Editas Medicine, Inc. (EDIT) Business

Item 1. Business

We are a pioneering gene editing company dedicated to developing potentially transformative genomic medicines to treat a broad range of serious diseases. The promise of genomic medicines is supported by the advancing knowledge of the human genome and by harnessing the progress in technologies for cell therapy, gene therapy, and, most recently, gene editing. We believe this progress sets the stage for us to create medicines with the potential to have a durable benefit for patients. Our core capability in gene editing uses the technology known as CRISPR (clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats) to allow us to create molecules that efficiently and specifically edit DNA. Our mission is to translate the promise of gene editing into a broad class of differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable diseases.

We have developed a proprietary gene editing platform based on CRISPR technology and we continue to expand its capabilities. CRISPR uses a protein-RNA complex composed of an enzyme, including either Cas9 (CRISPR associated protein 9) or Cas12a (CRISPR from Prevotella and Francisella 1, also known as Cpf1), bound to a guide RNA molecule designed to recognize a particular DNA sequence. Once the complex binds to the DNA sequence it is designed to recognize, the complex makes a specific cut in the DNA. We believe we are the only human gene editing company with a platform that includes CRISPR/Cas9, CRISPR/Cas12a, engineered forms of both of these CRISPR systems, and foundational intellectual property for both of these CRISPR systems. Because of the broad nature of this platform, we believe we can create gene editing molecules for more than 95% of the human genome.

Our Strategy

We seek to be a leader in in vivo gene editing, leveraging cutting edge gene editing technology to deliver transformative therapies that simplify the usability for patients, minimize the burdens to patients and healthcare systems, and are meaningfully differentiated from the current standards of care, while also allowing a simple, scalable manufacturing process to reduce costs to manufacture and administer the therapies.

Our approach is focused on the in vivo use of functional upregulation, which aims to increase the expression of a normal gene copy and its normal protein function to treat diseases caused by genetic mutations that eliminate or disrupt normal function. This approach edits non-coding regulatory sequences upstream and downstream of a gene and does not alter the sequence of the encoded protein, unlike other approaches, including gene knockdown, which aims to reduce the expression of one or more targeted genes by editing coding regions to knockdown a disease-causing protein, and gene correction, which aims to edit coding regions to correct a disease-causing protein. We believe this approach will allow us to address those diseases where the gene knockdown approach has limited effectiveness and to create treatments designed for most or all patients with the same disease, regardless of the specific genetic mutation causing the disease.

We believe the ability to provide in vivo gene editing, in which the medicine is injected or infused into the patient to edit the cells inside their body, and functionally upregulate normal gene expression and normal protein function in the target tissues holds the potential to significantly expand the addressable therapeutic possibilities of CRISPR-based gene editing. To that end, our preclinical efforts are also focused on the creation of a “plug ‘n play” lipid nanoparticle (“LNP”) platform to enable targeted delivery of in vivo gene editing medicines to multiple cells and tissues, including the liver, hematopoietic stem cells (“HSCs”), and other cells and tissues.

In September 2025, we announced the nomination of our lead in vivo development candidate, EDIT-401, an experimental, potential best-in-class, one-time therapy to significantly reduce LDL-cholesterol (“LDL-C”) through upregulation of the LDL receptor (“LDLR”). EDIT-401 is designed to treat elevated levels of LDL-C, or hyperlipidemia, by directly editing the noncoding region of the LDLR gene to increase LDLR protein expression and reduce LDL-C levels. This targeted approach has demonstrated an approximately 90% mean reduction of LDL-C in non-human primates (“NHPs”) in our preclinical studies with favorable tolerability data and supports the potential of EDIT-401 to deliver meaningful clinical outcomes for patients underserved by current lipid-lowering therapies. We are on track to submit an investigational new drug application (“IND”) or foreign equivalent to conduct a clinical trial of EDIT-401 in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesteremia (“HeFH”), a common inherited genetic disorder causing extremely high LDL-C, by mid-2026 with the expectation of achieving early human proof-of-concept data for EDIT-401 by the end of 2026. We plan to complete enrolling the dose-finding portion of the first-in-human clinical trial with topline data results available in 2027. We expect to present additional preclinical data for EDIT-401 by mid-2026.

6

Table of Contents

We also previously demonstrated proof-of-concept of our functional upregulation strategy in our former clinical trials of renizgamglogene autogedtemcel (“reni-cel”), an experimental ex vivo gene-edited medicine to treat sickle cell disease (“SCD”), a severe inherited blood disease that causes vaso-occlusive events and target organ damage, and often leads to premature death, and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia (“TDT”), the most severe form of beta-thalassemia, an inherited blood disorder characterized by severe anemia. Despite the robust and clinically meaningful improvements observed in these trials, we determined in December 2024 not to pursue commercialization for reni-cel in order to optimize our cost structure and accelerate our intent to achieve human proof of concept of our in vivo gene editing medicines. Leveraging our differentiated approach from our former reni-cel program, we are developing an experimental in vivo gene-editing medicine to edit HSCs through targeted delivery of our AsCas12a enzyme to our clinically validated HBG1 and HBG2 promoter site.

Our in vivo discovery and development efforts further include other cells and tissues, with the goal of selecting therapeutic targets we believe have a significant probability of technical, clinical, regulatory, and commercial success. We previously announced in vivo delivery to two additional cell types in humanized mice using our proprietary LNP targeting platform, demonstrating the “plug ‘n play” potential of our proprietary extrahepatic LNP platform.

Licensing and Business Development

We are pursuing the right combination of gene editing and targeted delivery tools through internal development and the in-licensing of complementary technologies to build our preclinical pipeline, including our “plug ‘n play” in vivo gene editing LNP delivery platform, and accelerate the achievement of our goal of delivering lifesaving medicines to patients with previously untreatable diseases. For example, we are party to a collaboration and license agreement accessing LNPs targeting the liver in support of our strategy to upregulate certain liver targets, including LDLR for our EDIT-401 program.

We are also leveraging our gene editing technology to drive the development of CRISPR-based medicines in therapeutic areas outside of our core focus through partnerships and collaborations. For example, our collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) through its wholly owned subsidiary, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (“Juno Therapeutics”) is advancing alpha-beta T-cell experimental medicines for the treatment of solid tumors, liquid tumors, and autoimmune disease in collaboration. This collaboration, which leverages our Cas9 and AsCas12a platform technologies, has resulted in 14 total programs, including BMS’ CD19 HD Allo CAR T program for the treatment of autoimmune disease currently in Phase I clinical development. We are also party to a non-exclusive collaboration and licensing agreement with Immatics to combine gamma-delta T cell adoptive cell therapies and gene editing for the treatment of cancer.

In addition, we are leveraging our intellectual property portfolio to drive potential out-licensing opportunities that can provide non-dilutive capital. In December 2023, we and Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (“Vertex”) entered into a license agreement (the “Vertex License Agreement”), under which Vertex obtained a non-exclusive license for our Cas9 gene editing technology for ex vivo gene editing medicines targeting the BCL11A gene in the fields of SCD and TDT, including Vertex’s CASGEVYTM (exagamglogene autotemcel). We received a $50.0 million upfront cash payment in the fourth quarter of 2023 and the 2024 annual license fee of $10.0 million in the first quarter of 2024. The Vertex License Agreement further provides for the payment by Vertex of a potential additional $50.0 million contingent upfront payment and further future fixed and sales-based annual license fees, ranging from $5.0 million to $40.0 million annually, inclusive of certain sales-based annual license fee increases, through 2034. We are required to pay The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”) a mid-double-digit percentage of amounts payable to us from Vertex under the Vertex License Agreement as it relates to Cas9 technology licensed by us from Broad and Harvard. In October 2024, we entered into an agreement (the “DRI Agreement”) with a wholly owned subsidiary of DRI Healthcare Trust (“DRI”) providing for an upfront cash payment by DRI to us of $57.0 million. Under the DRI Agreement, DRI is purchasing up to 100% of certain future fixed and sales-based annual license fees that the Company is entitled to receive under the Vertex License Agreement, which fees range from $5.0 million to $40.0 million per year, including increases based on sales. In addition, DRI is purchasing a mid-double-digit percentage of a $50.0 million contingent upfront payment that the Company may receive under the Vertex License Agreement. All amounts above will be adjusted to exclude payments that the Company owes to Broad and Harvard. The Company has retained rights to certain portions of certain other sales-based annual license fees and the contingent upfront payment that may become due under the Vertex License Agreement, and the amounts that correspond to our licensor obligations.

7

Table of Contents

Our Core Capability — Gene Editing

Gene editing is the process of revising, removing, or repairing defective DNA in situ. In general, gene editing repairs the defective DNA in its native genomic location, and consequently the repaired genetic region retains the cell’s normal control and feedback mechanisms. Gene editing typically takes advantage of naturally occurring DNA repair mechanisms, including non-homologous end joining (“NHEJ”) and homology directed repair (“HDR”), to achieve its desired therapeutic outcome. Edits that are repaired by NHEJ typically result in an insertion or deletion (an “indel”) that can disrupt a regulatory sequence to functionally upregulate normal gene expression and normal protein function. Edits that are repaired by HDR, including targeted insertion, aim to correct or replace aberrant DNA sequences. The diversity of genetic drivers of disease demands a variety of solutions. Gene editing has the potential to deliver a variety of types of genome modification to address a broad range of diseases.

CRISPR technology uses a protein-RNA complex composed of a type of enzyme, referred to as a DNA endonuclease, bound to an RNA molecule, referred to as a guide RNA, that has been designed to recognize a particular DNA sequence. A DNA endonuclease is an enzyme that cleaves DNA. This combination of a DNA endonuclease and a guide RNA only bind and cut DNA when two criteria are met: first, the protein recognizes a short DNA specific to the enzyme called the protospacer adjacent motif (“PAM”), and second, the appropriate portion of the guide RNA matches the adjacent DNA sequence. The PAM sequence that is recognized by the DNA endonuclease creates a second layer of recognition in addition to the guide RNA. We believe that CRISPR technology has three principal advantages for gene editing:

•Rapid, comprehensive, and systematic identification of product candidates. The key targeting mechanism for the endonuclease, whether it is Cas9 or Cas12a, is a guide RNA, which can be rapidly replaced with a different guide RNA or optimized by changes as small as a single nucleotide. This allows for the flexible design, synthesis, and testing of hundreds of guide RNA/endonuclease combinations for each genetic target in order to find those that cut the DNA target with the optimal efficiency and specificity. In contrast, other commonly used DNA nucleases for gene editing have inherently limited flexibility. For example, zinc finger nucleases, engineered meganucleases, and transcription activator-like effector nucleases use proteins for DNA sequence recognition to bring the endonuclease to the site of the genome where cleavage is desired, requiring the creation of an entirely new protein for each target site.

•Simultaneous and efficient targeting of multiple sites. In CRISPR technology, multiple guide RNAs can be provided along with the same endonuclease, enabling the simultaneous and efficient targeting of multiple sites. This ability to target multiple DNA sequences expands the applicability of CRISPR technology and also creates the potential for self-regulating systems that control exposure to the editing machinery. To address more than one target, other gene editing technologies require the engineering, characterization, manufacture, and delivery of distinct nuclease proteins for each target.

