Cogent Biosciences, Inc. (COGT) Business

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing precision therapies for genetically defined diseases. Our approach is to design rational precision therapies that treat the underlying cause of disease and improve the lives of patients. Our most advanced program is bezuclastinib, also known as CGT9486, a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is designed to potently inhibit the KIT D816V mutation as well as other mutations in KIT exon 17. In the vast majority of cases, KIT D816V is responsible for driving Systemic Mastocytosis (“SM”), a serious and rare disease caused by unchecked proliferation of mast cells. Exon 17 mutations are also found in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (“GIST”), a type of cancer with strong dependence on oncogenic KIT signaling. Bezuclastinib is a highly selective and potent KIT inhibitor with the potential to provide a new treatment option for these patient populations. We are developing bezuclastinib to treat patients living with Non-Advanced Systemic Mastocytosis (“NonAdvSM”), Advanced Systemic Mastocytosis (“AdvSM”) and GIST, and in 2025 we reported positive top-line results from registrational trials in each of these indications. We are building an internal commercial organization and expect to launch bezuclastinib commercially in the United State in the second half of 2026, pending regulatory approval. We also have an ongoing Phase 1 study of our novel internally developed FGFR2/3 inhibitor and have initiated a Phase 1 study of our CNS-penetrant, selective mutant ErbB2 inhibitor. In addition, the Cogent Research Team is developing a portfolio of novel targeted therapies to help patients fighting serious, genetically driven diseases targeting mutations in PI3Kα, KRAS and JAK2.

We have assembled a management team with extensive experience in the research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of pharmaceutical products, specifically including numerous successful precision medicines for genetically defined diseases. With the support of our board of directors and their expertise, we believe that the Company is well positioned to develop and commercialize novel precision medicines. Beginning with bezuclastinib, our mission is to develop and commercialize pharmaceutical products that improve the lives of patients fighting rare, genetically driven diseases.

Our Strategy

Our vision is to discover, develop, and commercialize best-in-class therapies that have a meaningful impact for patients with genetically defined diseases. The principal components of our strategy include:

•
Advance bezuclastinib toward regulatory approval and, if approved, commercialize the product in the United States and select international markets for patients with SM and GIST;

•
Evaluate potential collaborations, partnerships, and licensing opportunities that could enhance the value of our existing programs and enable us to leverage the capabilities of strategic partners, including in geographies where partners can provide local expertise or operational scale;

•
Explore the clinical utility of CGT4859, our selective and potent FGFR2/3 inhibitor, CGT4255, our CNS-penetrant, selective mutant ErbB2 inhibitor and CGT6297, our selective PI3Kα inhibitor; and

•
Advance our JAK2 and KRAS preclinical programs, as well as our other undisclosed preclinical programs.

7

Our Pipeline

Program Overviews

Bezuclastinib

Bezuclastinib is designed to target mutations within the KIT receptor tyrosine kinase, including KIT D816V. As a Type I inhibitor, bezuclastinib is designed to selectively bind the active conformation of mutant KIT. In preclinical studies, bezuclastinib has demonstrated comparable potency relative to other FDA-approved KIT mutant inhibitors, and clear selectivity for KIT mutations versus other kinase targets frequently associated with other KIT inhibitors including, but not limited to PDGFRα, PDGFRβ, VEGFR2, FLT3, CSF1R and KDR. In preclinical studies of bezuclastinib, limited blood-brain-barrier penetration was observed, and there have been no clinically significant CNS toxicities identified. This preclinical profile of selectivity against kinases that have been associated with off-target toxicities and limited blood-brain-barrier penetration differentiate bezuclastinib from other KIT mutant inhibitors, and support the potential for a best-in-class clinical profile.

We licensed the exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize bezuclastinib from Plexxikon Inc., a Daiichi Sankyo subsidiary (“Plexxikon”). Under the terms of the license agreement, Plexxikon received an upfront payment and is eligible for additional development and regulatory milestone payments along with mid- to high- single-digit royalty payments. We are developing bezuclastinib in both SM and GIST.

Bezuclastinib – SM

SM is driven by KIT D816V mutations causing a perpetual ‘on’ state within mast cells, a type of white blood cell, leading to proliferation and accumulation in various internal organs and bone marrow. Key biomarkers of SM include but are not limited to, elevated serum tryptase, high mast cell burden in bone marrow and the KIT D816V variant allele frequency. As a highly selective and potent KIT inhibitor, bezuclastinib has the potential to provide a new treatment option for patients with SM. SM occurs when mast cells inappropriately accumulate in various internal organs in the body. Approximately 90% of SM patients present with NonAdvSM and 10% of patients present with AdvSM, a rare and very aggressive form of SM. There are three subtypes of AdvSM: aggressive SM (“ASM”), SM with associated hematologic neoplasm (“SM-AHN”) and mast cell leukemia (“MCL”).

Based on the characteristics of bezuclastinib, we are pursuing development of the compound in both patients with AdvSM and patients with NonAdvSM, the vast majority of whom have a KIT D816V mutation. Emerging clinical data for other kinase inhibitors with activity against KIT D816V have shown that SM patients are highly sensitive to inhibition of the target. Bezuclastinib was specifically designed to selectively inhibit KIT mutations, including KIT D816V.

SUMMIT is our registration-directed randomized, global, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-part Phase 2 clinical trial for patients with NonAdvSM. The study is designed to explore the safety and efficacy of bezuclastinib in patients

8

with moderate to severe NonAdvSM, which includes Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis (“ISM”), Smoldering Systemic Mastocytosis (“SSM”) and Bone Marrow Mastocytosis. APEX is our registration-directed global, open-label, multi-center, Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with AdvSM evaluating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profiles of bezuclastinib.

We reported top-line results from our SUMMIT trial in July 2025 and full results in December 2025, as well as top-line results from our APEX trial in December 2025, all of which were positive and achieved all primary and key secondary endpoints. We submitted the first New Drug Application (“NDA”) for bezuclastinib in patients with NonAdvSM in December 2025 and expect to submit an NDA in the first half of 2026 for patients with AdvSM. In October 2025, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for bezuclastinib in NonAdvSM patients previously treated with avapritinib as well as in patients with SSM, both patient populations with no currently approved standard of care. The FDA and European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) have granted orphan drug designation to bezuclastinib for the treatment of Mastocytosis. In 2025, we initiated an expanded access program in the United States to allow eligible SM patients to receive investigational bezuclastinib prior to potential regulatory approval. Pending regulatory approval, we expect to launch bezuclastinib commercially in the United States in the second half of 2026 to treat patients with NonAdvSM.

