Former Parent and the Former Parent’s shareholders could be subject to significant tax liabilities, and we could be required to indemnify the Former Parent or its subsidiaries for material taxes pursuant to indemnification obligations under the tax matters agreement which we entered into with the Former Parent in connection with the Separation.

It was a condition to the Distribution that the Former Parent receive a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and an opinion from Goodwin Procter LLP, together confirming that the Separation and the Distribution, in relevant part and together with certain related transactions, subject to certain caveats, are tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), except for cash received in lieu of fractional ordinary shares. The Former Parent has received a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS addressing the qualification of the Distribution under Section 355 of the Code. However, the private letter ruling does not address all of the issues that are relevant to determining whether the Separation and the Distribution, in relevant part and together with certain related transactions, qualify as transactions that are tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The IRS private letter ruling and the opinion of Goodwin Proctor LLP are based, among other things, on various facts and assumptions, as well as certain representations, statements and undertakings from the Former Parent and us (including those relating to the past and future conduct of the Former Parent and us) and are subject to certain caveats. If any of these facts, assumptions, representations, statements or undertakings is, or becomes, inaccurate or incomplete, or if we or the Former Parent breach any of our respective covenants relating to the Separation, the IRS private letter ruling and any tax opinion may be invalid. Accordingly, notwithstanding receipt of the IRS private letter ruling and an opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP, the IRS could determine that the Separation and the Distribution, in relevant part and together with certain related transactions, should be treated as taxable transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes if it determines that any of the facts, assumptions, representations, statements or undertakings that were included in the request for such IRS private letter ruling or on which any such opinion was based are false or have been violated. In addition, an opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP represents the judgment of Goodwin Procter LLP, which is not binding on the IRS or any court. Accordingly, notwithstanding receipt by the Former Parent of the tax opinion and the IRS private letter ruling referred to above, the IRS could assert that the Separation and the Distribution and certain related transactions do not qualify for tax-free treatment for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

If the Separation and the Distribution, in relevant part and together with certain related transactions, fail to qualify as transactions that are tax-free under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code, in general, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain U.S. subsidiaries of the Former Parent would recognize taxable gain and the Former Parent’s shareholders who receive our ordinary shares in the Distribution would be subject to tax as if they had received a taxable distribution equal to the fair market value of such shares.

In connection with the Distribution, we and the Former Parent entered into a tax matters agreement pursuant to which we are responsible for certain liabilities and obligations following the Distribution. In general, under the terms of the tax matters agreement, if the Separation and the Distribution, in relevant part and together with certain related transactions, fail to qualify as transactions that are tax-free, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code, and if and to the extent that such failure results from certain actions, omissions or failures to act by the Former Parent, including a prohibited change of control in the Former Parent under Section 355(e) of the Code or an acquisition of the Former Parent’s shares or assets, then the Former Parent will bear any resulting taxes, interest, penalties and other costs. If and to the extent that such failure results from certain actions, omissions or failures to act by us, including a prohibited change of control in Mural under Section 355(e) of the Code or an acquisition of our shares or assets, then we will indemnify the Former Parent for any resulting taxes, interest, penalties and other costs. If such failure does not result from a prohibited change of control in the Former Parent or Mural under Section 355(e) of the Code and both we and the Former Parent are responsible for such failure, liability will be shared according to relative fault. If neither we nor the Former Parent is responsible for such failure, the Former Parent will bear any resulting taxes, interest, penalties and other costs. Our indemnification obligations to the Former Parent under the tax matters agreement are not limited in amount or subject to any cap. If we are required to pay any taxes or indemnify the Former Parent and its subsidiaries and their respective officers and directors under the circumstances set forth in the tax matters agreement, we may be subject to substantial liabilities.

We may not be able to engage in attractive strategic or capital-raising transactions following the Separation.

To preserve the tax-free treatment of the Separation and the Distribution for U.S. federal income tax purposes, for the four-year period beginning two years before and ending two years after the Distribution, we are prohibited under the tax matters agreement, except in specific circumstances, from certain actions, including: (i) entering into or approving any transaction involving the acquisition of outstanding or newly issued Mural equity that, when combined with other non-excepted changes in ownership of our ordinary shares, results in a change in ownership of more than a specified percentage; (ii) liquidating or partially

liquidating, or merging or consolidating (unless we are the survivor); (iii) making or changing any entity classification election; (iv) ceasing to be engaged in an active trade or business, or selling, transferring or disposing of more than a specified percentage of the assets of any active trade or business or reducing the number of full-time employees engaged in any active trade or business by more than a specified percentage; (v) amending any of our organizational documents or taking any action affecting the voting rights of our ordinary shares; (vi) redeeming or otherwise repurchasing any of our outstanding shares or options; or (vii) taking or failing to take any other action that would prevent the Separation and the Distribution, in relevant part and together with certain related transactions, from qualifying as transactions that are tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code, except for cash received in lieu of fractional ordinary shares. These restrictions may limit for a period of time our ability to pursue certain strategic transactions, equity issuances or repurchases or other transactions that we may believe to be in the best interests of our shareholders or that might increase the value of our business. For more information, see Note 1, Organization and Description of Business, in the notes to the consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report.