•Ability to achieve a range of different types of edits. The inherent differences in Cas9 and Cas12a and the availability of different engineered variants of both enzymes allow for different types of cuts for gene editing. We are able to make a blunt cut, cut either strand of the DNA, or create overhangs of differing length. This may be a critical component of improved HDR-driven approaches because the type of DNA cut can influence the type of repair mechanism used by a cell in response to that cut. We believe the ability to modify CRISPR technology to allow for different types of cuts will expand the potential of our gene editing platform.

Our Gene Editing Platform

We have developed a proprietary gene editing platform that includes different natural and engineered variants of Cas9 and Cas12a. We have characterized different Cas9 and Cas12a enzymes for several reasons. Firstly, a lower molecular weight enzyme will have advantages for delivering the endonuclease using a viral vector due to the inherent size limitations of most such delivery systems. For example, the Cas9 enzyme from Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 is significantly smaller than that from Streptococcus pyogenes (“S. pyogenes” or “SpCas9”) (3,159 vs. 4,104 base pairs), and this decreased size is important when working with adeno-associated viral vectors (“AAV”) as a delivery vector, which has an effective packaging limit of approximately 4,700 base pairs. Secondly, we have gained access to modified versions of Cas12a and Cas12a guide RNAs that increase Cas12a activity. This increased activity may allow us to use Cas12a editing in more indications where editing at a Cas12a susceptible site is desirable from a biological perspective but technically difficult with the wild-type Cas12a editing system. Thirdly, identifying Cas9 and Cas12a enzymes with different editing properties will expand the number of potential editing sites in the human genome. The range of natural and engineered

8

Table of Contents

variants of Cas9 and Cas12a have significantly expanded the number of sites in the human genome that we can potentially target. As compared to the most commonly used, naturally occurring version of Cas9, from the bacterial species S. pyogenes, the range of endonucleases in our platform can target approximately ten times as many genomic sites. Thus, while the S. pyogenes Cas9 can target approximately 1 in 10 bases in the human genome, we have the potential to hit over 95% of all bases due to the wide range of endonucleases at our disposal.

The guide RNA molecule is another component of our gene editing platform. We seek to use reprogrammable guide RNA in which changing the targeting region of the guide RNA can create a new product for a new disease target, thus enabling the rapid development of new medicines. We have made substantial advances in the design, synthesis, modification, analysis, and characterization of guide RNAs. For example, in order to accelerate and standardize the selection of guide RNAs, we have created proprietary analytical software that supports guide RNA design through single nucleotide polymorphism analysis, specificity prediction, and assessment of relative importance of potential off target sites. Of critical importance in determining the activity and specificity of an endonuclease-guide RNA complex is understanding the quality and composition of the guide RNA. The ability to understand the quality and composition of the guide RNA is an essential component to developing product candidates that have the potential to be safe and efficacious medicines. In order to understand the absolute composition of our guide RNAs, we utilize state-of-the-art mass spectrometry and sequencing methodologies.

Our gene editing platform includes multiple modular delivery modes that can be efficiently adapted to deliver different CRISPR gene editing components to address the specific needs of each disease targeted. Our strategy is to leverage existing delivery technologies to target cell types of interest while developing next generation capabilities as warranted. We have made substantial advances in the in vivo delivery of CRISPR systems to a number of cell types. Our “plug ‘n play” LNP platform is designed to enable targeted delivery of in vivo gene editing medicines to multiple cells and tissues, including the liver, HSCs, and other cells and tissues. Our ability to deliver to the liver using this LNP platform enables us to develop new therapies by only reprogramming guide RNAs for specific liver targets. For extrahepatic delivery, our LNP platform enables us to target multiple tissues through the substitution of different targeting ligands conjugated to the LNP. For example, using the LNP platform for delivery to extrahepatic tissues, we achieved in vivo preclinical proof-of-concept editing of HSCs in NHPs and to date have also achieved in vivo delivery to two extrahepatic, non-HSC cells in humanized mice.

To optimize the specificity of our product candidates, there are a number of different aspects of the product configuration that we customize in addition to the sequence and quality of the guide RNA, including the length of the guide RNA, the type of Cas9 or Cas12a enzyme, including engineered forms, the delivery vector, including targeting moiety, and the duration of exposure, all of which contribute to overall specificity.

Our Gene Editing Medicine Programs

Our research and development efforts are focused on next generation in vivo medicines, including in vivo editing of liver cells, HSCs and other tissues. Our product development strategy is to target diseases where gene editing can be used to enable or enhance therapeutic outcomes for patients, while maximizing probability of technical, clinical, regulatory and commercial success. We believe the therapeutic programs and delivery technologies we have chosen to pursue to date and those that are currently under development will demonstrate the depth and breadth of our ability to deploy our gene

9

Table of Contents

editing platform to develop differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable diseases. The following summarizes our research programs and disease areas:

Cardiovascular

Our lead program, EDIT-401, is an experimental, potential best-in-class, one-time therapy designed to significantly reduce LDL-cholesterol (“LDL-C”) through the upregulation of the LDL receptor (“LDLR”).

Hyperlipidemia, or elevated levels of LDL-C, affects an estimated 70 million people in the United States, including approximately 1.2 million people who have HeFH. Hyperlipidemia is a major causal factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (“ASCVD”), a serious condition driven by cholesterol-rich plaque accumulation in the arteries that can lead to severe events like heart attack and stroke. ASCVD is the leading cause of death worldwide, and in the United States alone is projected to result in over $300 billion in related expenditures by 2035. We estimate that approximately 15 million people in the United States suffer from ASCVD. Lower LDL-C levels is well correlated to reduced risk of cardiovascular event. The current standard of care for hyperlipidemia includes the use of statin therapy with additional treatment modalities to achieve specified targets for LDL-C reduction based on patient risk level, such as the inclusion of PCSK9 inhibitors. This current standard of care has demonstrated a mean LDL-C reduction ranging from 40% to 60%, but can require multiple therapies and life-long administration, frequently resulting in non-adherence. Non-adherence and treatment underutilization has resulted in approximately 75% of patients with established cardiovascular disease failing to achieve LDL-C targets, creating a significant unmet need across multiple at-risk segments of patients with hyperlipidemia.

EDIT-401 uses a differentiated upregulation strategy designed to significantly reduce LDL-C and treat hyperlipidemia. Using our Cas9 gene editing nuclease and dual guide RNAs, EDIT-401 disrupts DNA sequences that inhibit expression of the LDLR gene, thereby increasing LDLR protein expression to reduce LDL-C levels. In preclinical studies in NHPs, EDIT-401 achieved LDL-C reductions equal to or exceeding 90% within 48 hours of a single dose of EDIT-401. EDIT-401 also achieved LDL-C reductions equal to or exceeding 90% in mice with high baseline LDL-C and reduced LDLR function. The EDIT-401 LDL-C reductions were achieved with an at least six-fold mean increase in LDLR protein in the NHP liver, requiring only approximately 10-40% functional editing of LDLR alleles. LDL-C reduction was maintained in mouse models in a three-month study, demonstrating the durability of effect. EDIT-401 was well tolerated across all doses administered and no adverse clinical observations were noted. While there were some transient increases in liver enzymes, these resolved within a week. We are on track to submit an IND or foreign equivalent to conduct a clinical trial of EDIT-401 in patients with HeFH by mid-2026 with the expectation of achieving early human proof-of-concept data

10

Table of Contents

for EDIT-401 by the end of 2026. We plan to complete enrolling the dose-finding portion of the first-in-human clinical trial with topline data results available in 2027. We expect to present additional preclinical data for EDIT-401 by mid-2026.

Owing to the physiological relationship between LDL-C and Lp(a), and the observation that Lp(a) levels have been reduced with PCSK9 inhibitors, we are exploring the effects of EDIT-401, our LDLR upregulation program, on Lp(a) levels in pre-clinical species.

Hemoglobinopathies

We are developing an approach for in vivo gene editing in HSCs to support the advancement of research programs to treat non-malignant hematological diseases. Our initial focus is on the development of therapies to treat SCD and TDT.

Sickle cell disease is an inherited life-threatening hematological disorder, which starts to cause serious complications in early childhood. It affects millions of people worldwide, including approximately 100,000 people in the United States. Patients suffering from SCD can experience severe anemia and sickling-induced blood vessel blockages resulting in unpredictable and severe attacks of acute pain, stroke, acute chest syndrome, liver disease, renal failure, and a shortened life span. It is estimated that approximately 50% of patients with the most severe form of SCD die before 45 years of age. Advances in supportive care and disease modifying therapies have improved outcomes for patients with SCD, but curative therapies have been limited to allogeneic HSC transplantation. However, less than 20% of patients can find matched donors for this procedure and there is a risk of serious complications. Transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia is also an inherited hematological disorder that often appears in infancy. It is relatively rare in the United States, affecting approximately 1,000 people, but is one of the most common autosomal recessive disorders in the world, found most often among individuals of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent. TDT is characterized by severe anemia, hemolysis, and severe ineffective erythropoiesis, often requiring patients to undergo regular, lifelong blood transfusions for survival.

We are pursuing a distinct gene editing approach to treating these hemoglobinopathies. We aim to use our AsCas12a gene editing nuclease to target the clinically validated HBG1/2 promoter site of the gamma-globin gene in human CD34+ cells and disrupt the binding site of the BCL11A protein, consistent with observed naturally occurring human mutations. These mutations mimic the asymptomatic condition of hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin with high levels of fetal hemoglobin (“HbF”) in red blood cells. HbF levels greater than 30% are associated with a significant reduction in, or the absence of, SCD symptoms, particularly vaso-occlusive events (“VOEs”). By editing the HBG1/2 promoter in the gamma-globin gene, we seek to generate protective changes that increase HbF production in a manner that is independent of erythropoietic stress, resulting in reduced sickling and VOEs in SCD patients, and resolving anemia and transfusion dependence in TDT patients. Building on our experience with reni-cel, we have achieved in vivo preclinical proof-of-concept data of HSC editing in NHPs. We intend to continue optimizing candidates for our HSC program, but plan to focus our resources on the advancement of our lead EDIT-401 program to human proof-of-concept.

Other Cells/Tissues

We seek to additionally develop in vivo gene editing medicines targeted to other cells and tissues. We believe our proprietary targeting LNP platform can enable specific targeting of different extrahepatic cell types by substitution of different targeting ligands conjugated to the LNP. We previously announced in vivo delivery to two additional cell types in humanized mice using our proprietary LNP targeting platform, demonstrating in vivo proof of concept for our “plug n’ play” LNP delivery platform.

Licensing and Business Development

We are focused on driving solutions for people living with serious, previously untreatable diseases by leveraging our gene editing platform. Through in-licensing of complementary technologies, we can expand our existing gene editing platform and further drive the development of our in vivo pipeline. This was demonstrated with our entry into a collaboration and license agreement to access LNPs targeting the liver. Using this in-licensed LNP, we achieved in vivo editing of hepatocytes in NHPs, furthering our strategy to upregulate certain liver targets, including LDLR for EDIT-401.

Further, as the exclusive licensee of Broad and Harvard’s Cas9 patent estates and Broad’s Cas12a patent estate for human medicines, we actively seek opportunities to out-license and partner our robust intellectual property portfolio to drive the development of CRISPR-based medicines in therapeutic areas outside of our core focus and to provide non-dilutive capital. Examples of these licensing efforts include our non-exclusive license to Vertex for our Cas9 gene editing

11

Table of Contents

technology for ex vivo gene editing medicines targeting the BCL11A gene in the fields of SCD and TDT, including Vertex’s CASGEVYTM (exagamglogene autotemcel); our non-exclusive license to Immatics of our AsCas12a technology to advance gamma-delta T cell therapies for the treatment of cancer; and our collaboration with BMS. Certain of our current collaborators and partners are expected to achieve clinical milestones in the next 12 to 18 months, which would result in milestone payments to us.