Bezuclastinib – GIST

GIST is characterized by uncontrolled cell growth in the interstitial cells of the gastrointestinal (“GI”) tract. At diagnosis, about 80% of GIST patients’ tumors are the result of primary KIT mutations. Imatinib is the current standard of care for treating GIST patients in the first line setting, with a median progression free survival (“PFS”) of 19 months. However, the majority of GIST patients eventually develop resistance to imatinib due to secondary KIT mutations, most notably in exon 17 and exon 13. Bezuclastinib is designed to be a potent and selective inhibitor of KIT exon 17 mutations. Sunitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor known to inhibit KIT exon 13 mutations, is the current standard of care for treating patients in second-line GIST. By combining bezuclastinib with sunitinib, in this setting, we believe this combination has the potential to offer a new, active treatment option for imatinib resistant GIST patients.

PEAK is our randomized open-label, global Phase 3 clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of bezuclastinib in combination with sunitinib compared to sunitinib alone in patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic GIST who have received prior treatment with imatinib.

We announced positive top-line results from our PEAK trial in November 2025, which demonstrated a substantial and highly statistically significant clinical benefit on the primary endpoint of PFS. Median PFS was 16.5 months for the bezuclastinib combination vs. 9.2 months for sunitinib monotherapy, and the bezuclastinib combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 50% compared to sunitinib monotherapy. In January 2026, we announced that the FDA agreed to accept our NDA for bezuclastinib in combination with sunitinib for patients with GIST who have received prior treatment with imatinib under the Real-Time Oncology Review (“RTOR”) program, and shortly thereafter we initiated our NDA submission to FDA under this program. We expect to complete the GIST NDA submission in April 2026. In January 2026, the FDA also granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation (“BTD”) for bezuclastinib in combination with sunitinib for patients with GIST who have received prior treatment with imatinib. Bezuclastinib has been granted orphan drug designation for the treatment of GIST by the FDA and under the Orphan Drug Act and the EMA. Pending regulatory approval, we expect to launch bezuclastinib commercially in the United States in the second half of 2026 to treat second-line GIST patients.

In mid-2026, we expect to initiate a Phase 2 trial investigating the benefit of the bezuclastinib combination for first-line GIST patients with exon 9 mutations who are naive to, or recently initiated treatment with, imatinib.

In 2025, we initiated an expanded access program in the United States for patients affected with advanced, metastatic, and/or unresectable GIST, intolerant to or progressed on prior imatinib therapy, and who meet other inclusion and exclusion criteria.

In May 2024, we also announced the initiation of a Phase 2 clinical trial of bezuclastinib plus sunitinib in later line GIST patients that is being sponsored by the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration and in collaboration with The Life Raft Group and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The open label, single arm Phase 2 trial is designed to evaluate the mPFS as well as the safety and tolerability of bezuclastinib plus sunitinib in 40 patients with GIST who have previously progressed on sunitinib. This trial is focused on later line patients that were not eligible for PEAK and have limited treatment options.

CGT4859 (FGFR2/3)

9

We are building a pipeline of small molecule inhibitors, with our first efforts aimed toward targeting currently undrugged mutations in fibroblast growth factor receptor (“FGFR”). FGFR mutations are well-established oncogenic drivers in multiple diseases, but approved medicines fail to capture the full landscape of FGFR altered tumor types, with FGFR1-mediated hyperphosphatemia serving as the most common dose-limiting toxicity for pan-FGFR inhibitors. We are actively enrolling our Phase 1 study of CGT4859 in patients with tumors bearing FGFR2/3 mutations, including advanced cholangiocarcinoma. The trial will explore the safety, tolerability and clinical activity of escalating doses of CGT4859 with a goal of selecting an active and well tolerated dose for further clinical investigation. We expect to share clinical data from our Phase 1 study in 2026.

CGT4255 (ErbB2)

We are also advancing a novel, ErbB2 mutant program, which is focused on actionable and underserved mutations in a variety of solid tumor systemic and CNS involved indications. HER2 alterations such as amplification, overexpression, insertions, and point mutations, are established oncogenic drivers in many solid tumors. Activating HER2 mutations are found in 2-4% of advanced lung cancers and have emerged as mechanisms of acquired resistance to targeted therapies. Patients with HER2 mutant lung tumors develop more brain metastasis during treatment than patients with any other oncogenic drivers in lung cancer. Addressing brain metastasis in this group of patients remains a clinical challenge with limited therapeutic options. Approved HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors have inferior potency against key mutations and lack sufficient brain penetration to be an impactful treatment option for patients with brain metastasis. We received clearance from the FDA on our investigational new drug application (“IND”) submission for CGT4255 and initiated a Phase 1 dose escalation study in the fourth quarter of 2025.

CGT6297 (PI3Kα)

Our research team is also developing a potential best-in-class, wild-type-sparing, PI3Kα inhibitor that provides coverage of both the H1047R mutation as well as E542K and E545K helical mutants, which affects 30,000 cancer patients each year. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (“PI3K”) pathway is a key cell cycle regulating pathway that has an established role in tumor growth and development. PI3Kα mutations are highly prevalent in many solid tumors and are present in 36% of all breast cancer patients. The approved agents for these patients often lead to dose limitations, resulting from activity against wild-type PI3Kα. IND-enabling studies have been completed for CGT6297 and we submitted an IND application for this program in the fourth quarter of 2025. We expect to initiate a Phase 1 dose escalation in the first quarter of 2026.

Research Programs

The Cogent Research Team, based in Boulder, Colorado, is focused on pioneering best-in-class, small molecule therapeutics to expand our pipeline and deliver novel precision therapies for patients living with unmet medical needs. For KRAS and JAK2 we see opportunities to provide a more robust molecular response compared to existing therapies.

KRAS

Our research team is developing a potent and selective KRAS inhibitor. Mutations in KRAS are among the most prevalent mutations found in cancer, occurring most often in colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. We plan to submit an IND for this program in 2026.

JAK2

Our research team is developing a novel, wild-type-sparing, JAK2 V617F mutant-selective inhibitor. The JAK2 V617F mutation is the most prevalent molecular abnormality in BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms, occurring in approximately 95% of patients with polycythemia vera, and 50% of patients with essential thrombocythemia or primary myelofibrosis. We plan to submit an IND for this program in 2026.