If we are a passive foreign investment company, there could be material adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders.

Under the Code, we will be a passive foreign investment company (a “PFIC”) for any taxable year in which (1) 75% or more of our gross income consists of passive income or (2) 50% or more of the average quarterly value of our assets consists of assets that produce, or are held for the production of, passive income. For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and certain rents and royalties. In addition, for purposes of the above calculations, a non-U.S. corporation that directly or indirectly owns at least 25% by value of the shares of another corporation is treated as holding and receiving directly its proportionate share of assets and income of such corporation. If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. holder holds our ordinary shares, the U.S. holder may be subject to material adverse tax consequences regardless of whether we continue to qualify as a PFIC, including ineligibility for any preferred tax rates on capital gains or on actual or deemed dividends, interest charges on certain taxes treated as deferred and additional reporting requirements.

It is uncertain whether we or any of our subsidiaries will be treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes for the year that includes the Distribution or any subsequent tax year. The determination of whether we are a PFIC is a fact-intensive determination made on an annual basis applying principles and methodologies that in some circumstances are unclear and subject to varying interpretation. Under the income test described above, our status as a PFIC depends on the composition of our income which will depend on the transactions we enter into in the future and our corporate structure. The composition of our income and assets is also affected by the spending of the cash we raise in any offering and the cash we have on our balance sheet as of immediately after the Distribution. Our PFIC status for our current and subsequent taxable years may also depend on whether we qualify for the PFIC start-up exception. Depending on the particular circumstances, the application of the start-up exception may be subject to uncertainty, and there cannot be any assurance that we qualify for the start-up exception. Absent the start-up exception, we believe it is likely that PFIC status could arise for the prior year tax period, in which case certain elections may be desired, as discussed herein, after consultation with your personal tax advisor or tax professional. Because PFIC status is based on our income, assets, and activities for the entire taxable year, we cannot make a final determination at this time as to whether we will be a PFIC for the current taxable year and our PFIC status may change from year to year.

In certain circumstances, a U.S. holder of shares in a PFIC may alleviate some of the adverse tax consequences described above by making either a “qualified electing fund” election under Section 1295 of the Code (a “QEF Election”) or a mark-to-market election (if our ordinary shares constitute “marketable” securities under the Code). However, a U.S. holder may make a QEF Election with respect to our ordinary shares only if we agree to furnish such U.S. holder annually with required information. If we determine we are a PFIC for any taxable year, upon written request by a U.S. Holder, we will endeavor to provide to a U.S. Holder such information as the IRS may require in order to enable the U.S. Holder to make and maintain a QEF Election, but there can be no assurance that we will timely provide such required information. There is also no assurance that we will have timely knowledge of our status as a PFIC in the future or of the required information to be provided. We urge U.S. holders to consult their tax advisors regarding the possible application of the PFIC rules, elections, and consequences in the event we are a PFIC and/or the start-up exception is determined not to apply in a later year.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares

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 ordinary shares less attractive to investors.

We qualify as an “emerging growth company”, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”). We may remain an emerging growth company until December 31, 2028, although if the market value of our ordinary

shares that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of any June 30 before that time or if we have annual gross revenues of $1.235 billion or more in any fiscal year, we would cease to be an emerging growth company as of December 31 of the applicable year. We also would cease to be an emerging growth company if we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. 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 addition, if we are a smaller reporting company with less than $100 million in annual revenue, we would not be required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

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

In addition, the JOBS Act permits an emerging growth company 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 not to “opt out” of the exemption for the delayed adoption of certain accounting standards, and therefore, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards at the time private companies adopt the new or revised accounting standards and will do so until such time that we either (i) irrevocably elect to “opt out” of such extended transition period or (ii) no longer qualify as an emerging growth company. As a result of this election, our consolidated financial statements may not be comparable to those of other public companies that comply with new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates. We may choose to early adopt any new or revised accounting standards whenever such early adoption is permitted for private companies.

The price of our ordinary shares could be subject to volatility related or unrelated to our operations.

Our share price is volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell their ordinary shares at an attractive price or at all. The market price for our ordinary shares may be influenced by many factors, including:

In addition, in the past, shareholders have initiated class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies following periods of volatility in the market prices of these companies’ shares. This risk is especially relevant for us because biopharmaceutical companies have experienced significant share price volatility in recent years. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our company, or if they issue unfavorable or inaccurate research regarding our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our ordinary shares relies, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts or their research. There can be no assurance that analysts will begin to cover us. There is also no assurance that any covering analysts will provide favorable coverage, and unfavorable coverage, or lack of favorable coverage, could cause our share price and trading volume to decline.