Our collaboration with BMS is advancing engineered alpha-beta T cell therapies to treat solid tumors, liquid tumors, and autoimmune disease leveraging our platform technologies, including Cas9 and AsCas12a. For example, engineered T cells, including alpha-beta T cells, have shown encouraging clinical activity against multiple cancers, culminating in recent approvals of such therapies in the United States. Because of these promising results, there is significant interest in the medical community in expanding the application of this technology across a broader range of cancers and patients. We believe that our gene editing technology has the potential to improve multiple properties of these alpha-beta T cell therapies. Alpha-beta cells are part of the adaptive immune system and recognize tumors with endogenous alpha-beta T cell receptors or CARs or engineered T cell receptors (“eTCRs”). If we are successful, genome-edited engineered alpha-beta T cells have the potential to significantly expand the types of cancers treatable by CAR/ eTCR alpha-beta T cells and to improve the outcomes of these therapies. Through our collaboration with BMS, we have applied our Cas9 and AsCas12a platform technologies to multiple gene targets in order to improve the efficacy and safety of CAR/eTCR alpha-beta T cells directed against a range of tumor types. In addition, we have optimized gene editing components and delivery methods compatible with engineered alpha-beta T cell manufacturing methods developed by BMS. To date, this collaboration has resulted in 14 total programs, including BMS’ CD19 HD Allo CAR T program for the treatment of autoimmune disease currently in Phase I clinical development.

Our Collaborations and Licensing Strategy

BMS Collaboration and License Agreement

In May 2015, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Juno Therapeutics, a subsidiary of BMS, for the research and development of engineered T cells with CARs and eTCRs that have been genetically modified to recognize and kill other cells. We and BMS amended and restated this agreement in November 2019 and further amended it in March 2024 (such agreement, as amended and restated to date, the “BMS Collaboration Agreement”). In connection with the amendment and restatement in November 2019, we entered into a license agreement with BMS (such agreement, the “BMS License Agreement,” and together with the BMS Collaboration Agreement, the “BMS Agreements”). Under the terms of the BMS Collaboration Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $25.0 million, amendment fees totaling $75.0 million and have received milestone payments totaling $42.5 million, in addition to certain opt-in fees.

The BMS Agreements relate to technology used to edit or modify the genome of a cell in connection with the research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation of T cells that express or have ever expressed T cell receptor dimers consisting of an alpha (α) chain and a beta (β) chain (such cells, “Alpha-beta T Cells”), and T cells derived from pluripotent stem cells or any other precursor cell (such cells, “Other Derived T Cells”), subject to certain exclusions for certain of our existing obligations. The exploitation of Alpha-beta T Cells and Other Derived T Cells specifically excludes the exploitation of T Cells that express a T cell receptor dimer consisting of a gamma (γ) chain and a delta (δ) chain, which we refer to as gamma-delta T Cells.

During the research term under the BMS Collaboration Agreement, we may research ribonucleoprotein complexes comprising an RNA-guided engineered nuclease paired with an oligonucleotide (“RNP Complexes”) that recognize or modulate the expression of up to twenty gene targets selected by BMS (each, a “Research Program”) for the purpose of identifying the RNP Complexes that may be used in the creation of potential drug development candidates. Pursuant to the March 2024 amendment, we provided BMS the ability to select up to three additional gene targets for research subject to the payment of a low single digit million-dollar payment for each new target selected. The research term, as amended, extends to November 2026, with options to extend the collaboration for up to an additional two years under certain circumstances, including the payment of a high single digit million-dollar payment.

Under the BMS Collaboration Agreement, if BMS elects to opt-in with respect to a Research Program, it shall make a mid-six digit dollar payment to us and we shall amend the BMS License Agreement to include such Research Program by executing a licensed program addendum for such Research Program. Following BMS’ opt-in for each program we shall grant to BMS an exclusive (even as to us), royalty-bearing worldwide right and license under specified intellectual property rights to research, develop, manufacture commercialize or otherwise exploit the RNP Complexes in such Research

12

Table of Contents

Program to create products containing, incorporating, comprising or containing Alpha-beta T Cells and/or Other Derived T Cells, in each case modified using the RNP Complexes in such Research Program (each, a “BMS Licensed Product”).

We are entitled to receive high single-digit to low double-digit percentage royalties on net sales made by BMS, its affiliates and sublicensees of any BMS Licensed Products, subject to reductions in certain circumstances. We are also entitled to receive development milestones totaling up to $135.0 million in the aggregate upon achievement of certain clinical milestones and specified regulatory approvals and commercial milestone payments totaling up to $60.0 million in the aggregate for each of the first two BMS Licensed Products to achieve specified net sales milestones.

We have agreed during the term of the BMS Collaboration Agreement not to use (directly or indirectly), or license others to use, gene editing technology in connection with any research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation of any Alpha-beta T Cells or Other Derived T Cells. Our exclusivity obligation will not apply to activities related to (i) any identified RNP Complexes in a program for which BMS elects not to exercise its opt-in right, (ii) certain of our existing obligations to third parties, and (iii) certain existing programs of an acquiror of our company in a change of control.

We have agreed during the term of any licensed program addendum under the BMS License Agreement not to use (directly or indirectly), or license others to use, any gene editing technology that modulates or recognizes a gene target covered by such licensed program addendum for the conduct of any research, development, manufacture, commercialization or other exploitation with respect to any product that constitutes, incorporates, comprises or contains any Alpha-beta T Cell or Other Derived T Cells.

The BMS Collaboration Agreement continues in effect until the later of expiration of the research term or expiration of the last to expire of BMS’ right to opt-in with respect to any Research Program. BMS may terminate the BMS Collaboration Agreement in its discretion upon six months’ prior written notice to us. Either party may terminate the BMS Collaboration Agreement for uncured material breach of the other party, provided that the breaching party has had sixty days to cure such breach, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party.

The BMS License Agreement continues in effect on a BMS Licensed Product-by-BMS Licensed Product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the royalty term with respect to such licensed product in such country and in its entirety upon the expiration of all royalty terms with respect to all BMS Licensed Products in all countries. BMS may terminate the BMS License Agreement in its entirety or on a BMS Licensed Product-by-BMS Licensed Product basis in its discretion upon ninety days’ prior written notice to us. Either party may terminate the BMS License Agreement on a BMS Licensed Product-by-BMS Licensed Product basis in the event of an uncured material breach of the other party, provided that the breaching party has had sixty days to cure such breach, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party. We have the right to terminate the BMS License Agreement on a program-by-program basis in the event that BMS fails to make any undisputed payment to us and has not cured such payment breach within the cure period. Other than BMS’ right to wind-down its operations with respect to BMS Licensed Products during the twelve months following the date of effectiveness of termination, all licenses and other exclusive rights granted under the BMS License Agreement shall terminate.

Intellectual Property Licenses

We are a party to a number of license agreements under which we license patents, patent applications, and other intellectual property from third parties. The licensed intellectual property covers, in part, CRISPR-related compositions of matter and their use for gene editing. These licenses impose various diligence and financial payment obligations on us. We expect to continue to enter into these types of license agreements in the future. We consider the following license agreements to be material to our business.

The Broad Institute and President and Fellows of Harvard College License Agreement

In October 2014, we entered into a license agreement with Broad and Harvard for specified patent rights. In December 2016, we amended and restated this license agreement and further amended the agreement in March 2017 and February 2024 (as amended, the “Cas9-I License Agreement”). Among other things, the Cas9-I License Agreement amended the original license agreement by excluding additional fields from the scope of the exclusive license granted to us; converting the exclusive license to three specified targets to a non-exclusive license, subject to specified limitations; revising certain provisions relating to the rights of Harvard and Broad to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that

13

Table of Contents

otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license; and providing Harvard and Broad with certain rights to designate, and reserve all rights to, gene targets for which the designating institution has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us. The licenses granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement include rights to certain patents solely owned by Harvard (the “Harvard Cas9-I Patent Rights”), certain patents co-owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) and Broad, certain patents co-owned by MIT, The Rockefeller University (“Rockefeller”), and Broad, and certain patents co-owned by MIT, Broad and Harvard. We refer to all the patents and patent applications licensed to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement as the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights.

Certain patent applications in the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights are jointly owned by Rockefeller. In February 2017, Broad and Rockefeller entered into an inter-institutional agreement pursuant to which Rockefeller authorized Broad to act as its sole and exclusive agent for the purposes of licensing Rockefeller’s rights in such Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and any additional related patents or patent applications that Rockefeller may jointly own with Broad. The March 2017 amendment to the Cas9-I License Agreement included a license to Rockefeller’s rights in such patents and patent applications.

The Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights are directed, in part, to certain CRISPR/Cas9 compositions of matter and their use for gene editing and to certain CRISPR/Cas9 related delivery technologies. Pursuant to the Cas9-I License Agreement, and as of December 31, 2025, we have certain rights under 85 U.S. patents, 57 pending U.S. patent applications, 37 European patents and related validations, 32 pending European patent applications, and other related patent applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States and Europe.

Pursuant to the Cas9-I License Agreement, Harvard and Broad granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, have sold, import, and export products and services in the field of the prevention and treatment of human disease, subject to certain limitations and retained rights. The exclusive license granted by Broad and Harvard excludes certain fields, including the modification of animals or animal cells for the creation and sale of organs suitable for xenotransplantation into humans; the research, development and commercialization of products or services in the field of livestock applications; plant-based agricultural products; and, subject to certain limitations, products providing nutritional benefits. Moreover, the license granted by Broad is non-exclusive with respect to the treatment of medullary cystic kidney disease 1 and three other specified targets, subject to the limitation that for such three targets, each of Broad and Harvard is only permitted to grant a non-exclusive license to one third party at a time with respect to each such target within the field of exclusive license granted to us. Harvard and Broad also granted us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for all purposes, with the exception that the non-exclusive license to certain Harvard Cas9-I Patent Rights excludes the modification of animals or animal cells for the creation and sale of organs suitable for xenotransplantation into humans and the development and commercialization of products or services in the field of livestock applications. In addition to the exclusions described above, the following are excluded from the scope of both the exclusive and non-exclusive licenses granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement: human germline modification; the stimulation of biased inheritance of particular genes or traits within a population of plants or animals; the research, development, manufacturing, or commercialization of sterile seeds; and the modification of the tobacco plant with specified exceptions.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop, and commercialize products for the prevention or treatment of human disease under the Cas9-I License Agreement. Also, we are required to achieve certain development milestones within specified time periods for products incorporating the technologies covered by the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights. Harvard and Broad have the right to terminate our license with respect to the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights covering the technology or technologies with respect to which we fail to achieve these development milestones.

The licenses granted by Broad and Harvard to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement are subject to retained rights of the U.S. government in the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and the rights retained by Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Rockefeller on behalf of themselves and other academic, government and non-profit entities, to practice the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for research, educational, or teaching purposes. In addition, certain rights granted to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement are further subject to a non-exclusive license to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for research purposes. Our exclusive license rights also are subject to rights retained by Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Rockefeller for any third party to research, develop, make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, have sold, import or otherwise exploit the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights and licensed products as research products or research tools, or for research purposes.