10

Intellectual Property

One key to our success will be our ability to establish and maintain protection for our product candidates and know-how, in order to enforce and defend our intellectual property rights and to operate without infringing on the rights of others. We rely on our know-how, trade secrets and continuing technological innovation as well as on in-licensing of third-party intellectual property to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Our patent portfolio consists primarily of U.S. patents and foreign patents and patent applications that we in-licensed exclusively from Plexxikon, as well as additional patent applications we have filed on our own.

Bezuclastinib

With the acquisition of Kiq Bio LLC (formerly Kiq LLC) (“Kiq”) on July 6, 2020, we obtained an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to patents and applications owned by Plexxikon pursuant to a license agreement between Plexxikon and Kiq (the “License Agreement”). The licensed patents and applications under the License Agreement cover bezuclastinib, its therapeutic uses, and methods of making bezuclastinib and intermediates. These patents and applications include issued patents in multiple territories, including, but not limited to, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Europe (validated in Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, as well as various other EU countries), Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, and the United States. The pending applications also include patent applications pending in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States. The issued U.S. patents covering bezuclastinib and its therapeutic uses are expected to expire in 2033 and 2034, and the issued foreign patents covering bezuclastinib and its therapeutic uses are expected to expire in 2033, without consideration of potential patent term extensions. Patent applications covering methods of making bezuclastinib and intermediates could potentially provide exclusivity through at least 2041.

In addition, we own two patent families directed to bezuclastinib. The first patent family seeks to protect our optimized formulation of bezuclastinib, which could potentially provide exclusivity through at least 2043. As of December 31, 2025, this family has pending applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, and South Africa. The second patent family is directed to methods of administering bezuclastinib. As of December 31, 2025, this patent family has one pending U.S. provisional application. Any patents issuing from or claiming priority to this application would be expected to expire in 2046 without consideration of potential patent term extensions. We may seek to obtain rights under additional patent applications relating to bezuclastinib and its use to treat SM and GIST in the United States and in other countries as we proceed with this development program.

FGFR2/3

We own two patent families directed to inhibitors of FGFR2/3 mutations. A first patent family covers compositions of matter of certain inhibitors of FGFR2/3 and methods of use. As of December 31, 2025, this patent family has one issued U.S. patent, one pending U.S. application, and one pending international application. Any patents issuing from or claiming priority to these applications would be expected to expire in 2044 without consideration of potential patent term extensions. A second patent family covers compositions of matter of certain inhibitors of FGFR2/3 mutations and methods of use. As of December 31, 2025, this patent family has pending applications in the United States, Europe, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. Any patents issuing from or claiming priority to these applications would be expected to expire in 2044 without consideration of potential patent term extensions.

ErbB2

We own one patent family directed to inhibitors of ErbB2 mutations. This patent family covers compositions of matter of certain inhibitors of ErbB2 mutations and methods of use. As of December 31, 2025, this patent family has pending applications in the United States, Europe, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Africa. Any patents issuing from or claiming priority to these applications would be expected to expire in 2044 without consideration of potential patent term extensions.

11

KRAS

We own one patent family directed to inhibitors of KRAS mutations and related compounds. The patent family covers compositions of matter of certain inhibitors of KRAS mutations and methods of use. As of December 31, 2025, this patent family has one pending international application. Any patents issuing from or claiming priority to this application would be expected to expire in 2045 without consideration of potential patent term extensions.

PI3K

We own one patent family directed to inhibitors of PI3K mutations. This patent family covers compositions of matter of certain inhibitors of PI3K mutations and methods of use. As of December 31, 2025, this patent family has one pending international application. Any patents issuing from or claiming priority to this application would be expected to expire in 2044 without consideration of potential patent term extensions.

JAK

We own one patent family directed to inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK). This patent family covers compositions of matter of certain inhibitors of JAK and methods of use. As of December 31, 2025, this patent family has one pending international application. Any patents issuing from or claiming priority to this application would be expected to expire in 2045 without consideration of potential patent term extensions.

We are not currently a party to and have not been a party to any legal proceedings involving patent rights.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to protect our technology and product candidates, in part, by trade secret and confidentiality agreements with those who have access to our confidential information, including our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators, and advisors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States.

In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or may be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators, and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Moreover, we may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our or our licensors’ patents and other intellectual property. Disputes regarding ownership or inventorship of our or our licensors’ patents or other intellectual property can arise in various contexts, including collaborations and sponsored research. If we are subject to a dispute challenging our rights in or to patents or other intellectual property, such a dispute could be expensive and time consuming. If we are unsuccessful, we could lose valuable rights in intellectual property that we regard as our own.

For more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and products, please see the section on “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

12

Licenses and Third-Party Research Collaborations

License Agreement with Plexxikon Inc.

In July 2020, we obtained an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to certain patents and other intellectual property rights to research, develop, and commercialize bezuclastinib. Under the terms of the License Agreement, we are required to pay Plexxikon aggregate payments of up to $7.5 million upon the satisfaction of certain clinical milestones and up to $25.0 million upon the satisfaction of certain regulatory milestones. During the second quarter of 2022, as a result of the progression of the PEAK study, the first clinical milestone was achieved, resulting in payment of $2.5 million to Plexxikon in June 2022. In the fourth quarter of 2025, $5.0 million became payable upon the achievement of certain regulatory milestones and an additional $15.0 million may become payable in the next twelve months as a result of additional regulatory milestones.

We are also required to pay Plexxikon tiered royalties ranging from a low-single digit percentage to a high-single digit percentage on annual net sales of products. These royalty obligations last on a product-by-product basis and country-by-country basis until the latest of (i) the date on which there is no valid claim of a licensed Plexxikon patent covering a subject product in such country or (ii) the 10th anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of the product in such country. In addition, if we sublicense the rights under the License Agreement, we are required to pay a certain percentage of the sublicense revenue to Plexxikon ranging from mid-double digit percentages to mid-single digit percentages, depending on whether the sublicense is entered into prior to or after certain development and regulatory milestones.

The License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country and licensed product-by-licensed product basis until the later of the last to expire of the patents covering such licensed products or services or the 10-year anniversary of the date of first commercial sale of the licensed product in such country. Plexxikon may terminate the License Agreement within 30 days after written notice in the event of a breach of contract that remains uncured. Plexxikon may also terminate the License Agreement upon written notice in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation, or insolvency. In addition, we have the right to terminate the License Agreement in its entirety at will upon 90 days’ advance written notice to Plexxikon.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary drugs. While we believe that our technology, development experience, and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, 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. Any drug candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing drugs and new drugs that may become available in the future.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that address precision medicines for patients with genetically defined diseases. There are several other companies working to develop therapies in this field using a similar strategy. These companies include divisions of large pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies of various sizes.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

13

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any drugs that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we or our collaborators are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our drug candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Bezuclastinib, if approved for the indications for which we have completed or are completing pivotal and registration-enabling clinical studies and are pursuing regulatory approval, will compete with the drugs discussed below and with other therapies currently in development.