Future sales and issuances of our ordinary shares or rights to purchase ordinary shares, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our shareholders and could cause our share price to fall.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our shareholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell ordinary shares, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in the manner we determine from time to time. If we sell ordinary shares, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transaction(s), investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. These sales may also result in material dilution to our existing shareholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to our existing shareholders.

We have adopted an equity incentive plan pursuant to which we may grant stock options, restricted stock unit awards and other equity-based awards to our employees, directors and consultants. Any increase in the number of shares outstanding as a result of the exercise of outstanding options or the vesting or settlement of outstanding equity awards will cause our shareholders to experience additional dilution, which could cause our share price to fall.

Our business could be negatively affected as a result of the actions of activist shareholders.

Proxy contests and other actions by activist shareholders have been waged against many companies in the biopharmaceutical industry over the last few years. If faced with a proxy contest or other activist shareholder action, we may not be able to respond successfully to the contest or action, which could be disruptive to our business. Even if we are successful, our business could be adversely affected by any proxy contest or activist shareholder action involving us because:

These actions could cause the market price of our ordinary shares to experience periods of volatility.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our ordinary shares so any returns will be limited to the value of our shares.

We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any determination to pay dividends in the future will be at the sole discretion of our board of directors. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements that we may enter into may preclude us from paying dividends. Any return to our shareholders will therefore likely be limited in the foreseeable future to the appreciation of their shares.

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, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our ordinary shares.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the rules and regulations of Nasdaq. Our financial results historically were included within the consolidated results of the Former Parent, and prior to the Separation, we were not directly subject to reporting and other requirements of the Exchange Act and Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we will be exempt from Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires auditor attestation to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. We cannot predict if investors will find our ordinary shares less attractive because we may rely on the exemptions available to us as an emerging growth company. If some investors find our ordinary shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our ordinary shares and our share price may be more volatile.

We will be subject to Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requiring annual management assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting beginning with our second Annual Report on Form 10-K that we file with the SEC, and, as of the expiration of our emerging growth company status, we will be broadly subject to enhanced reporting

and other requirements under the Exchange Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These and other obligations will place significant demands on our management, administrative and operational resources, including accounting and information technology resources. To comply with these requirements, we anticipate that we will need to further upgrade our systems, including duplicating computer hardware infrastructure, implement additional financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures and hire additional accounting, finance and information technology staff. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costlier. If we are unable to do this in a timely and effective fashion, our ability to comply with our financial reporting requirements and other rules that apply to reporting companies could be impaired and our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed.

We may discover weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of our shares could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities.

An active trading market for our ordinary shares may not develop or be sustained and our shareholders may not be able to resell our ordinary shares that they hold.

Prior to the Distribution, there was no public market for our ordinary shares. We cannot predict the extent to which an active market for our ordinary shares will develop or be sustained, or how the development of such a market might affect the market price for our ordinary shares. As a result, it may be difficult for our shareholders to sell their ordinary shares at an attractive price or at all.

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, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank, Nasdaq listing requirements, 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 will need 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.

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

Pursuant to Section 404, in our second annual report due to be filed with the SEC, after becoming a public company, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company 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.

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

As a public company, 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 control over financial reporting, 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.

We may engage in strategic transactions that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management.

From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as acquisitions of companies, asset purchases and out-licensing or in-licensing of intellectual property, products or technologies. Additional potential transactions that we may consider in the future include a variety of business arrangements, including spin-offs, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. Any future transactions could increase our near and long-term expenditures, result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, including our ordinary shares, or the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, amortization expenses or acquired in-process research and development expenses, any of which could affect our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Future acquisitions may also require us to obtain additional financing, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all. These transactions may not be successful and may require significant time and attention of management. In addition, the integration of any business that we may acquire in the future may disrupt our existing business and may be a complex, risky and costly endeavor for which we may never realize any or all potential benefits of the acquisition. Accordingly, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any additional transactions of the nature described above, any additional transactions that we do complete could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Furthermore, for the four-year period beginning two years before and ending two years after the Distribution, we are restricted from entering into certain transactions pursuant to the tax matters agreement. For more information, see Note 1, Organization and Description of Business, in the notes to the consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report.

Risks Related to Our Jurisdiction of Incorporation in Ireland

Irish law differs from the laws in effect in the U.S. and might afford less protection to the holders of our securities, and any actual or potential takeover offer for us will be subject to the Irish Takeover Rules.