14

Table of Contents

We have the right to sublicense our licensed rights provided that the sublicense agreement must be in compliance and consistent with the terms of the Cas9-I License Agreement. Any sublicense agreement cannot include the right to grant further sublicenses without the written consent of Broad and Harvard. In addition, any sublicense agreements must contain certain terms, including a provision requiring the sublicensee to indemnify Harvard, Broad, MIT, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute according to the same terms as are provided in the Cas9-I License Agreement and a statement that Broad, Harvard, MIT, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute are intended third party beneficiaries of the sublicense agreement for certain purposes.

Under the Cas9-I License Agreement, Harvard and Broad also retained rights to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties, other than specified entities, that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license from Harvard and Broad. If a third party requests a license under the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights for the development and commercialization of a product that would be subject to our exclusive license grant from Harvard and Broad under the Cas9-I License Agreement, Harvard and Broad may notify us of the request (the “Cas9-I Third Party Proposed Product Requests”). Our process to address Cas9-I Third Party Proposed Product Requests has been conformed to the same process established in our Cpf1 license agreement described below.

The Cas9-I License Agreement also provides Broad with the right, after a specified period of time and subject to certain limitations, to designate gene targets for which Broad, whether alone or together with an affiliate or third party, has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us under the Cas9-I License Agreement. Broad may not so designate any gene target for which we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are researching, developing, or commercializing a product, or for which we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed toward the gene target designated by Broad and are not able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad is entitled to reserve all rights under the Cas9-I License Agreement, including the right to grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target and our license granted with respect to such gene target will terminate, and we will not be entitled under the Cas9-I License Agreement to develop and commercialize products directed to that gene target.

Under the Cas9-I License Agreement, we paid Broad and Harvard an upfront license fee in the low six figures and issued a single-digit percentage of shares of our common stock to Broad (with Broad holding a right to request re-issuance to its designees, including MIT or MIT’s designee) and Harvard. We also must pay an annual license maintenance fee ranging from the low- to mid-five figures to the low-six figures, depending on the calendar year. This annual license maintenance fee is creditable against royalties owed on licensed products and services in the same year as the maintenance fee is paid. We are obligated to reimburse Broad and Harvard for expenses associated with the prosecution and maintenance of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights, including expenses associated with any interference proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), any opposition proceedings in the European Patent Organization, or any other inter partes or other post grant proceedings in these or other jurisdictions where we are seeking patent protection. Therefore, we are obligated to reimburse Broad and/or Harvard for expenses associated with the interference and opposition proceedings involving patents licensed to us under this agreement (described in more detail under Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property—Some of Our In-Licensed Patents are Subject to Priority and Validity Disputes” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K).

Broad and Harvard are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $14.8 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the European Union (the “EU”) and Japan for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. If we undergo a change of control during the term of the Cas9-I License Agreement, these clinical and regulatory milestone payments will be increased by a certain percentage in the mid double-digits. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Harvard, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $54.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. Broad and Harvard are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $4.1 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States and at least one jurisdiction outside the United States for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts fewer than a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States or a specified number of patients per year in the United States, which we refer to as an ultra-orphan disease. We are also obligated to make additional payments

15

Table of Contents

to Broad and Harvard, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $36.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease.

Broad and Harvard, collectively, are entitled to receive mid single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of licensed products for the prevention or treatment of human disease, and ranging from low single-digit to high single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of other licensed products and services, made by us, our affiliates, or our sublicensees. The royalty percentage depends on the licensed product and licensed service, and whether such licensed product or licensed service is covered by a valid claim within the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights. If we are legally required to pay royalties to a third party on net sales of our licensed products because such third party holds patent rights that cover such licensed product, then we can credit up to a mid double-digit percentage of the amount paid to such third party against the royalties due to Harvard and Broad in the same period. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the later of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights that cover the composition, manufacture, or use of each covered product or service in each country or the tenth anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of the licensed product or licensed service. If we sublicense any of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights to a third party pursuant to our exclusive license under the Cas9-I License Agreement, Broad and Harvard, collectively, had the right to receive a low double-digit percentage of the sublicense income, which percentage decreased in 2018 and may still decrease to a high single-digit percentage for licensed products for the prevention or treatment of human disease under sublicenses executed after we meet a certain clinical milestone.

Broad and Harvard retain control of the prosecution of their respective patent rights. If an interference is declared or a derivation proceeding is initiated, with respect to any Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights, then our prosecution related rights, including our right to receive correspondence from a patent office, will be suspended with respect to the patent rights involved in the interference or derivation proceeding until, under some circumstances, we enter into a common interest agreement with that institution. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for the cost of such interference or derivation proceeding. We are responsible for the cost of the interference proceeding and appeal with respect to the subject patents. Broad and Harvard are required to maintain any application or patent within the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights so long as we meet our obligation to reimburse Broad and Harvard for expenses related to prosecution and there is a good faith basis for doing so. If we cease payment for the prosecution of any Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Right, then any license granted to us with respect to such Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Right will terminate.

We have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights with respect to our licensed products so long as certain conditions are met, such as providing Broad and Harvard with evidence demonstrating a good faith basis for bringing suit against a third party. We are solely responsible for the costs of any lawsuits we elect to initiate and cannot enter into a settlement without the prior written consent of Broad and Harvard (and MIT and Rockefeller, if applicable). Any sums recovered in such lawsuits will be shared between us, Broad, and Harvard.

Unless terminated earlier, the term of the Cas9-I License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Rights in such country. However, our royalty obligations, discussed above, may survive expiration or termination. We have the right to terminate the agreement at will upon four months’ written notice to Broad and Harvard. Broad and Harvard may terminate the agreement upon a specified period of notice in the event of our uncured material breach, such notice period varying depending on the nature of the breach. Both Broad and Harvard may terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement immediately if we challenge the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Harvard/Broad Cas9-I Patent Right or assist a third party to do so, or in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency. Neither Broad nor Harvard acting alone has the right to terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement. However, Broad and Harvard may separately terminate the licenses granted to us with respect to their respective patent rights upon the occurrence of the same events that would give rise to the right of both institutions acting collectively to terminate the Cas9-I License Agreement.

The Broad Institute—Cpf1 License Agreement

In December 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Broad, for specified patent rights (“Cpf1 Patent Rights”) related primarily to Cas12a compositions of matter and their use for gene editing, which was amended in January 2021 and February 2024 (as amended, the “Cpf1 License Agreement”). Pursuant to the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad, on behalf of itself, Harvard, MIT, Wageningen University (“Wageningen”), and the University of Tokyo (“Tokyo” and collectively with the other institutions, the “Cpf1 Institutions”) granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Cpf1 Patent Rights, to make, have made, use, have used, sell, offer for sale, have sold, export and import products solely in the field of the prevention or treatment of human disease using gene therapy, editing of genetic material, or targeting of genetic material, subject to certain limitations and retained rights (collectively, the

16

Table of Contents

“Exclusive Cpf1 Field”), as well as a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to the Cpf1 Patent Rights for all other purposes, subject to certain limitations and retained rights. The licenses granted to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement exclude certain fields, including human germline modification; the stimulation of biased inheritance of particular genes or traits within a population of plants or animals; the research, development, manufacturing, or commercialization of sterile seeds; and the modification of the tobacco plant with specified exceptions.

Tokyo and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) are joint owners on certain Cpf1 Patent Rights. Broad has only granted a license to us with respect to its interests and to Tokyo’s interests in these U.S. patent applications but not to any foreign equivalents thereof. Broad does not, and does not purport to, grant any rights in NIH’s interest in these U.S. patent applications under our agreement. As a result, we may not have exclusive rights under any U.S. patents that issue from these U.S. patent applications and we may not have any rights under any foreign patents that issue from any foreign equivalents thereof.

Pursuant to the Cpf1 License Agreement, and as of December 31, 2025, we have certain rights under 18 U.S. patents, eight pending U.S. patent applications, six European patents and related validations, six pending European patent applications, and other related patents and patent applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States and Europe.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop, and commercialize licensed products in the Exclusive Cpf1 Field. We are also required to achieve certain development milestones within specified time periods for products covered by the Cpf1 Patent Rights, with Broad having the right to terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement if we fail to achieve these milestones within the required time periods. We have the right to sublicense our licensed rights provided that the sublicense agreement must be in compliance and consistent with the terms of the Cpf1 License Agreement. Any sublicense agreement cannot include the right to grant further sublicenses without the written consent of Broad. In addition, any sublicense agreements must contain certain terms, including a provision requiring the sublicensee to indemnify the Cpf1 Institutions according to the same terms as are provided in the Cpf1 License Agreement and a statement that the Cpf1 Institutions are intended third party beneficiaries of the sublicense agreement for certain purposes.

The licenses granted to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement are subject to retained rights of the U.S. government in the Cpf1 Patent Rights and rights retained by the Cpf1 Institutions on behalf of themselves and other academic, government and non-profit entities, to practice the Cpf1 Patent Rights for research, teaching, or educational purposes. Our exclusive license rights also are subject to rights retained by the Cpf1 Institutions for themselves and any third party to research, develop, make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, have sold, import or otherwise exploit the Cpf1 Patent Rights and licensed products as research products or research tools, or for research purposes.

Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad also retained rights to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties that wish to develop and commercialize products that target a particular gene and that otherwise would fall within the scope of our exclusive license from Broad. If a third party requests a license under the Cpf1 Patent Rights for the development and commercialization of a product that would be subject to our exclusive license grant from Broad (a “Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request”), Broad may notify us of such request. A Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request must be accompanied by a research, development and commercialization plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, including evidence that the third party has, or reasonably expects to have, access to any necessary intellectual property and funding. Broad may not grant a Cpf1 Third Party Proposed Product Request (i) if we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators are researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed to the same gene target that is the subject of the Cpf1Third Party Proposed Product Request (“Cpf1 Licensee Product”) and we can demonstrate such ongoing efforts to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction, or (ii) if we, directly or through any of our affiliates or sublicensees, wish to do so either alone or with a collaboration partner, and we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a Cpf1 Licensee Product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a Cpf1 Licensee Product nor able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad may grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license to the third party on a gene target-by-gene target basis.

The Cpf1 License Agreement also provides Broad with the right, subject to certain limitations, to designate gene targets for which Broad, whether alone or together with a Cpf1 Institution, affiliate or third party, has an interest in researching and developing products that would otherwise be covered by rights licensed to us under the Cpf1 License Agreement. Broad may not so designate any gene target for which we, directly or through any of our affiliates,

17

Table of Contents

sublicensees, or collaborators, are researching, developing, or commercializing a product, or for which we can demonstrate to Broad’s reasonable satisfaction that we are interested in researching, developing, and commercializing a product, that we have a commercially reasonable research, development, and commercialization plan to do so, and we commence and continue reasonable commercial efforts under such plan. If we, directly or through any of our affiliates, sublicensees, or collaborators, are not researching, developing, or commercializing a product directed toward the gene target designated by Broad and are not able to develop and implement a plan reasonably satisfactory to Broad, Broad is entitled to reserve all rights under the Cpf1 License Agreement, including the right to grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target, our license with respect to such gene target will terminate, and we will not be entitled under the Cpf1 License Agreement to develop and commercialize products directed to such gene target.

Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad and Wageningen are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $20.0 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the EU and Japan for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. If we undergo a change of control during the term of the Cpf1 License Agreement, certain of these clinical and regulatory milestone payments will be increased by a certain percentage in the mid double-digits. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Wageningen, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $54.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of a human disease that afflicts at least a specified number of patients in the aggregate in the United States. Broad and Wageningen are collectively entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $6.0 million in the aggregate per licensed product approved in the United States, the EU and Japan for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease. We are also obligated to make additional payments to Broad and Wageningen, collectively, of up to an aggregate of $36.0 million upon the occurrence of certain sales milestones per licensed product for the prevention or treatment of an ultra-orphan disease.

Broad and Wageningen, collectively, are entitled to receive mid single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of products for the prevention or treatment of human disease, and ranging from sub single-digit to high single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of other products and services, made by us, our affiliates, or our sublicensees. The royalty percentage depends on the product and service, and whether such licensed product or licensed service is covered by a valid claim within the Cpf1 Patent Rights. If we are legally required to pay royalties to a third party on net sales of our products because such third party holds patent rights that cover such licensed product, then we can credit up to a mid double-digit percentage of the amount paid to such third party against the royalties due to Broad and Wageningen in the same period. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the later of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Cpf1 Patent Rights that covers each licensed product or licensed service in each country or the tenth anniversary of the date of the first commercial sale of the product or service. If we sublicense any of the Cpf1 Patent Rights to a third party, Broad and Wageningen, collectively, had the right to receive high single-digit to low double-digit percentages of the sublicense income, which percentage decreased to a high single-digit percentage in 2022 for sublicenses executed thereafter.

Under the Cpf1 License Agreement, Broad and Wageningen are also entitled, collectively, to receive success payments in the event our market capitalization reaches specified thresholds ascending from a high nine digit dollar amount to $10.0 billion (“Market Cap Success Payments”) or sale of our company for consideration in excess of those thresholds, (“Company Sale Success Payments,” which with the Market Cap Success Payments, the “Success Payments”). Market Cap Success Payments are payable by us in cash, in shares of our common stock, with such shares being valued for such purpose at the closing price of our common stock as reported the Nasdaq Stock Market for the trading day immediately preceding the date of such payment if our common stock was then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market, or in the form of promissory notes (the “Promissory Notes”). The Promissory Notes bear interest at 4.8% per annum. Principal and interest on the Promissory Notes are payable on, subject to certain exceptions, 150 days following issuance (or if earlier, a specified period of time following a sale of our company). We could elect to make any payment of amounts outstanding under the Promissory Notes either in the form of cash or, subject to certain conditions, in shares of our common stock of equal value, with such shares being valued for such purpose at the closing price of our common stock as reported the Nasdaq Stock Market for the trading day immediately preceding the date of such payment if our common stock was then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market. In the event of a change of control of our company or a sale of our company, we are required to pay all remaining principal and accrued interest on the Promissory Notes in cash within a specified period following such event. Following a change in control of our company, Market Cap Success Payments are required to be made in cash. Company Sale Success Payments are payable solely in cash. In 2017, two Market Cap Success Payments of $5.0 million each became due and payable and we issued Promissory Notes in such amounts, which we fully settled by issuing shares of our common stock in 2017 and 2018. In December 2020, an additional Market Cap Success Payment of $15.0 million

18

Table of Contents

became due and payable, which we settled through the issuance of shares of our common stock in January 2021. The remaining Success Payments that may be paid to Broad and Wageningen range from a low-eight digit dollar amount to a mid-eight digit dollar amount, and collectively will not exceed, in aggregate, $100.0 million, which maximum would be payable only if we achieve a market capitalization threshold of $10.0 billion and have at least one product candidate covered by a claim of a patent right licensed to us under either the Cpf1 License Agreement or the Cas9-I License Agreement that is or was the subject of a clinical trial pursuant to development efforts by us or any of our affiliates or sublicensees.

In addition, in the event that a sale of our company or change of control has occurred and the maximum amount of potential Success Payments under the Cpf1 License Agreement has not been paid to Broad and Wageningen, Broad and Wageningen are entitled to receive, upon the subsequent achievement of specified regulatory milestones, percentages ranging from high single digits to mid-to-low double digits of the remaining unpaid maximum amount of Success Payments. Broad and Wageningen are further entitled to receive up to the full remaining unpaid maximum amount of Success Payments upon the subsequent achievement of specified sales milestones. All such post-sale or post-change of control milestone payments are required to be made in cash.

Broad retains control of the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights. We have the right to provide input in the prosecution of the Cpf1 Patent Rights, including to direct Broad to file and prosecute patents in certain countries. We are also obligated to reimburse Broad and Wageningen for all unreimbursed expenses incurred by them in connection with the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights prior to the date of the Cpf1 License Agreement, and to reimburse Broad for expenses associated with the prosecution and maintenance of the Cpf1 Patent Rights following the date of the Cpf1 License Agreement.

We have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the Cpf1 Patent Rights with respect to our licensed products in the Exclusive Cpf1 Field so long as certain conditions are met, such as providing Broad and the applicable Cpf1 Institutions with evidence demonstrating a good faith basis for bringing suit against a third party. We are solely responsible for the costs of any lawsuits we elect to initiate and cannot enter into a settlement without the prior written consent of Broad. Any sums recovered in such lawsuits will be shared between Broad, Wageningen, and us.

Unless terminated earlier, the term of the Cpf1 License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis, upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim of the Cpf1 Patent Rights in such country. However, our royalty obligations, discussed above, may survive expiration or termination. We have the right to terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement at will upon four months’ written notice to Broad. Either party may terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement upon a specified period of notice in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach of a material obligation, such notice period varying depending on the nature of the breach. Broad may terminate the Cpf1 License Agreement immediately if we challenge the enforceability, validity, or scope of any Cpf1 Patent Right or assist a third party to do so, or in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency.

Other Broad Agreements

In addition to the Cas9-I License Agreement and the Cpf1 License Agreement, in December 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Broad for certain patent rights covering Cas9 compositions of matter and their use for gene editing, which was amended in January 2021 and February 2024 (as amended, the “Cas9-II Agreement”), and, in June 2018, we entered into a Sponsored Research Agreement with Broad providing for Broad to conduct research useful or relevant to gene editing in the field of genomic medicines for the prevention of treatment of human diseases with funding from us, which was amended in January 2021 (as amended, the “Sponsored Research Agreement”). Under the Cas9-II Agreement and the Sponsored Research Agreement, we have potential obligations with respect to success payments, which are described in Note 8 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Commitments and Contingencies” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our platform technology, programs, and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, exclusively licensing and filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our platform technology, existing and planned programs, and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is

19

Table of Contents

available. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and confidential information to develop and maintain our proprietary position and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

Our in-licensed patents and patent applications cover various aspects of our gene editing platform technology, including CRISPR systems that employ Cas9 including S. aureus Cas9, high-fidelity Cas9 nucleases and Cas9 PAM variants, self-inactivating forms of Cas9, Cas9 nickases, CRISPR systems that employ Cas12a including Cas12a nickases and other variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas12a, and also CRISPR systems that employ viral vectors for delivery, single guide RNAs, or modified guide RNAs, including guide nucleic acids containing both DNA and RNA components. We also have filed patent applications and have in-licensed rights to filed patent applications directed to each of the four components of our gene editing platform technology. We intend to pursue, when possible, additional patent protection, including composition of matter, method of use, and process claims, directed to each component of our platform technology. We also intend to obtain rights to existing delivery technologies through one or more licenses from third parties.

Notwithstanding these efforts, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we have licensed or filed or may license or file in the future, and we cannot be sure that any patents we have licensed or patents that may be licensed or granted to us in the future will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. Moreover, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. While we have confidence in the measures we take to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug or a method for using it may be extended.

CRISPR

As of December 31, 2025, we owned 50 U.S. patents, 57 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 23 European patents and related validations, 59 pending European patent applications, 14 pending U.S. provisional patent applications, eight pending Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) patent applications, and other related patents and patent applications in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe that are related to our CRISPR technology and which include claims directed to our gene editing platform, including our directed editing component, as well as composition of matter and method of use claims for our therapeutic programs. Four of these U.S. patents, one of these European patents and their U.S., European and foreign counterpart applications are co-owned with Broad and Iowa and we have obtained an exclusive license to such co-ownership rights from these third parties in the field of prevention or treatment of human disease using gene therapy or gene editing. In addition, seven of these issued U.S. patents and seven of these pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications are co-owned with certain of our collaborators because they encompass inventions developed under our collaborations. Our current issued U.S. patents, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire between 2034 and 2039, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. If issued as U.S. patents, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent applications would be expected to expire between 2034 and 2046, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

As of December 31, 2025, we in-licensed 153 U.S. patents, 68 European patents and related validations, and approximately 350 pending patent applications, including 85 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 55 pending

20

Table of Contents

European patent applications, and other related patents and patent applications in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe that are related to our CRISPR technology collectively from various universities and institutions. The patents and patent applications outside of the United States and Europe are held primarily in Canada, China, Japan, and Australia, although some of our in-licensed patent families were filed in a larger number of countries. The claims from our in-licensed portfolio include claims to compositions of matter, methods of use, and certain processes.

These include claims directed to CRISPR systems that employ Cas9 including Cas9 nickases, S. aureus Cas9, high-fidelity Cas9 nucleases, Cas9 PAM variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas9, CRISPR systems that employ Cas12a including Cas12a nickases and other variants and self-inactivating forms of Cas12a, and also CRISPR systems that employ viral vectors for delivery, single guide RNAs, or modified guide RNAs. Our current U.S. patents in-licensed from the various universities and institutions, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire between 2033 and 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. If issued as U.S. patents, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent applications would be expected to expire between 2033 and 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

Our in-licensed patents and patent applications claim the inventions of investigators at various universities and institutions and the majority of these licensed patents and patent applications are licensed on an exclusive basis. The exclusive licenses are, in some cases, limited to certain technical fields. Certain U.S. patent applications licensed to us by Broad include Tokyo and NIH as joint applicants. Broad has only granted a license to us with respect to its interests and to Tokyo’s interests in these U.S. patent applications but not to any foreign equivalents thereof. Broad does not and does not purport to grant any rights in NIH’s interest in these U.S. patent applications under our agreement. As a result, we may not have exclusive rights under any U.S. patents that issue from these U.S. patent applications and we may not have any rights under any foreign patents that issue from any foreign equivalents thereof. For more information regarding these license agreements, please see the section titled “Business —Intellectual Property Licenses” of Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Trademarks

As of December 31, 2025, our registered trademark portfolio consisted of registrations in the United States for EDITAS, EDITAS in Stylized Letters, the Infinity Logo, UDITAS, SLEEK, the Double Helix Design, and PIONEERING THE POSSIBLE, registrations in Australia, China, the EU, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (the “UK”) for EDITAS, registrations in Australia, China, the EU, Japan, Switzerland and the UK for the Infinity Logo, registrations in the EU and the UK for UDITAS, registrations in Australia, China, the EU, Japan, Switzerland and the UK for SLEEK, and registrations in Australia, China, the EU and the UK for the Double Helix Design.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene therapy, gene editing and cell therapy fields, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. 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, biotechnology companies, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies may become available in the future.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that utilize technologies encompassing genomic medicines to create therapies, including gene editing and gene therapy. There are additional companies that are working to develop therapies in areas related to our research programs. For hyperlipidemia, these companies include AccurEdit Therapeutics, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly , EmendoBio, nChroma Bio, Scribe Therapeutics, Tune Therapeutics, and Yoltech Therapeutics, For hemoglobinopathies, these companies include Beam Therapeutics, BRL Medicine, CRISPR Therapeutics, Ensoma, Genetix Biotherapeutics (formerly bluebird bio), Kamau Therapeutics, Orna Therapeutics, Reforgene Medicine, Sanofi, Scribe Therapeutics, Tessera Therapeutics, Vertex, and Yoltech Therapeutics.