In SM approved therapies are limited. Blueprint Medicines' (a Sanofi company) avapritinib and Novartis AG’s midostaurin are approved for AdvSM patients with the KIT D816V mutation. Additionally, Novartis AG’s imatinib is approved for AdvSM patients without the KIT D816V mutation or mutational status unknown. Blueprint Medicines’ avapritinib has also been approved for the treatment of Non-AdvSM. We may also face competition from other drug candidates in preclinical or clinical development for SM.

In GIST, the current approved standards of care for unresectable or metastatic patients are Novartis AG’s imatinib in first-line, followed by Pfizer Inc.’s sunitinib in second-line upon imatinib progression, followed by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s regorafenib in third-line upon sunitinib progression, followed by Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC.’s, a member of Ono Pharmaceuticals, Co. Ltd (“Deciphera”) ripretinib in fourth-line for patients who have received three or more prior kinase inhibitors. We may face competition from the above and other drug candidates in preclinical or clinical development including, Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, and GSK plc.

In cholangiocarcinoma (“CC”), the only approved drugs for the treatment of FGFR related CC are Incyte’s Pemigatinib, and Taiho Pharma’s Futibatinib. We may face competition from other drug candidates in preclinical or clinical development including, Elevar Therapeutics Inc., TransThera Sciences (Nanjing), Inc., Tyra Biosciences Inc., Abbisko Therapeutics Co., Ltd., HutchMed (China) Limited and Amgen Inc.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not own or operate, and have no current plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to manufacture our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for future commercial supply of any drugs that we may commercialize. To date, we have obtained API and drug product from third-party manufacturers for bezuclastinib and our other drug candidates to support preclinical and clinical testing. We have obtained our supplies from these manufacturers on a purchase-order basis and are in the process of negotiating long-term supply arrangements. These agreements may require binding forecasts or commitments to purchase minimum amounts for the manufacture of drug product supply, which may be material to our consolidated financial statements.

Our drug candidates are compounds of low molecular weight, generally called small molecules. They can be manufactured from readily available starting materials in reliable and reproducible synthetic processes. The manufacturing process is amenable to scale-up. As we continue our clinical development of bezuclastinib, we expect to continue to enhance our manufacturing process to allow for drug candidates that are safer, more effective, have superior dosing regimens and are cost-effective.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local levels, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, product approval, manufacture, quality control, manufacturing changes, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, promotion, advertising, sales, distribution, marketing, and import and export of drugs and biologic products. Our current product candidates are expected to be regulated as drugs. The processes for obtaining regulatory approval in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities both pre- and post-commercialization, are a significant factor in the production and marketing of our products and our research and development activities and require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

14

Review and Approval of Drugs in the United States

In the United States, the FDA and other government entities regulate drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as other federal and state statutes and regulations. Failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements in the United States at any time during the product development process, approval process, or after approval, may subject us to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as a delay in approving or refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of approvals, delay or suspension of clinical trials, issuance of warning letters and other types of regulatory letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil monetary penalties, refusals of or debarment from government contracts, exclusion from the federal healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement of profits, civil or criminal investigations by the FDA, U.S. Department of Justice, State Attorneys General, and/or other agencies, False Claims Act suits and/or other litigation, and/or criminal prosecutions.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug in the United States must typically undertake the following:

•
completion of preclinical laboratory tests, which may include animal and in vitro studies, and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice (“GLP”) regulations;

•
submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective without FDA objection before human clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made;

•
approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated;

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

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practice (“GCP”) regulations, to establish the safety and effectiveness of the proposed drug product for each indication for which approval is sought;

•
preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA;

•
satisfactory review of the NDA by an FDA advisory committee, where applicable;

•
satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug product, and the active pharmaceutical ingredient or ingredients thereof, are produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“GMP”) regulations and to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to ensure the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity;

•
payment of user fees, as applicable, and securing FDA approval of the NDA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States; and

•
compliance with any post-approval requirements, such as any Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”) or post-approval studies required by the FDA.

Preclinical Studies and an IND

Preclinical studies can include in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and, in some cases, to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. Other studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity, stability and physical form of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the physical properties, stability and reproducibility of the formulated drug or drug product. In April 2025, the FDA published a roadmap to reduce animal testing in preclinical safety studies, including those required in INDs, with scientifically validated new approach methodologies (“NAMs”). An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing, such as longer-term toxicity testing, animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to a proposed clinical trial and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

15

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may place a clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.

Human Clinical Studies in Support of an NDA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations.

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

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

Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.

Phase 2: The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

Phase 3: The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites in late-stage clinical trials to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensure, including that the study was conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and use of proper procedures for obtaining informed consent from subjects, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the FDA deems such inspection necessary. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies.

16

Submission of an NDA to the FDA

Assuming successful completion of required clinical testing and other requirements, the results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug product for one or more indications. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to an application user fee, currently approximately $4.3 million for fiscal year 2025, for applications requiring clinical data, and the sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, currently approximately $0.4 million for fiscal year 2025. These fees are adjusted annually.

Under certain circumstances, the FDA will waive the application fee for the first human drug application that a small business, defined as a company with less than 500 employees, including employees of affiliates, submits for review. An affiliate is defined as a business entity that has a relationship with a second business entity if one business entity controls, or has the power to control, the other business entity, or a third-party controls, or has the power to control, both entities. In addition, an application to market a prescription drug product that has received orphan designation is not subject to a prescription drug user fee unless the application includes an indication for other than the rare disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or for which there is no reasonable expectation that U.S. sales will be sufficient to recoup the development and production costs.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of an NDA within 60 days of its receipt and informs the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date of filing, and most applications for “priority review” products are meant to be reviewed within six months of filing. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with GMP requirements and adequate to ensure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with current GCP.

The FDA also may require submission of a REMS plan to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools.