Holders of our securities could have more difficulty protecting their interests than would the shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction of the U.S. As an Irish-incorporated company, we are governed by Irish law, including the Irish Companies Act 2014 and the Irish Takeover Rules, which differs in some significant, and possibly material, respects from provisions set forth in various U.S. state laws applicable to U.S. corporations and their shareholders, including provisions relating to interested directors, mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and indemnification of directors. The duties of directors and officers of an Irish company are generally owed to the company only. Therefore, under Irish law, shareholders of Irish companies do not generally have a right to commence a legal action against directors or officers and may only do so in limited circumstances. Directors of an Irish company must act with due care and skill, honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company. Directors must not put themselves in a position in which their duties to the company and their personal interests conflict and must disclose any personal interest in any contract or arrangement with the company or any of our subsidiaries. A director or officer can be held personally liable to the company in respect of a breach of duty to the company.

In addition, our Constitution provides that the Irish courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine any and all derivative actions in which a holder of our ordinary shares asserts a claim in the name of the company, actions asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty of any of the company’s directors and actions asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of Irish law or our Constitution. Under Irish law, the proper claimant for wrongs committed against a company, including by the company’s directors, is considered to be the company itself. Irish law permits a shareholder to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of a company such as us only in limited circumstances and requires court permission to do so, meaning there is limited ability for any potential shareholder to bring a claim directly to the Irish courts and the requirement for court permission may discourage potential shareholders from bringing a claim.

Our Constitution however also provides that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the U.S. federal district courts of the U.S. shall be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any dispute asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act, or the respective rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. However, there is some uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such a provision and, in any event, our shareholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Additionally, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for U.S. federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. These provisions may limit, or increase the difficulty of, shareholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors and officers under the Securities Act and Exchange Act or may result in increased costs to bring a claim.

It may not be possible to enforce court judgments obtained in the U.S. against us in Ireland based on the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal or U.S. state securities laws. In addition, there is some uncertainty as to whether the courts of Ireland would recognize or enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained against us or our directors or officers based on the civil liabilities provisions of U.S. federal or U.S. state securities laws or hear actions against us or those persons based on those laws. We have been advised that the U.S. currently does not have a treaty with Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Therefore, a final judgment for the payment of money rendered by any U.S. federal or U.S. state court based on civil liability, whether or not based solely on U.S. federal or U.S. state securities laws, would not automatically be enforceable in Ireland.

In addition, any actual or potential takeover offer for our company will be subject to the Irish Takeover Rules. Under the Irish Takeover Rules, during the course of an offer or at any earlier time during which our board of directors has reason to believe that an offer for our company may be imminent, our board of directors will not be permitted to take any action, other than seeking alternative offers, which might frustrate the making of an offer for our ordinary shares unless we obtain approval from our shareholders or from the Irish Takeover Panel for such action. Potentially frustrating actions that are prohibited during the course of an offer, or at any earlier time during which our board of directors has reason to believe an offer is or may be imminent, include (i) the issuance of shares, options or convertible securities or the redemption or purchase of own shares, (ii) material acquisitions or disposals, (iii) entering into contracts other than in the ordinary course of business or (iv) any action, other than seeking alternative offers, which may result in frustration of an offer. Accordingly, if these restrictions become applicable to us, we may be unable to take, or may be delayed in taking, certain actions, in connection with a financing, commercial or strategic transaction or otherwise, that we believe are in the best interest of the company.

Transfers of our ordinary shares may be subject to Irish stamp duty.

Transfers of our ordinary shares effected by means of the transfer of book entry interests in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) will not be subject to Irish stamp duty. However, if you hold your ordinary shares directly, rather than beneficially through DTC, any transfer of your ordinary shares could be subject to Irish stamp duty (currently at the rate of 1% of the higher of the price paid or the market value of the shares acquired). Payment of Irish stamp duty is generally a legal obligation of the transferee.

We may, in our absolute discretion, pay (or cause one of our affiliates to pay) any stamp duty. Our Constitution provides that, in the event of any such payment, we (i) may seek reimbursement from the buyer, (ii) will have a lien against the shares acquired by such buyer and any dividends paid on such shares and (iii) may set-off the amount of the stamp duty against future dividends on such shares.

Our ability to obtain financing may be limited by the terms of our future financing arrangements and the provisions of Irish law.

Restrictions in future financing arrangements and mandatory provisions of Irish law may adversely affect our ability to obtain financing. Future debt agreements or other financing arrangements may include covenants that limit our ability to engage

in specified transactions, including prohibiting us from incurring additional secured or unsecured debt, paying dividends or redeeming equity securities. In addition, Irish law requires that our directors must have specific authority from shareholders to allot and issue new shares generally, or to issue new shares for cash to new shareholders without offering such shares to existing shareholders pro-rata to their existing holdings (including, in each case, rights to subscribe for or otherwise acquire any shares), even where such shares form part of our authorized but unissued share capital. Irish law also provides that, in the event of an actual or potential takeover offer being made for us, various actions, including issuing shares, options or convertible securities, material acquisitions or disposals, entering into contracts other than in the ordinary course of business or any action, other than seeking alternative offers, may be prohibited unless approved by our shareholders or the Irish Takeover Panel. These restrictions may prevent or delay us from taking actions that we believe are in our best interest or from obtaining financing on favorable terms, in adequate amounts or at all, which may adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.