Our platform and product focus is the development of therapies using CRISPR technology specifically for gene editing. Other companies developing CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology or therapies using CRISPR Cas9 or Cas12a technology include AccurEdit Therapeutics, Arsenal Biosciences, AvenCell Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Cellistic, Century Therapeutics, CRISPR Therapeutics, EdiGene, eGenesis, ERS Genomics, Excision Biotherapeutics, Fate

21

Table of Contents

Therapeutics, Inscripta, Intellia Therapeutics, Kamau Therapeutics, Sarepta Therapeutics, Sigma-Aldrich, ToolGen, Vittoria Biotherapeutics, and Yoltech Therapeutics.

In addition, there have been and may continue to be discoveries of new CRISPR-based gene editing technologies. There are additional companies developing therapies using related CRISPR gene editing technologies, including other CRISPR nucleases, base editing, prime editing and gene writing. These companies include Amber Bio, Arbor Biotechnologies, Aurora Therapeutics, Beam Therapeutics, Eligo Biosciences, Eli Lilly, Emendo Biotherapeutics, Ensoma, Epicrispr Biotechnologies, Integra Therapeutics, KSQ Therapeutics, Locus Biosciences, Mammoth Biosciences, Metagenomi, Modalis Therapeutics, nChroma Bio, Prime Medicine, Profluent Bio, Roche, Scribe Therapeutics, Tessera Therapeutics, and Tune Therapeutics.

There are also companies developing therapies using transcription activator-like effector nucleases, meganucleases, Mega-TALs and zinc finger nucleases. These companies include Allogene Therapeutics, BMS, Cellectis, Genetix Biotherapeutics, Precision Biosciences, and Sangamo Therapeutics.

In addition to competition from other gene editing therapies, gene therapies or cell medicine therapies, any products that we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, protein, oligonucleotide, or ribonucleic acid therapies. For hyperlipidemia, these companies include Amgen, Arrowhead Therapeutics, LIB Therapeutics, Merck, NewAmsterdam Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Wave Life Sciences. In addition, statin medications are widely available from numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and are offered in both branded and generic forms.

In addition, many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, may have greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, commercialization, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, and availability of reimbursement.

If our current programs are approved for the indications for which we are currently planning clinical trials, they may compete with other products currently under development, including gene editing and gene therapy products. Competition with other related products currently under development may include competition for clinical trial sites, patient recruitment, and product sales.

Manufacturing

We contract with third parties for the manufacturing of materials for preclinical studies and our planned clinical trials. We have no manufacturing operations and do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities for large-scale production of our program materials. At the appropriate time in the product development of each product candidate, we will determine whether to invest in internal manufacturing capabilities or rely on third parties to manufacture late-stage clinical or commercial quantities of any products that we may successfully develop and have approved. The use of contracted manufacturing and reliance on collaboration partners is relatively cost-efficient and has eliminated the need for direct investment in manufacturing facilities and additional staff. Although we rely on contract manufacturers, we have personnel with manufacturing experience to oversee our contract manufacturers. We expect third-party manufacturers to be capable of providing sufficient quantities of our program materials to meet anticipated needs for preclinical studies and clinical trials. We believe that there are alternate sources of supply that can satisfy our preclinical, clinical, and commercial requirements, although we cannot be certain that identifying and establishing relationships with such sources, if necessary, would not result in significant delay or material additional costs.

22

Table of Contents

Commercialization

We will evaluate whether to build the commercial infrastructure in the United States necessary to effectively support the commercialization of our programs, if and when we first believe a regulatory approval of a product candidate under one of our programs in a particular geographic market appears probable. In Europe and elsewhere outside of the United States, where appropriate, we may elect in the future to utilize strategic partners, distributors, or contract sales forces to assist in the commercialization of our products. In certain instances, we may consider building our own commercial infrastructure.

As product candidates advance through our pipeline, our commercial plans may change. In particular, some of our research programs target potentially larger indications. Data, the size of the development programs, the size of the target market, the size of a commercial infrastructure, and manufacturing needs may all influence our strategies in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world.

Government Regulation and Licensure of Products

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, sales, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, including biological products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The regulatory requirements applicable to product development, approval and marketing are subject to change, and regulations and administrative guidance often are revised or reinterpreted by government agencies in ways that may have a significant impact on our business.

Licensure and Regulation of Biologics in the United States

In the United States, our candidate products would be regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and its implementing regulations and guidances. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and their approval by regulatory authorities, is generally referred to as a sponsor. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, including non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may subject a sponsor to delays in the conduct of the study, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.

A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

•preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies all performed in accordance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulations and standards;

•completion of the manufacture, under current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) conditions, of the drug substance and drug product that the sponsor intends to use in human clinical trials along with required analytical and stability testing;

•design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

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

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety, potency, and purity of the product candidate for each proposed indication, in accordance with current Good Clinical Practices (“GCP”);

23

Table of Contents

•preparation and submission to the FDA of a Biologic License Application (“BLA”) for a biologic product requesting marketing for one or more proposed indications, including submission of detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product in clinical development and proposed labelling;

•review of the product by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;

•satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product, or components thereof, are produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity, and, if applicable, the FDA’s current good tissue practice (“GTP”) for the use of human cellular and tissue products;

•satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of the non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of clinical data in support of the BLA;

•payment of application and program fees pursuant to the Prescription Drug User Free Act (“PDUFA”) securing FDA approval of the BLA and licensure of the new biologic product; and

•compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) and any post-approval studies required by the FDA.

Preclinical Studies and Investigational New Drug Application

Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, including a gene therapy product candidate, the product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animal studies. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. With passage of the FDA’s Modernization Act 2.0 in December 2022, Congress eliminated provisions in both the FDCA and the PHSA that required animal testing in support of an NDA or BLA. While animal testing may still be conducted, the FDA was authorized to rely on alternative non-clinical tests, including cell-based assays, microphysiological systems, or bioprinted or computer models. In April 2025, the FDA released a roadmap to replace animal testing in preclinical safety studies with scientifically validated new approach methodologies, such as organ-on-a-chip systems and computational modeling, which are referred to as in silica models, as well as advanced in vitro assays. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application.

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

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

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve

24

Table of Contents

access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application.

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

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests, it must make that policy publicly available. Although these requirements were rolled out over time, they have now come into full effect. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy. In October 2025, the FDA issued final guidance further clarifying the statutory and regulatory requirements governing expanded access.

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

Human Clinical Trials in Support of a BLA

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

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

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. These reports must include a development safety update report (“DSUR”). In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted. In December 2025, the FDA released final guidance outlining its processes and practices applicable to bioresearch monitoring inspections.

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee (“DMC”). This group may recommend continuation of the

25

Table of Contents

study as planned, changes in study conduct, or cessation of the study at designated check points based on certain available data from the study to which only the DMC has access. Finally, research activities involving infectious agents, hazardous chemicals, recombinant DNA, and genetically altered organisms and agents may be subject to review and approval of an Institutional Biosafety Committee in accordance with NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules.

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

•Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or, on occasion, in patients, such as patients suffering from sickle cell disease or cancer.

•Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials.

•Phase 3 clinical trials may proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy, and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a biologic; such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.”

In February 2026, the Commissioner of FDA and the Director of Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research published an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which they declared that, in most cases, the new default requirement for FDA approval of a new product will be one adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trial plus confirmatory evidence, rather than two pivotal clinical trials. In determining whether to rely on one trial, the FDA will focus on the single trial’s quality, including magnitude of effect, appropriateness of control arms, endpoint selection, statistical power, blinding, handling of missing data, biological plausibility and alignment with intermediate biomarkers. The FDA has long had authority to approve new products on the basis of one trial plus confirmatory evidence and, in recent years, the agency has exercised that authority with respect to certain types of products. The FDA now takes the position that this will be the new official default standard for most product candidates. At this point, it is unclear how this new policy will be implemented by the FDA and how, if at all, it will affect our clinical development programs.

In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of biologics approved under accelerated approval regulations. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any Phase 4 clinical trial requirement or to request a change in the product labeling. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”), Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a Diversity Action Plan (“DAP”) for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. On January 27, 2025, in response to an executive order issued by President Trump on January 21, 2025, relating to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the FDA removed the draft DAP guidance from its website. Subsequently, in July 2025, pursuant to a court order, the FDA restored the draft DAP guidance to its website with a statement that “information on this page may be modified and/or removed in the future subject to the terms of the court’s order and implemented consistent with applicable law.” Accordingly, in light of these ongoing actions, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the draft DAP guidance and how the FDA will consider diversity action plans in connection with its review of BLAs.

26

Table of Contents

In September 2025, the FDA issued final guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The final guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s updated E6(R3) final guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In September 2024, the FDA issued final guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

In October 2025, the FDA issued final guidance that focuses on patient-focused drug development. The guidance outlines how stakeholders, such as patients, caregivers, researchers and medical product developers, can submit patient experience data in support of the development and approval of drug products. To that end, the guidance provides an overview of clinical outcome assessments (“COAs”) in clinical trials, and the role that COAs may play in evaluating the clinical benefit of a medical product.

Sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the NIH. The NIH’s Final Rule on registration and reporting requirements for clinical trials became effective in 2017, and both NIH and the FDA have signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing those requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, FDA has as of January 2026 issued eight notices of non-compliance, thereby signaling the government’s willingness to begin enforcing these requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Violations may also result in injunctions and/or criminal prosecution or disqualification from federal grants.

Clinical Trials Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval

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

The acceptance by the FDA of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of U.S. approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In December 2025, in the context of negotiations involving reauthorization of PDUFA, the FDA proposed cutting fees for companies conducting clinical development programs in the United States, rather than abroad. It is unclear whether and how this proposal will be adopted and finalized.

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

Interactions with the FDA During the Clinical Development Program

27

Table of Contents

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, a sponsor is given the opportunity to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-new drug application (“NDA”) meetings as well as end of phase meetings such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues and should not require input from more than three disciplines or Divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.

The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure.

Pediatric Studies

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

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

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

Special Regulations and Guidance Governing Gene Therapy Products

It is possible that the procedures and standards applied to gene therapy products and cell therapy products may be applied to any CRISPR product candidates we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point. The FDA has defined a gene therapy product as one that mediates its effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and which are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms. The products may be used to modify cells in vivo or transferred to cells ex vivo prior to administration to the recipient.

Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) regulates gene therapy products. Within the CBER, the review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the Office of Cellular Therapeutic Products, and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its reviews. The NIH, including its Novel and Exceptional Technology Research Advisory Committee (“NExTRAC”), also

28

Table of Contents

advises the FDA on gene therapy issues and other issues related to emerging biotechnologies. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols.

The FDA has issued numerous guidance documents regarding gene therapies. Although the FDA has indicated that these and other guidance documents it previously issued are not legally binding, compliance with them is likely necessary to gain approval for any gene therapy product candidate. The guidance documents provide additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies when the risk of such effects is high. Further, the FDA usually recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by 10 years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire.

Compliance with cGMP and GTP Requirements

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined.

For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with GTP. These standards are found in FDA regulations and guidances that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (“HCT/Ps”), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing.