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

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

17

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. After approval, the FDA may seek to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. Some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Expedited Review and Accelerated Approval Programs

A sponsor may seek approval of its product candidate under programs designed to accelerate the FDA’s review and approval of NDAs. For example, Fast Track Designation may be granted to a drug intended for treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and data demonstrate its potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. The key benefits of Fast Track Designation are the eligibility for priority review, rolling review (submission of portions of an application before the complete marketing application is submitted), and accelerated approval, if relevant criteria are met. The FDA may grant the NDA a priority review designation, which sets the target date for FDA action on the application at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review is granted where there is evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious condition. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

The FDA may approve an NDA under the accelerated approval program if the drug treats a serious condition, provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies, and demonstrates an effect on either (1) a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or (2) on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Post-marketing studies or completion of ongoing studies after marketing approval are generally required to verify the drug’s clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA may require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. The FDA also has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a product or indication approved under accelerated approval if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

In addition, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, established the Breakthrough Therapy Designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of its product candidate as a breakthrough therapy if the drug is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life- threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If a drug is designated as breakthrough therapy, FDA will provide more intensive guidance on the drug development program and expedite its review.

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. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

18

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented.

FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

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

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

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

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

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

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant criminal and civil liability.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (commonly referred to as the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”) amending the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) to the agency. Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates that the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (“RLD”), and it assigns a therapeutic equivalence rating to the approved generic drug in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider the therapeutic equivalence rating to mean that a generic drug is fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of a therapeutic equivalence rating often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

19

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of nonpatent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of data exclusivity for NDAs containing a new chemical entity. In cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification (discussed further below), in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval. The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30 Month Stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or a method of using the product. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

505(b)(2) New Drug Applications

As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of products previously approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant, and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness is scientifically and legally appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical studies or clinical trials of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional bridging studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the previously approved reference drug. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the reference drug has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

To the extent that a Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. As a result, approval of a 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

20

U.S. Data Privacy and Security Laws

There are numerous U.S. federal, state, and local laws and regulations, as well as foreign legislation, in particular in the EU and UK, which regulate personal information, including health-related information and how that information may be used, processed, and disclosed. These regulations also cover sensitive and confidential personal information, including medical and health information, and impose requirements on entities that handle such information to implement certain privacy and security measures. We and/or our partners may be subject to these laws.

In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information and could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners.

For example, at the federal level, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH Act”), and their respective implementing regulations impose data privacy, security, and breach notification obligations on certain health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates and their covered subcontractors that perform certain services that involve using, disclosing, creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting individually identifiable protected health information (“PHI”) for or on behalf of such covered entities. These requirements imposed by HIPAA and the HITECH on covered entities and business associates include entering into agreements that require business associates protect PHI provided by the covered entity against improper use or disclosure, among other things; following certain standards for the privacy of PHI, which limit the disclosure of a patient’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition or information about a patient’s receipt of health care if the information identifies, or could reasonably be used to identify, the individual; ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all PHI created, received, maintained, or transmitted in electronic form, to identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats or impermissible uses or disclosures to the security and integrity of such PHI; and reporting of breaches of PHI to individuals and regulators.

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

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

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

21

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

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

Review and Approval of Drug Products in the European Union and United Kingdom

In order to market any pharmaceutical product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, safety, efficacy, labeling, clinical trials, marketing authorization, packaging, storage, record keeping, reporting, export and import, advertising, marketing and other promotional practices involving pharmaceutical products, as well as commercial sales, distribution, authorization, approval and post-approval monitoring and reporting of our products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a pharmaceutical product, the Company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the pharmaceutical product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

The United Kingdom (“UK”) formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and EU laws now only apply to the UK in respect of Northern Ireland as laid out in the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. The EU and the UK agreed on a trade and cooperation agreement (“TCA”), which includes provisions affecting the life sciences sector (including on customs and tariffs). There are some specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, including the mutual recognition of GMP and issued GMP documents. The TCA does not, however, contain wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations and product standards.

The UK government has enacted the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. The purpose of the act is to enable the existing regulatory frameworks in relation to human medicines, clinical trials of human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices to be updated. The powers under the act may only be exercised in relation to specified matters and must safeguard public health.

The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 supplements the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (“UK Regulations”), which are based on the EU Medical Devices Directive as amended to reflect the UK’s post-Brexit regulatory regime. Notably, the UK Regulations do not include any of the revisions that have been made by the EU Medical Devices Regulation (EU) 2017/745, which, since May 26, 2021, now applies in all EU Member States.

22

The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency conducted a comprehensive consultation in 2021 on proposals to develop a new UK regime for medical devices in the UK. The proposals include more closely aligning definitions for medical devices and in vitro medical devices with internationally recognized definitions and changing the classification of medical devices according to levels or risk. The proposals are intended to improve patient and public safety and increase the appeal of the UK market. Core aspects of the new regime are planned to come into force on July 1, 2025, with strengthened post-market surveillance proposals to be introduced in advance of such date.

Under the Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2023, CE marked European medical devices will continue to be accepted for sale in the UK until 2028 or 2030 (depending on the type of device).

Drug Development Process

The conduct of clinical trials is currently governed by the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, or Clinical Trials Directive, and will be replaced by the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (“CTR”) once the latter comes into effect. The CTR introduces a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU. It entered into force on January 31, 2022. Under the current regime, which will expire after a transition period of one or three years, respectively, as outlined below in more detail, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each EU Member State where there is a site at which the trial is to be conducted. The approval must be obtained from two separate entities: the National Competent Authority (“NCA”) and one or more Ethics Committees. The NCA of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial will be conducted must authorize the conduct of the trial, and the independent Ethics Committee must grant a positive opinion in relation to the conduct of the clinical trial in the relevant EU Member State before the commencement of the trial. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be submitted to or approved by the relevant NCA and Ethics Committees. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the NCA and to the Ethics Committees of the EU Member State where they occur.

Under the new CTR, a sponsor is able to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial through a centralized EU clinical trials portal (the Clinical Trials Information System or “CTIS”). One national regulatory authority (the reporting EU Member State proposed by the applicant) will take the lead in validating and evaluating the application consult and coordinate with the other concerned Member States. If an application is rejected, it may be amended and resubmitted through the EU clinical trials portal. If an approval is issued, the sponsor may start the clinical trial in all concerned Member States. However, a concerned EU Member State may in limited circumstances declare an “opt-out” from an approval and prevent the clinical trial from being conducted in such Member State. The CTR also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting, and introduces enhanced transparency requirements such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial results to the EU database, including a layperson’s summary. For one year, until January 31, 2023, clinical trial sponsors can still choose whether to submit an initial clinical trial application in line with the current system (Clinical Trials Directive) or via CTIS. Since January 31, 2023, submission of initial clinical trial authorization applications (“CTAs”) via CTIS is mandatory and CTIS serves as the single-entry point for submission of clinical trial-related information and data. By January 31, 2025, all ongoing trials approved under the current Clinical Trials Directive will need to comply with the CTR and have to be transitioned to CTIS.