There is no guarantee that we will seek or be able to create the distributable reserves needed to pay dividends.

While we currently do not intend for the foreseeable future to pay dividends, we may determine to pay dividends in the future, subject to applicable law. Under Irish law, dividends must be paid (and share repurchases must generally be funded) out of “distributable reserves,” which we do not have. However, we do have a significant amount of share premium. To create “distributable reserves,” we would need to undertake an Irish legal process pursuant to which we will convert up to our entire share premium account to “distributable reserves.” This process would require the approval of the High Court of Ireland and the approval of our shareholders. Although we do not currently plan to seek to create distributable reserves, if we later determine to do so, there can be no assurance that the High Court of Ireland would approve the creation of distributable reserves, as the issuance of the required order is a matter for the discretion of the High Court of Ireland, or that our shareholders would approve the creation of distributable reserves in the manner required. In the event that “distributable reserves” are not created, no distributions by way of dividends, share repurchases or otherwise will be permitted under Irish law until such time as we have created sufficient distributable reserves from our operating activities.

Irish law imposes restrictions on certain aspects of capital management.

Irish law allows our shareholders to pre-authorize shares to be issued by our board of directors without further shareholder approval for up to a maximum of five years. This authorization was contained in our Constitution at the time of the Distribution and will therefore lapse approximately five years after the Distribution unless renewed by shareholders and we cannot guarantee that such renewal will be approved. Additionally, subject to specified exceptions, including the opt-out that is included in our articles of association, Irish law grants statutory pre-emptive rights to existing shareholders to subscribe for new issuances of shares for cash. This opt-out also expires approximately five years after the Distribution unless renewed by further shareholder approval and we cannot guarantee that such renewal of the opt-out from pre-emptive rights will be approved. We cannot assure you that these Irish legal restrictions will not interfere with our capital management.

If a quorum is not present at a general meeting, decisions may be taken at an adjourned meeting by those shareholders in attendance, irrespective of their number.

Our Constitution provides that no business shall be transacted at any general meeting unless a quorum is present. Two or more shareholders present in person or by proxy holding not less than a majority of our issued and outstanding shares entitled to vote at the meeting in question constitute a quorum for such meeting. If a quorum is not present within an hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall (i) if convened by the shareholders, be dissolved, and (ii) if otherwise convened, be adjourned for one week and held at the same time and place (or such other place as the board of directors determines). If a quorum is not present within an hour of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting, the shareholders present shall constitute a quorum.

Our Constitution provides that our board of directors or the chairperson of our board of directors may determine the manner in which the poll is to be taken at each meeting and the manner in which the votes are to be counted.

A poll in respect of the election of the chairperson or on a question of adjournment shall be taken immediately. A poll in respect of any other question shall be taken within 10 days from the date of the meeting at which the vote was taken, as the chairperson of the meeting directs. Any business other than that on which a poll has been demanded may proceed. No notice is required in respect of a poll not taken immediately. The result of the poll shall be deemed to be the resolution of the general meeting at which the poll was demanded. On a poll, a shareholder entitled to more than one vote need not use all their votes in the same way.

While there is no requirement for a poll to be conducted in writing under Irish law, it is standard practice that polling papers are provided by a company. The proxy form issued with notice of the general meeting may include the option to cast a vote on a

poll. If supplied at the general meeting, polling papers are completed and put in a ballot box. The board of directors may also permit electronic or telephonic voting. If voting lists are used, generally three lists labeled “For,” “Against” and “Abstain” (or “Withheld”) are presented to the meeting and each shareholder signs the relevant list, and prints their name, whether they are voting as shareholder or proxy, and the number of votes cast.

General Risks

Unfavorable global economic or political conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or 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, in 2008, the global financial crisis caused extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital and credit markets, and, in recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant volatility and uncertainty in the U.S. and international markets. In addition, the current military conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and in the Middle East could disrupt or otherwise adversely impact our operations and those of third parties upon which we rely. Related sanctions, export controls or other actions that may be initiated by nations including the U.S., the EU or Russia (e.g., potential cyberattacks, disruption of energy flows, etc.), which could adversely affect our business and/or our supply chain, our CROs, third-party manufacturers and other third parties with which we conduct business. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, global conflict or political unrest could result in a variety of risks to our business, including weakened demand for our product candidates and our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption, or cause our customers to delay making payments for our services. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

Changes in tax law could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Department of Treasury. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our ordinary shares. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form or with what effective dates tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued, which could result in an increase in our or our shareholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law.