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

The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. In May 2025, the FDA disclosed plans to expand its use of unannounced inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities that produce drugs and biologics distributed in the United States. Subsequently, in August 2025, the FDA introduced a “PreCheck” program with the intention of supporting companies as they build new facilities in the United States. The PreCheck program provides manufacturers with more frequent FDA communication at critical development stages, including facility design, construction, and pre-production. These FDA initiatives flow from an Executive Order issued by President Trump on May 5, 2025, calling for actions to reduce regulatory barriers to pharmaceutical manufacturing in the United States.

Submission and Filing of a BLA

The results of product candidate development, preclinical testing, and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting license to market the product. The BLA must contain extensive manufacturing information and detailed information on the composition of the product and proposed labeling as well as payment of a user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject

29

Table of Contents

to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2026 is approximately $4.7 million for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of a licensed BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2026 is $442,213. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, the FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that the FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File (“RTF”) determination to the sponsor. In October 2025, the FDA issued internal guidance clarifying that “materially incomplete or inadequately organized” applications that would not permit timely, efficient and complete review will be the subject of an RTF. The internal guidance also provides that the agency will issue an RTF for an application that relies on a single adequate and well-controlled investigation to support approval if prior communications with the FDA determined the need for more than one clinical study and any justification for a single investigation is inadequate.

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

Before approving an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with a BLA submission, including component manufacturing (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified the FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to the FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.

Moreover, the FDA will review a sponsor’s financial relationship with the principal investigators who conducted the clinical trials in support of the NDA. That is because, under certain circumstances, principal investigators at a clinical trial site may also serve as scientific advisors or consultants to a sponsor and receive compensation in connection with such services. Depending on the level of that compensation and any other financial interest a principal investigator may have in a sponsor, the sponsor may be required to report these relationships to the FDA. The FDA will then evaluate that financial relationship and determine whether it creates a conflict of interest or otherwise affects the interpretation of the trial or the integrity of the data generated at the principal investigator’s clinical trial site. If so, the FDA may exclude data from the clinical trial site in connection with its determination of safety and efficacy of the investigational product.

In connection with its review of a BLA, the FDA may refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. In particular, the FDA may refer applications for novel biologic products or biologic products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates, and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

The FDA’s Decision on a BLA

Under the PHSA, the FDA may approve a BLA if it determines that the product is safe, pure, and potent and the facility where the product will be manufactured meets standards designed to ensure that it continues to be safe, pure, and potent. The potency of a product is required to be supported by substantial evidence. The FDA has previously interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish

30

Table of Contents

effectiveness of a new product. In December 2025, however, the FDA signaled that it is considering only requiring one clinical study for approval of certain products. The FDA indicated at such time that it may issue guidance regarding this change through a press release or other means; the FDA has not yet issued such guidance.

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities and any FDA audits of non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter (“CRL”). To reach this determination, the FDA must determine that the investigational product is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety, purity and potency in the BLA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the application is not approved, the FDA will issue a CRL, which will contain the conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application, and when possible will outline recommended actions the sponsor might take to obtain approval of the application. Sponsors that receive a CRL may submit to the FDA information that represents a complete response to the issues identified by the FDA. Such resubmissions are classified under PDUFA as either Class 1 or Class 2. The classification of a resubmission is based on the information submitted by a sponsor in response to an action letter. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has two months to review a Class 1 resubmission and six months to review a Class 2 resubmission. The FDA will not approve an application until issues identified in the CRL have been addressed. While CRLs were previously treated by the FDA as confidential and were only disclosed in action packages for approved products, the agency announced in September 2025 that it will now release CRLs promptly after they are issued to sponsors. Since that announcement, the FDA has posted a number of CRLs on its website.

If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product. It may also require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may call for post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, to further assess the product’s safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Expedited Review Programs

The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. None of these expedited programs, however, changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

•Fast Track designation. Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

•Breakthrough Therapy designation. To qualify for the Breakthrough Therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a Breakthrough Therapy product candidate

31

Table of Contents

receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review.

•Priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention compared to marketed products. The FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review.

•Regenerative advanced therapy. With passage of the Cures Act in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to Breakthrough Therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.

•Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher Program. On June 17, 2025, the FDA announced the creation of a new voucher program to expedite the development and approval of new drug products. Vouchers issued under the new program, which is known as the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher (“CNPV”) Program, may reportedly be redeemed by sponsors to shorten the review time of an NDA from approximately 10-12 months to 1-2 months. The FDA has indicated that the new CNPV process will convene experts from the FDA’s offices for a team-based review rather than using the standard review system of a drug application being sent to numerous FDA offices. Clinical information will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians and scientists who will pre-review the submitted information and convene for a one-day meeting. Vouchers under this program will reportedly be given to companies aligned with U.S. national priorities. As with the FDA’s other programs for expediting review and approval of new drug products, there is no guarantee it would result in approval of our marketing applications or that such approval, if granted, would be on an expedited basis.

•Rare Disease Evidence Principles. In September 2025, the FDA introduced a framework intended to streamline the approval of new therapies for ultrarare diseases. The Rare Disease Evidence Principles (“RDEP”) is intended to allow sponsors to rely on a single-arm trial in support of approval of drugs and biologics that treat rare diseases with very small patient populations and where the disease is linked to a known genetic defect and characterized by progressive functional deterioration leading to disability or death in a short period of time. The targeted diseases should also lack adequate alternative therapies.

Accelerated Approval

Drug or biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening conditions and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.

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

32

Table of Contents

In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The agency indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe the FDA’s latest thinking on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval.

Post-Approval Regulation

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

A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official lot release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

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

•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 applications or supplements to approved applications, 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 the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published

33

Table of Contents

final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic.

On September 9, 2025, President Trump issued a Memorandum directing HHS to “ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) prescription drug advertising, including by increasing the amount of information regarding any risks associated with the use of any such prescription drug required to be provided in prescription drug advertisements.” To that end, the FDA announced that it is initiating a rulemaking process “to eliminate the ‘adequate provision’ loophole that allows pharmaceutical advertisements to hide safety information by placing it in another format or location.” In this context, the FDA declared that it will no longer tolerate what it characterized as “deceptive practices” in prescription drug advertising and that the agency would “aggressively deploy” its available enforcement tools, with “heightened scrutiny” of fair balance and disclosures in social media promotions. The FDA also issued a generic “notice letter” directing companies to “remove any noncompliant advertising and bring all promotional communications into compliance.”

It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.

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

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

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

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

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

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. In particular, the concept of what constitutes the “same drug” for purposes of orphan drug

34

Table of Contents

exclusivity remains in flux in the context of gene therapies, and the FDA has recently issued guidance indicating it would consider two gene therapy products for the same indication to be different, thus each eligible for orphan drug exclusivity, if they express different transgenes or have or use different vectors, so long as those differences are not “minor.” The FDA will determine whether two vectors from the same viral class are the same on a case-by-case basis and may consider additional key features in assessing sameness. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the indication for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a second application for a clinically superior version of the product for the same use. The FDA cannot, however, approve the same product made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless it has the consent of the sponsor or the sponsor is unable to provide sufficient quantities.

The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021. In Catalyst Pharms, Inc. v. Becerra (“Catalyst”), the Court held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of the Catalyst court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug is approved. More recently however, on February 14, 2025, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. fully embraced the reasoning of the Catalyst decision in another decision challenging the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. On April 17, 2025, the FDA appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The implications of this decision, and its impact on the FDA’s implementation of the Orphan Drug Act, are unclear at this point.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”). The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an existing FDA-licensed “reference product.” To date, the FDA has approved both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products.

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

35

Table of Contents

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

In October 2025, the FDA issued draft guidance which proposes to eliminate the need for sponsors of biosimilar products to conduct comparative human clinical efficacy studies, allowing them to rely instead on analytical testing to demonstrate product differences from a reference product.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

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

FDA Approval of Companion Diagnostics

In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel drugs, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the drug therapeutic and in vitro companion diagnostic device on issues related to co-development of the products.

The 2014 guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a biologic product candidate generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a product are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE.

In April 2020, the FDA issued additional guidance which describes considerations for the development and labeling of companion diagnostic devices to support the indicated uses of multiple drug or biological oncology products, when appropriate. This guidance builds upon existing policy regarding the labeling of companion diagnostics. In its 2014 guidance, the FDA stated that if evidence is sufficient to conclude that the companion diagnostic is appropriate for use with a specific group of therapeutic products, the companion diagnostic’s intended use/indications for use should name the specific group of therapeutic products, rather than specific products. The 2020 guidance expands on the policy statement in the 2014 guidance by recommending that companion diagnostic developers consider a number of factors when determining whether their test could be developed, or the labeling for approved companion diagnostics could be revised through a supplement, to support a broader labeling claim such as use with a specific group of oncology therapeutic products (rather than listing an individual therapeutic product(s)).

36

Table of Contents

Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.

The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval (“PMA”) simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the sponsor must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. For federal fiscal year 2026, the standard fee is $579,272 and the small business fee is $144,818.

After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation, which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States.

Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, a sponsor will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the 27-member EU, before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The process governing approval of medicinal products in the EU generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU.

Non-clinical Studies

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

Clinical Trial Approval

On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“CTR”) became effective in the EU and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the EU. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the European Union (“EU Member State”) will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public. As of January 31, 2025, all clinical trials in the EU (including those which are ongoing) are subject to the CTR.

37

Table of Contents

Beyond streamlining the process, the new regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors, and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted, which we refer to as the Member States concerned. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the CTR.

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

Parties conducting certain clinical studies must, as in the U.S., post clinical trial information in the EU at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.

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. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (“CHMP”) or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Pediatric Studies

Sponsors developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) with the EMA’s pediatric committee (“PDCO”), and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date.

Marketing Authorization

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

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

38

Table of Contents

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

Specifically, the grant of marketing authorization in the EU for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC lays down specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products, and tissue engineered products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to EMA which provides an opinion regarding the application for marketing authorization. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by EMA.

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

Conditional Marketing Authorization

In specific circumstances, EU legislation (Article 14–a Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/5 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional MA for Medicinal Products for Human Use)) enables sponsors to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if (1) the product candidate is intended for the treatment, prevention or medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases; (2) the product candidate is intended to meet unmet medical needs of patients; (3) the benefit of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required; (4) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive; and (5) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Exceptional Circumstances

A marketing authorization may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This marketing authorization is close to the conditional marketing authorization as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a marketing authorization. However, unlike the conditional marketing authorization, the applicant does not, and will not in the future, have to provide the missing data. Although the marketing authorization “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the marketing authorization is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable. Under these procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the EMA or the competent authorities of the member states make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety, and efficacy. Except

39

Table of Contents

conditional marketing authorizations, marketing authorizations have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Specialized Procedures for Gene Therapies

The grant of marketing authorization in the EU for gene therapy products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC includes specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.

Regulatory Data Protection in the European Union

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

In this context, it should be noted that the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products was published in April 2023 and includes, among other things, provisions that would potentially reduce the duration of regulatory data protection. The European Parliament requested several amendments in April 2024. On December 11. 2025, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political agreement on the legislation which is expected to be adopted by mid-2026. Key changes include updating regulatory data exclusivity to a new system with eight years data exclusivity and reduced market exclusivity period to one year which can be extended if specific conditions are fulfilled, adding launch/supply obligations, incentivizing antibiotic innovation with transferable vouchers, and streamlining approval procedures in the EU. If the legislation is finalized in line with the provisional political agreement it will have a profound impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

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

Regulatory Requirements after Marketing Authorization

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

40

Table of Contents

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

Reimbursement and Pricing of Prescription Pharmaceuticals

The EU/European Economic Area (“EEA”) applies harmonized regulatory rules for medicinal products, for the approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, and for the regulatory approval of medicinal products. However, pricing and reimbursement for medicinal products varies greatly between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional testing for health technology assessments.