Under the CTR, national laws, regulations, and the applicable GCP and GLP standards must also be respected during the conduct of the trials, including the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on GCP and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the National Competent Authority and to the Ethics Committees of the EU member state where they occur.

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

23

Marketing Authorization Procedures

In the EU and in Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein (together the European Economic Area or “EEA”), after completion of all required clinical testing, pharmaceutical products may only be placed on the market after obtaining a Marketing Authorization (“MA”). To obtain an MA of a drug under European Union regulatory systems, an applicant can submit a MAA through, amongst others, a centralized or decentralized procedure.

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

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

The decentralized procedure permits companies to file identical MA applications for a medicinal product to the competent authorities in various EU Member States simultaneously if such medicinal product has not received marketing approval in any EU Member State before. This procedure is available for pharmaceutical products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. The competent authority of a single EU Member State, known as the reference EU Member State, is appointed to review the application and provide an assessment report. Under this procedure, an applicant submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labeling and package leaflet, to the reference EU Member State and concerned EU Member States. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Subsequently each concerned EU Member State must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

If an EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the EC, whose decision is binding for all EU Member States.

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

24

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

On April 26, 2023, the EC submitted a proposal for the reform of the European pharmaceutical legislation and negotiations are still ongoing. The timing for finalization of these negotiations and entry into force are unclear.

The current drafts envisage:

•
a shortening of the periods of data exclusivity from eight to six years (with transferable vouchers for an additional year of market protection as an incentive for the development of new antibiotics),

•
earlier regulatory guidance and extension of market exclusivity for orphan medicines (depending on certain conditions),

•
four-year data exclusivity for additional indications of existing products, and

•
rules governing the availability of products (including shortage prevention plans and some supply obligations for manufacturers).

Data and Market Exclusivity in the European Union

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

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

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

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

25

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

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

The EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products reassesses the orphan drug designation of a product in parallel with the review for a marketing authorization; for a product to benefit from market exclusivity it must maintain its orphan drug designation at the time of marketing authorization review by the EMA and approval by the EC. Additionally, any marketing authorization granted for an orphan medicinal product must only cover the therapeutic indication(s) that are covered by the orphan drug designation. Upon the grant of a marketing authorization, orphan drug designation provides up to ten years of market exclusivity in the orphan indication.

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

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

In the UK, following the post-Brexit transition period, a system for incentivizing the development of orphan medicines was introduced. Overall, the requirements for orphan designation largely replicate the requirements in the EU and the benefit of market exclusivity has been retained. Products with an orphan designation in the EU can be considered for an orphan MA in Great Britain and, marketing authorizations granted for products that fulfil UK orphan criteria are valid UK-wide regardless of whether there is an EU orphan designation. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) will review applications for orphan designation at the time of a MA, and will offer incentives, such as market exclusivity and full or partial refunds for MA fees to encourage the development of medicines in rare diseases. Separately, the MHRA has stated that it is considering updating its licensing framework for orphan medicines, with a draft framework expected by spring 2026.

26

Pediatric Development

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

In the UK, the MHRA has published guidance on the procedures for UK Paediatric Investigation Plans (“PIPs”) which, where possible, mirror the submission format and requirements of the EU system. From January 1, 2025, EU pediatric requirements are addressed via Windsor Framework categorization: for Category 2 products, both UK and EU pediatric requirements apply, and an EU-agreed PIP must also be in place (unless waived).

PRIME Designation

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small-and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies on the basis of compelling non-clinical data and tolerability data from initial clinical trials. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, once a candidate medicine has been selected for the PRIME scheme, a dedicated contact point and rapporteur from the CHMP or from CAT are appointed facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting with the CHMP/CAT rapporteur initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts to provide guidance on the overall development plan and regulatory strategy. PRIME eligibility does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that any such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval.

Post-Approval Regulation

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

Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to comply with EU laws and the related national laws of the individual EU Member States governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of pharmaceutical products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

27

The holder of a MA for a medicinal product must also comply with EU pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines, which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products.

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

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

The manufacturing process for pharmaceutical products in the European Union is highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC (repealed by Directive 2017/1572 on January 31, 2022), Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice. These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the European Union with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the European Union. Amendments or replacements of at least Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 are part of the reform proposal for European pharmaceutical legislation.

Similarly, the distribution of pharmaceutical products into and within the European Union is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU Member States. The manufacturer or importer must have a qualified person who is responsible for certifying that each batch of product has been manufactured in accordance with GMP, before releasing the product for commercial distribution in the European Union or for use in a clinical trial. Manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic inspections by the competent authorities for compliance with GMP.

On October 27, 2025, the Council of the European Union approved a framework for compulsory licensing of crisis-relevant products (including medicinal products) in crisis situations. While the proposal focuses on voluntary agreements with intellectual property rights holders, it includes rules on compulsory licensing as a measure of last resort upon activation / declaration of a crisis or emergency mode. The European Parliament has not yet voted on the proposal.

28

Advertising and Promotion

The advertising and promotion of our products is also subject to EU laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other national legislation of individual EU Member States may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products and may differ from one country to another. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s SmPC as approved by the competent regulatory authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the marketing authorization granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved SmPC and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the European Union could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on its promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

Pricing and Reimbursement Environment

Even if a pharmaceutical product obtains a marketing authorization in the European Union, there can be no assurance that reimbursement for such product will be secured on a timely basis or at all. The EU Member States are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the pharmaceutical product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms.

Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates, if any, to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, pharmaceutical products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally published and actual prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payers or authorities and public tenders may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries.

The so-called health technology assessment (“HTA”), of pharmaceutical products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Sweden. The HTA process, which is governed by the national laws of these countries, is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact, and the economic and societal impact of use of a given pharmaceutical product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. HTA generally focuses on the clinical efficacy and effectiveness, safety, cost, and cost-effectiveness of individual pharmaceutical products as well as their potential implications for the healthcare system. Those elements of pharmaceutical products are compared with other treatment options available on the market. The outcome of HTA regarding specific pharmaceutical products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to pharmaceutical products by the regulatory authorities of individual EU Member States. A negative HTA of one of our products by a leading and recognized HTA body could not only undermine our ability to obtain reimbursement for such product in the EU Member State in which such negative assessment was issued, but also in other EU Member States. For example, EU Member States that have not yet developed HTA mechanisms could rely to some extent on the HTA performed in other countries with a developed HTA framework, when adopting decisions concerning the pricing and reimbursement of a specific pharmaceutical product.