In addition, non-U.S. governments may enact tax laws in response to the changes in the rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation or otherwise that could result in further changes to global taxation and materially affect our financial position and results of operations or holders of our ordinary shares. The uncertainty surrounding the effect of the reforms on our financial results and business or on holders of our ordinary shares could also weaken confidence among investors.

We have broad discretion regarding use of our cash and cash equivalents, and we may use them in ways that do not enhance our operating results or the market price of our ordinary shares.

Our management has broad discretion in the application of our cash and cash equivalents. We could utilize our cash and cash equivalents in ways our shareholders may not agree with or that do not yield a favorable return, if any, and our management might not apply our cash and cash equivalents in ways that ultimately increase the value of our shareholders’ investments. If we do not utilize our cash and cash equivalents in ways that enhance shareholder value, we may fail to achieve expected financial results, which could cause our share price to decline.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity.

Risk Management and Strategy

We have certain processes for assessing, identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, which are included in our overall risk management program and designed to protect employee and patient information from unauthorized access or attack, as well as secure our networks and systems. Cybersecurity risks are also periodically reevaluated in additional detail based on our experience and on external information regarding emerging risks. To protect our information systems from cybersecurity threats, we use various security tools, tracking procedures and investigational procedures to identify, investigate, resolve potential security incidents in a timely manner. We also engage third-party vendors to assist with security management, incident detection and response.

We have adopted guidelines and processes, led by our information technology (“IT”) department, for preventing cybersecurity incidents and for assessing and responding to such incidents should they occur. These guidelines and processes, as well as our overall cybersecurity risk management, include consideration of cybersecurity threats associated with our use of third-party service providers. We also consider the internal risk oversight programs of our third-party service providers before engaging them in order to help protect us from any related vulnerabilities.

We do not believe that there are currently any known risks from cybersecurity threats that are reasonably likely to materially affect our company, including our business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. We do not believe that cybersecurity threats resulting from any previous cybersecurity incidents of which we are aware are reasonably likely to materially affect our company.

In an effort to deter and detect cybersecurity threats, we periodically provide all employees with a cybersecurity training and compliance program, which covers timely and relevant topics and educates employees on the importance of reporting immediately. We also use technology-based tools to mitigate cybersecurity risks and to bolster employee-based cybersecurity programs.

Governance

Our management is responsible for day-to-day risk management, while the audit committee of our Board of Directors has responsibility for the oversight of risk management, including overseeing the management of our risks from cybersecurity threats.

Our Vice President, Information Technology (“VP IT”) is responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining our processes and procedures for cybersecurity risk management and response. Our current VP IT has over thirty years of experience, which includes cybersecurity, information security, data protection, privacy, regulatory compliance and risk management within pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Any cybersecurity incidents are evaluated for potential impact and are reported, as appropriate to the severity, to our management, our Information Security Committee, our executive leadership and/or our board of directors. Our Information Security Committee, which is led by our VP IT and includes representatives from our IT, finance, and legal departments, meets regularly to review the incidence, impact assessment, and resolution of cybersecurity incidents, if any, and to assess evolving risks. Our Information Security Committee provides updates on cybersecurity incidents and responses and on cybersecurity risk management as needed and provides updates to executive leadership and to our Board of Directors.

Item 2. Properties.

On November 13, 2023, Alkermes, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alkermes, assigned to us an operating lease for approximately 180,000 square feet of corporate office space, administrative areas and laboratories located in Waltham, Massachusetts, which includes 34,000 square feet of laboratory space. Alkermes serves as the guarantor of the lease. The lease expires in 2026 and includes a tenant option to extend the term of the lease for an additional five-year period. 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 ordinary shares have been listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “MURA” since November 16, 2023. Prior to that date, there was no public market for our ordinary shares.

As of March 1, 2024, there were approximately 72 registered holders of our ordinary shares. This number does not include beneficial owners whose shares were held in “street name” by brokers and other nominees.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares and we do not intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We currently expect to retain any future earnings to fund the operation and expansion of our business.

Under Irish law, dividends and distributions (including by way of the payment of cash dividends or share repurchases) may be made only from profits available for distribution, or “distributable reserves” on our unconsolidated balance sheet prepared in accordance with the Irish Companies Act 2014. In addition, no distribution or dividend may be paid or made by us unless our net assets are equal to, or exceed, the aggregate of our share capital that has been paid up or that is payable in the future plus non-distributable reserves, and the distribution does not reduce our net assets below such aggregate. At this time, our unconsolidated balance sheet does not contain any distributable reserves and we do not have the ability to pay dividends (or make other forms of distributions) until we obtain approval of the High Court of Ireland to create distributable reserves or create distributable reserves as a result of the profitable operation of our business. At this time, we do not intend to seek approval to create distributable reserves, and therefore no distributions by way of dividends, share repurchases or otherwise will be permitted under Irish law until such time as we have created sufficient distributable reserves from our operating activities..