In the EU, similar political, economic and regulatory developments to those in the United States may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the U.S. and the EU, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, pharmaceutical firms may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of the product to other available therapies.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

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

An orphan drug designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the possibility to apply for a centralized European Union marketing authorization. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission or the member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the 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) even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

Patent Term Extensions in the European Union and Other Jurisdictions

The EU also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPCs”). The rules and requirements for obtaining an SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of

41

Table of Contents

marketing exclusivity for a drug. These periods can be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained, which is described in detail below. Although SPCs are available throughout the EU, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the EU.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (the “MHRA”), is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. The MHRA relies on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended) (the “HMR”), as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. On April 28, 2025,the UK Parliament adopted amendments to improve and strengthen the UK’s clinical trials regulatory regime; they will take effect on April 28, 2026. These changes were needed since the current UK requirements are based upon the now-repealed EU Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC), which has been replaced by the European Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation EU No 536/2014). Since the UK left the EU prior to the date on which the EU CTR took effect, the UK legal framework did not benefit from the same revisions as occurred at EU level.

As of January 1, 2024, a new international recognition procedure (“IRP”) applies which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators (“RRs”). The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EEA member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). The RR assessment must have undergone a full and standalone review. RR assessments based on reliance or recognition cannot be used to support an IRP application. A CHMP positive opinion or an MRDC positive end of procedure outcome is an RR authorisation for the purposes of IRP.

General Data Protection Regulation

Many countries outside of the United States maintain rigorous laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the EEA, and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors.

The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

Following the July 2020 Court of Justice of the European Union judgment invalidating the so-called EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in July 2023. This adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the European Union to the United States. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and there is currently one pending litigation against the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework before the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”), C-703/25 P – Latombe v Commission. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the so-called standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms.

42

Table of Contents

The European Commission decided in June 2021 that the level of data protection in the UK is “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the UK. On December 19, 2025, the European Commission renewed this decision until December 27, 2031. The UK and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.- UK “Data Bridge,” which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer personal data from the UK to the U.S. Switzerland has also taken an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the U.S.).

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

Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement

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

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

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

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for any product candidates we may develop will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a

43

Table of Contents

product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of any product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.

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

Healthcare Law and Regulation

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

•the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, receiving, or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid;

•the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false, fictitious, or fraudulent or knowingly making, using, or causing to made or used a false record or statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government;

•the federal civil monetary penalty and false statement laws and regulations relating to pricing and submission of pricing information for government programs, including penalties for knowingly and intentionally overcharging 340b eligible entities and the submission of false or fraudulent pricing information to government entities;

•the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which created additional federal criminal laws that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;

•HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

44

Table of Contents

•the federal false statements statute, which prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services;

•the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making, or offering or promising to make improper payments to non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or otherwise seeking favorable treatment;

•the federal transparency requirements known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as amended by the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) within the HHS, information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and

•analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to healthcare items or services that are reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers.

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

Healthcare Reform

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

By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (the “CAA”), which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the CAA delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (“PAYGO”) sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The CAA’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. In

45

Table of Contents

June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an action seeking to strike down the ACA after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Pharmaceutical Prices

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid.

In October 2020, the HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program (“SIP”) to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue the HHS. Several states have passed laws allowing for the importation of products from Canada. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian product importation. That state now has authority to import certain products from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each product selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the products and perform quality testing of the products to meet FDA standards. On May 21, 2025, the FDA announced that it would offer individual states the opportunity to submit a draft proposal for pre-review and meet with the agency to obtain initial feedback from FDA prior to formally submitting their SIP proposal. The intent of these meetings is to assist states in developing their proposals by further clarifying requirements, enhancing the quality of proposals submitted to the agency and ultimately shortening the review timeline.

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

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. The CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years Drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition were originally categorically excluded from price negotiation. With passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 3, 2025, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025, Congress extended this exemption to drugs and biologics with multiple orphan drug designations. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at 2,000 a year.

The first cycle of negotiations for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program commenced in the summer of 2023. On August 15, 2024, the HHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, the CMS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations by February 1, 2025. While there had been some questions about the Trump Administration’s position on this program, the CMS issued a public statement on January 29, 2025, declaring that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of the new administration and the CMS is committed to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program. The second cycle of

46

Table of Contents

negotiations with participating drug companies will occur during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co., Inc., filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Subsequently, other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, AstraZeneca L.P. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases or succeeded in getting claims dismissed for lack of standing. Most of these cases are now on appeal. On October 30, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in three of these cases. In April 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments in an additional three cases. On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected AstraZeneca L.P.’s challenge to the Medicare price negotiation program, finding that the program did not violate the company’s due process rights under the Constitution since there is no protected property interest in selling goods to Medicare beneficiaries at a price higher than what the government is willing to pay in reimbursement. Litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration has taken a number of actions to reduce the costs of pharmaceutical products. For example, on April 15, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order which directs HHS to take steps to reduce the prices of pharmaceutical products. Such measures include streamlining the state drug importation program and modifying provisions of the 340B program. Further, on May 12, 2025, President Trump issued an additional Executive Order calling on pharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the prices of medicines in the United States. The Order provides that if such actions do not lower the costs of pharmaceuticals, the Secretary of HHS would pursue other actions, including proposing a rulemaking that imposes Most-Favored Nation (“MFN”) pricing in the United States. Thereafter, on July 31, 2025, the President issued letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies reiterating the requirements of the May 12, 2025, Executive Order and demanding that such companies extend MFN pricing to Medicaid patients, guarantee MFN pricing for newly-launched drug products, return increased revenues abroad to patients in the U.S. and provide for direct purchasing at MFN pricing. Since that time, virtually all of these pharmaceutical companies have entered into agreements with the administration to provide for lower prices on certain pharmaceuticals.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. This is increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Federal and State Data Privacy Laws

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under HIPAA, the HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information (“PHI”) used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them.

47

Table of Contents

Our clinical trials will be regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

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

In addition to California, several other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA that are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering additional laws that will go into effect that could go into effect in 2026 and beyond. Other states will be considering similar laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, the State of Washington passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023 which specifically regulated health information that is not otherwise regulated by the HIPAA rules, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states are considering such legislation. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are also increasingly using privacy-related statutes at both the state and federal level to bring lawsuits against companies for their data-related practices. In particular, there have been a significant number of cases filed against companies for their use of pixels and other web trackers. These cases often allege violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other state laws regulating wiretapping, as well as the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any product candidates we may develop, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

Additional Regulations

48

Table of Contents

In addition to the foregoing, state, and federal laws regarding environmental protection 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 the use, handling, and disposal of various biologic, chemical, and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. Equivalent laws have been adopted in third countries that impose similar obligations.

Human Capital

As of February 1, 2026, we had 87 full-time employees, including 26 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Approximately 66 of our full-time employees are primarily engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

At Editas, we seek to translate the power and potential of CRISPR gene editing into a robust pipeline of medicines for people living with serious diseases around the world. We recognize that our success is driven by our courageous, collaborative, and passionate employees, who celebrate diversity and together foster a workplace that values inclusivity, where all voices are heard and respected. We seek to be an employer of choice that empowers our employees to drive innovation to develop transformative medicines for people living with serious diseases around the world.

Our Core Values

We work together with integrity, guided by our distinct culture. At the center of our culture are our core values, which guide and define the behaviors that make our culture unique and enable us to bring our best selves forward to achieve our mission of translating the promise of gene editing into a broad class of differentiated, transformational medicines for previously untreatable diseases:

•Engagement – We are active within our teams, Editas, and the broader community.

•Teamwork – We succeed together through collaboration, communication, and mutual respect.

•Drive – We are focused to urgently deliver transformative medicines to patients.

•Resilience – We adapt and learn from setbacks and proactively prepare for future challenges.

•Accountability – We hold ourselves, our teams, and Editas responsible for both our successes and failures.

Our Commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

We strongly believe that our greatest strength comes from the people who make up our team. Each employee brings diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and thinking styles, and when we champion inclusion, we cultivate a culture where every individual feels valued and can thrive. Our commitment to embracing and celebrating our differences fuels our drive to excel in scientific innovation, allowing us to harness the power of gene editing to develop groundbreaking and life-changing therapies for people living with serious diseases with the greatest unmet needs.

We have cultivated a diverse and inclusive workforce, including in our senior management team, to ensure an environment where employees feel empowered to achieve their fullest potential. As of December 31, 2025, 48% of our full-time employees were women and 37% of our senior management (director level and above) were women. As of December 31, 2025, 44% of our full-time employees identify as racially/ethnically diverse and 37% of our senior management identify as racially/ethnically diverse.

Recruitment, Retention and Development

Successful execution of our strategy is dependent on attracting, retaining and motivating a diverse team of highly skilled employees at all levels. We believe a key component of recruiting, retaining and motivating our employees is our total compensation package. For this reason, we provide employees with competitive compensation, including market-competitive salary and equity awards, along with competitive benefits packages, including medical, dental, vision and life insurance, flexible spending accounts, short- and long-term disability and matching contributions to a 401(k) tax-deferred savings plan. We also provide annual cash incentive bonus opportunities that are tied to both company performance and

49

Table of Contents

individual performance to foster a pay-for-performance culture. We regularly benchmark these total rewards against our industry peers to ensure we remain competitive and attractive to potential new hires.

We believe that continued learning and development, training and other resources are also an essential part of retaining our employees and creating a culture of learning and leadership. We encourage our employees to participate and take advantage of a variety of learning and development resources, including online skills courses, professional development events, and external training programs based on individual needs. We have also implemented formal coaching and mentoring programs, which enable employees to connect with, and learn and develop from, individuals across our company.

Communication and Engagement

We recognize that our employees perform best when they know how their work contributes to our overall strategy. To achieve this, we emphasize open and direct communication through the use of a variety of channels, including quarterly all-company business updates from the senior management team, fireside chats with new members of the Board of Directors and our executive management team, open forums and company-wide written communications, and postings on our company intranet.

In addition, we periodically conduct employee surveys to gauge employee engagement and solicit feedback, and enhance our understanding of the views of our employees, work environment and culture. The results from engagement surveys are used to implement programs and processes designed to enhance employee engagement and improve the employee experience.

Health, Wellness and Safety

Employee safety and well-being is of paramount importance to us. In addition to traditional benefits such as healthcare, flexible time off, paid parental leave, and retirement benefits, we offer a variety of benefits and resources to support employees’ physical and mental health, including a lifestyle spending allowance that employees may allocate to certain wellness programs and a third-party employee assistance program, which help us both attract talent and help to realize a healthier workforce.

Our Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the name Gengine, Inc. as a Delaware corporation in September 2013, and we changed our name to Editas Medicine, Inc. in November 2013. Our principal executive offices are located at 11 Hurley St., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02141, and our telephone number is (617) 401-9000.

Available Information

We maintain an internet website at www.editasmedicine.com and make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investors & Media,” as a source of information about us.

The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website address is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive technical reference only.