29

On January 31, 2018, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on health technology assessment. This legislative proposal is intended to boost EU level cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new pharmaceutical products, and providing the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The proposal provides that EU Member States will be able to use common HTA tools, methodologies and procedures across the European Union, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. While EU Member States could choose to delay participation in the joint work until three years after the rules enter into force, it will become mandatory after six years. The European Commission has stated that the role of the HTA regulation is not to influence pricing and reimbursement decisions in the individual EU Member States, but there can be no assurance that the HTA regulation will not have effects on pricing and reimbursement decisions. The HTA entered into force on January 11, 2022 and applies as of January 2025 followed by a further three-year transitional period during which EU member states must fully adapt to the new system.

To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, including the EU Member States, we may be required to conduct studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other therapies that are considered the local standard of care. There can be no assurance that any country will allow favorable pricing, reimbursement and market access conditions for any of our products, or that we will be feasible to conduct additional cost-effectiveness studies, if required.

In certain of the EU Member States, pharmaceutical products that are designated as orphan pharmaceutical products may be exempted or waived from having to provide certain clinical, cost-effectiveness and other economic data in connection with their filings for pricing/reimbursement approval.

European Data Privacy and Security Laws

The processing of personal data, including health-related personal data in the EEA is mainly governed by the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”), and related data protection laws in individual EEA countries.

In the UK, the processing of personal data is mainly governed by the GDPR as incorporated into UK law pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the UK GDPR). The GDPR and UK GDPR impose a number of strict obligations and requirements for the processing, including collecting, analyzing and transferring, of personal data of individuals in the EEA or in the UK, in particular with respect to health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR and UK GDPR include requirements relating to the legal basis of the processing (such as obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates), the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data, the personal data breaches which may have to be notified to the national data protection authorities and data subjects, the measures to be taken when engaging processors, and obligations relating to the security and confidentiality of the personal data. EEA countries may also impose additional requirements in relation to the processing of health, genetic and biometric data through their national legislation.

30

In addition, the GDPR imposes specific restrictions on the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EEA that are not considered by the European Commission to provide an adequate level of data protection. Appropriate safeguards are required to enable such transfers. Among the appropriate safeguards that can be used, the data exporter may use the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) adopted by the European Commission. When relying on the appropriate safeguards, data exporters, with the assistance of the data importers, are also required to conduct a transfer risk assessment to verify if anything in the law and/or practices of the third country to which the data is being transferred may impinge on the effectiveness of the safeguards in the context of the transfer at stake and, if so, to identify and adopt supplementary measures that are necessary to bring the level of protection of the transferred data to the EU standard of ‘essential equivalence’. Where no supplementary measure is suitable, the data exporter should avoid, suspend or terminate the transfer. With regard to the transfer of data from the EEA, UK and Switzerland to the United States, the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF), UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and Swiss-U.S. DPF were developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission, UK Government, and Swiss Federal Administration respectively, to provide U.S. organizations with reliable mechanisms for the transfer of personal data from the EU, UK, and Switzerland to the U.S., while ensuring data protection that is consistent with EU, UK, and Swiss law. With regard to the transfer of data from the EU to the UK, personal data may freely flow from the EEA to the UK since the UK is deemed to have an adequate data protection level. However, the adequacy decisions include a ‘sunset clause’ which entails that the decisions will automatically expire four years after their entry into force, unless renewed.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR or UK GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA countries may result in significant monetary fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or £17.5 million (as applicable), 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover (for higher-tier infringements). This is enforced by ICO and is entirely separate from fines under EU GDPR. In addition, violations of national laws can trigger additional administrative penalties, investigations, corrective orders, temporary or definitive bans, and, in some jurisdictions, and a number of criminal offenses for organizations and in certain cases their directors and officers as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose personal data was processed. Data protection authorities from the different EU Member States may still implement certain variations, enforce the GDPR and national data protection laws differently, and introduce additional national regulations and guidelines, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data in the EU.

Furthermore, there are specific requirements relating to processing health data from clinical trials, including public disclosure obligations provided in the new EU CTR, EMA disclosure initiatives and voluntary commitments by industry. Failure to comply with these obligations could lead to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, harm to our reputation, and adversely impact our business and operating results. On February 2, 2022, the UK Secretary of State laid before the UK Parliament the international data transfer agreement (“IDTA”) and the international data transfer addendum to the EC’s standard contractual clauses for international data transfers (“UK Addendum”) and a document setting out transitional provisions. The IDTA and UK Addendum came into force on March 21, 2022 and are the primary UK-approved mechanisms for putting in place appropriate safeguards for UK restricted transfers, subject to transitional arrangements for legacy SCCs. With regard to the transfer of data from the UK to the U.S., the UK government has adopted an adequacy decision for the US, the UK-US Data Bridge, which came into force on October 12, 2023. The UK-US Data Bridge recognizes the U.S. as offering an adequate level of data protection where the transfer is to a U.S. company participating in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and its UK Extension.

Promotional Activities

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

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

31

In the UK, the pharmaceutical sector is recognized as being particularly vulnerable to corrupt practices, some of which fall within the scope of the Bribery Act 2010. Due to the Bribery Act 2010’s far-reaching territorial application, the potential penalized act does not have to occur in the UK to become within its scope. If the act or omission does not take place in the UK, but the person’s act or omission would constitute an offense if carried out there and the person has a close connection with the UK, an offense will still have been committed.

The Bribery Act 2010 is comprised of four offenses that cover (i) individuals, companies and partnerships that give, promise or offer bribes, (ii) individuals, companies and partnerships that request, agree to receive or accept bribes, (iii) individuals, companies and partnerships that bribe foreign public officials, and (iv) companies and partnerships that fail to prevent persons acting on their behalf from paying bribes. The penalties imposed under the Bribery Act 2010 depend on the offence committed, harm and culpability and penalties range from unlimited fines to imprisonment for a maximum term of ten years and in some cases both.

Other Legislation Regarding Marketing, Authorization and Pricing of Pharmaceutical Products in the European Union

Other core legislation relating to the marketing, authorization and pricing of pharmaceutical products in the European Union includes the following:

•
Directive 2001/83/EC, establishing the requirements and procedures governing the marketing authorization for medicinal products for human use, as well as the rules for the constant supervision of products following authorization. This Directive has been amended several times, most recently by Directive 2012/26/EU regarding pharmacovigilance, and the Falsified Medicines Directive 2011/62/EU.

•
Regulation (EC) 726/2004, as amended, establishing procedures for the authorization, supervision and pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing the EMA.

•
Regulation (EC) 469/2009, establishing the requirements necessary to obtain a Supplementary Protection Certificate, which extends the period of patent protection applicable to medicinal products at the EU-level.

•
Directive 89/105/EEC, ensuring the transparency of measures taken by the European Union member states to set the prices and reimbursements of medicinal products. Specifically, while each member state has competence over the pricing and reimbursement of medicines for human use, they must also comply with this Directive, which establishes procedures to ensure that member state decisions and policies do not obstruct trade in medicinal products. The European Commission proposed to repeal and replace Directive 89/105/EEC, but this proposal was withdrawn in 2015.

•
Directive 2003/94/EC, laying down the principles of good manufacturing practice in respect of medicinal products and investigational medicinal products for human use (the GMP Directive); repealed by Directive 2017/1572 on January 31, 2022; this directive also lays out standards and principles for manufacturing practices of medicinal products for human use and investigational medicinal products for human use.

•
Directive 2005/28/EC of April 8 2005, laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorization of the manufacturing or importation of such products (the GCP Directive).

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

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

32

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological product for which we obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any product, if approved, depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement, if any, for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding whether to cover any of our product candidates, if approved, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

•
a covered benefit under its health plan;

•
safe, effective and medically necessary;

•
cost-effective; and

•
neither experimental nor investigational.

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

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

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

33

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

Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare Laws and Regulations

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with healthcare providers, physicians, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

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

•
the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits, among other things, U.S. corporations and persons acting on their behalf from offering, promising, authorizing or making payments to any foreign government official (including certain healthcare professionals in many countries), political party, or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or otherwise seek preferential treatment abroad;

34

•
the federal False Claims Act, which may be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice or private whistleblowers to bring civil actions (qui tam actions) on behalf of the federal government, imposes civil penalties, as well as liability for treble damages and for attorneys’ fees and costs, on individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, making a false statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act;

•
the Department of Health and Human Services’ Civil Monetary Penalties authorities, which imposes administrative sanctions for, among other things, presenting or causing to be presented false claims for government payment and providing remuneration to government health program beneficiaries to influence them to order or receive healthcare items or services;

•
HIPAA, imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other conduct, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program and making false statements relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the 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;

•
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and its implementing regulations, also imposes criminal and civil liability and penalties on those who violate requirements, including mandatory contractual terms, intended to safeguard the privacy, security, transmission and use of individually identifiable health information;

•
the federal false statements statute relating to healthcare matters prohibits falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;

•
the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the CMS information related to payments or other transfers of value to various healthcare professionals including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, certified nurse-midwives, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning on January 1, 2023, California Assembly Bill 1278 requires California physicians and surgeons to notify patients of the Open Payments database established under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act;

•
the FDCA addresses, among other things, the design, production, labeling, promotion, manufacturing, and testing of drugs, biologics and medical devices, and prohibits such acts as the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded drugs or devices. The Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) also prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of unlicensed or mislabeled biological products;

•
similar state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by nongovernmental third-party payors, including private insurers; and

•
certain state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with voluntary compliance guidelines promulgated by a pharmaceutical industry association and relevant compliance guidance issues by HHS Office of Inspector General; bar drug manufacturers from offering or providing certain types of payments or gifts to physicians and other health care providers; and/or require disclosure of gifts or payments to physicians and other healthcare providers.

Various state and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances; many of these laws differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Violation of any of these laws or any other current or future governmental laws and regulations that may apply to drug manufacturers include significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if the manufacturer becomes subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of its operations, any of which could substantially disrupt its operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we 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.

35

Regulations in the UK and Other Markets

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and EU laws now only apply to the UK in respect of Northern Ireland as laid out in the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland and as amended by the Windsor Framework sets out a long-term set of arrangements for the supply of medicines into Northern Ireland. The EU and the UK agreed on a trade and cooperation agreement, which includes provisions affecting the life sciences sector (including on customs and tariffs). There are some specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, including the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP issued documents. The TCA does not, however, contain wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations and product standards.

The UK government has adopted the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (the “MMDA”) to enable the UK’s regulatory frameworks to be updated following the UK’s departure from the EU. The MMDA introduces regulation-making, delegated powers covering the fields of human medicines, clinical trials of human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. The MHRA has since been consulting on future regulations for medicines and medical devices in the UK.

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

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

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, local, state, and federal laws regarding such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling, and disposal of various biological, chemical, and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous or biohazardous substances, we could be liable for damages, environmental remediation, and/or governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and occupational health and safety laws that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2025, we had 258 employees. To allow us flexibility in meeting varying workflow demands, we also engage consultants and temporary workers when needed.

We believe that our future success largely depends upon our continued ability to attract and retain a diverse group of highly skilled employees. We offer comprehensive compensation packages, including competitive base pay, incentive compensation and equity programs, and provide a broad range of benefits, including 401(k) plan with employer match, healthcare and insurance benefits, paid time off, paid family and medical leave, flexible work schedules, and various health and wellness programs. We also provide development programs that enable continued learning and growth.

Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics ensures that our core values of respect, integrity, collaboration, innovation, trust, and excellence are applied throughout our operations. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics serves as a tool to help all of us recognize and report unethical conduct, while preserving our culture of honesty and accountability.

None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our employee relations to be good.

36

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in March 2014 under the name Unum Therapeutics Inc. On April 3, 2018, we completed our initial public offering of our common stock under the ticker “UMRX.” On October 2, 2020, we filed an amendment to our certificate of incorporation to change our name to Cogent Biosciences, Inc. The name change became effective on October 6, 2020. In connection with the name change, our common stock began trading under the ticker symbol “COGT.”

As of December 31, 2025, we have 182,955,584 shares outstanding on an as-converted basis, which consists of (i) 160,980,024 shares of common stock outstanding, (ii) pre-funded warrants that are exercisable for 606,060 shares of common stock, (iii) 67,414 shares of Series A Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series A Preferred Stock”) that are convertible into 16,853,500 shares of common stock, and (iv) 4,516 shares of Series B Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series B Preferred Stock”) that are convertible into 4,516,000 shares of common stock.

Available Information

Our Internet address is www.cogentbio.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the “Investors” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.