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The information required by this item is set forth in “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” and is incorporated herein by reference.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Item 6. [Reserved]

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

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the accompanying consolidated financial statements and related notes included in this annual report on Form 10-K. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve significant risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those set forth under “Risk Factors” appearing elsewhere in this report, our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements made by us, which speak only as of the date they are made. We disclaim any obligation, except as specifically required by law and the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), to publicly update or revise any such statements to reflect any change in our expectations or in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statements may be based, or that may affect the likelihood that actual results will differ from those set forth in the forward-looking statements.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage oncology business focused on discovering and developing immunotherapies that may meaningfully improve the lives of patients with cancer. By leveraging our core competencies in immune cell modulation and protein engineering, we have developed a portfolio of investigational cytokine therapies designed to address areas of unmet need for patients with a variety of cancers. Our lead product candidate, nemvaleukin alfa (“nemvaleukin”), is an investigational, engineered interleukin-2 (“IL-2”) cytokine designed to capture and expand the therapeutic benefits of high-dose recombinant human IL-2, while mitigating its hallmark toxicities. In our clinical proof of concept study, nemvaleukin generated durable responses as a single agent and in combination with pembrolizumab across a range of tumor types. Nemvaleukin is currently in two potentially registrational studies, the ARTISTRY-6 (Cohort 2) trial for the treatment of mucosal melanoma as a monotherapy and the ARTISTRY-7 trial for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (“PROC”) in combination with pembrolizumab. We expect to report topline overall survival results for the interim analysis from our ARTISTRY-7 trial in PROC in the first quarter of 2025, subject to reaching the required number of events for the analysis, and topline results from Cohort 2 in our ARTISTRY-6 trial in mucosal melanoma in the first half of 2025, subject to patient enrollment. We are also conducting the ARTISTRY-3 trial, a Phase 1/2 open-label study of IV nemvaleukin in patients with advanced solid tumors after treatment failure or intolerance to one to three prior FDA-approved targeted therapies. In addition to nemvaleukin, we are also developing engineered therapies targeting the interleukin-18 (“IL-18”) and interleukin-12 (“IL-12”) pathways, which have demonstrated therapeutic potential in third-party preclinical and clinical studies. We are currently conducting discovery-phase activities for our IL-18 and IL-12 programs, and we plan to nominate a product candidate in each program in 2024.

The Separation

On November 2, 2022, Alkermes plc (the “Former Parent” or “Alkermes”) announced its intent, as approved by its board of directors, to explore the separation of its neuroscience business and oncology business (the “Separation”).

In connection with the Separation, on November 13, 2023, we entered into certain agreements with the Former Parent to provide a framework for our relationship with the Former Parent following the Separation. These agreements include:

The separation agreement sets forth our agreements with the Former Parent regarding the principal actions to be taken by us and the Former Parent in connection with the Separation, including those related to the distribution of our ordinary shares to the Former Parent’s shareholders (the “Distribution”). The separation agreement identifies the assets transferred to, liabilities assumed by and contracts assigned to us, including the lease for our primary office and laboratory space (the “Winter Street Lease”), as part of the Separation, and provides for when and how such transfers, assumptions and assignments occurred. Under the terms of the separation agreement, the Former Parent granted us a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid-up license (or, as the case may be, sublicense) to any intellectual property controlled by the Former Parent as of the date of the Distribution, allowing us to use such intellectual property for the oncology business, and we granted the Former Parent a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid-up license (or, as the case may be, sublicense) to intellectual property transferred to us as part of the Separation for the Former Parent’s use outside of the oncology business. Each of us and the Former Parent agreed to releases with respect to pre-Distribution claims, and cross-indemnities with respect to post-Distribution claims, that are principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities allocated to us

under the separation agreement with us, and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities allocated to the Former Parent under the separation agreement with the Former Parent. We and the Former Parent are also each subject to mutual six-month employee non-solicitation and non-hire restrictions, subject to certain customary exceptions, and certain confidentiality restrictions and information sharing obligations.

The tax matters agreement governs our and the Former Parent’s respective rights, responsibilities, and obligations with respect to taxes (including taxes arising in the ordinary course of business and incurred as a result of any failure of the Distribution, together with certain related transactions, to qualify as tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes), tax attributes, the preparation and filing of tax returns, the control of audits and other tax proceedings, and assistance and cooperation in respect to tax matters.

The employment matters agreement, as amended in December 2023, governs our and the Former Parent’s rights, responsibilities, and obligations after the Separation with respect to employment, benefits and compensation matters relating to employees and former employees (and their respective dependents and beneficiaries) who are or were associated with the Former Parent, including those who became our employees in connection with the Separation. The employee matters agreement also specifies the allocation of assets and liabilities generally relating to employees, employment or service-related matters and employee benefit plans; other human resources, employment and employee benefits matters; and the treatment of equity-based awards granted by the Former Parent prior to the Separation to employees who became our employees in connection with the Separation.

Under the terms of the lease assumption agreement, we assumed all of the Former Parent’s obligations under the Winter Street Lease.

We and the Former Parent entered into two transition services agreements, pursuant to one of which the Former Parent and its subsidiaries agreed to provide, on an interim, transitional basis, various services to us, and the second of which we and our subsidiaries agreed to provide certain services to the Former Parent, in each case for a term of two years following the Separation, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the applicable agreement.

On November 14, 2023, in connection with the Separation, we received a cash contribution of $275.0 million from the Former Parent.

The Former Parent effected the Separation through the distribution of our ordinary shares of to the Former Parent’s shareholders (the “Distribution”) on November 15, 2023. As part of the Separation, on November 15, 2023, the Former Parent transferred the assets, liabilities and operations of the historical oncology business to us pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement, entered into between us and the Former Parent. Liabilities incurred prior to the Separation remained obligations of the Former Parent unless otherwise specified in the Separation Agreements. On the effective date of the Distribution, each Alkermes shareholder received one of our ordinary shares for every ten ordinary shares of Alkermes held as of the close of business on November 6, 2023, the record date for the Distribution. Registered shareholders received cash in lieu of any of our fractional ordinary shares that they would have received as a result of the application of the distribution ratio. As a result of the Separation and the Distribution, we operate as an independent, publicly traded company and commenced trading under the symbol “MURA” on the Nasdaq Global Market on November 16, 2023.

Our historical combined financial statements for the periods prior to the date of the Separation have been prepared on a standalone basis and are derived from the Former Parent’s consolidated financial statements and accounting records. Since the date of the Separation, we present our financial statements on a consolidated basis as a standalone publicly traded company.

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“GAAP”). See Note 2, Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, in the notes to our consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report for additional information on the preparation and basis of presentation of our consolidated financial statements. Our financial position, results of operations and cash flows historically operated as part of the Former Parent’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows prior to and until the Distribution. The consolidated financial statements may not be indicative of our future performance and do not necessarily reflect what our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows would have been had we operated as a separate, publicly traded company during the periods prior to the Separation. Our operating structure and capitalization have changed as a result of the Separation, and we expect them to continue to change as we establish operations as an independent company.

Components of Results of Operations

Prior to the date of the Separation, our operations were managed in the normal course of business as part of the Former Parent. Accordingly, certain shared costs were allocated to us and reflected as expenses in the historical consolidated financial statements, as described in greater detail in the notes to the consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual

Report. We considered the allocation methodologies used to be a reasonable and appropriate reflection of the historical Former Parent expenses attributable to us for purposes of the standalone financial statements. The expenses reflected in the historical consolidated financial statements may not be indicative of expenses that will be incurred by us in the future. The following discussion summarizes the key factors we believe are necessary for an understanding of our consolidated financial statements.

Revenue

Through December 31, 2023, we have not recognized any revenue and do not expect to generate substantial product revenue in the near future, if at all, as we do not currently have an approved product. If our development efforts for our product candidates are successful and result in marketing approval or if we enter into collaboration or license agreements with third parties, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales or payments from such collaboration or license agreements, or a combination of product sales and payments from such agreements.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development (“R&D”) expenses are recognized as incurred, and payments made prior to the receipt of goods or services to be used in R&D are capitalized until the goods or services are received. Our R&D expenses include both external and internal expenses. External R&D expenses include fees for clinical and non-clinical activities performed by contract research organizations (“CROs”), consulting fees and costs related to laboratory services, the purchase of drug product materials and third-party manufacturing development activities. Internal R&D expenses include employee-related expenses, occupancy costs and depreciation.

The amounts set forth in the tables below are not necessarily predictive of future R&D expenses. In an effort to allocate our R&D spending most effectively, we continually evaluate our product candidates under development based on the performance of such product candidates in preclinical and/or clinical trials, our expectations regarding the likelihood of their regulatory approval and our view of their future potential commercial viability, among other factors. For more information regarding risks related to future R&D expenses, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Discovery, Product Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates.”

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative (“G&A”) expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs for personnel, including share-based compensation and travel expenses for employees in executive, operational, finance, legal, business development, information technology, and human resource functions. Other G&A expenses include facility-related costs, professional fees for accounting, tax, legal and consulting services, directors’ fees and expenses associated with obtaining and maintaining patents. We recognize all G&A expenses as incurred. We expect G&A expenses to increase now that we operate as a standalone public company.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net consists primarily of interest income. We earn interest income from interest-bearing cash accounts and money market mutual funds, which we classify as cash and cash equivalents. We also record in other income (expense), net any gains and losses resulting from the revaluation of assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies due to changes in underlying exchange rates.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2023 and 2022

The following table sets forth our R&D expenses for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022: