Eledon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ELDN) Business

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Eledon is a clinical stage biotechnology company using our immunology expertise in targeting the CD40 Ligand (“CD40L”) pathway to develop therapies to protect transplanted organs and prevent rejection, and to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (“ALS”). Our lead compound in development is tegoprubart, an IgG1, anti-CD40L antibody with high affinity for the CD40L, a well-validated biological target that we believe has broad therapeutic potential. We believe the central role of CD40L signaling in both adaptive and innate immune cell activation and function positions it as an attractive target for non-lymphocyte depleting, immunomodulatory therapeutic intervention.

Tegoprubart is engineered to potentially both improve safety and provide pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and dosing advantages compared to other anti-CD40 approaches. The CD40L/CD40 pathway is recognized for its prominent role in immune regulation. CD40L is primarily expressed on activated CD4+ T cells, platelets and endothelial cells while the CD40 receptor is constitutively expressed on antigen presenting cells such as macrophages and dendritic cells, as well as B cells. By blocking CD40L and not the CD40 receptor, tegoprubart inhibits both the CD40 and CD11 costimulatory signaling pathways, providing the potential for improved efficacy compared to anti-CD40 receptor approaches. Blocking CD40L also increases polarization of CD4+ lymphocytes to Tregs, a specialized subpopulation of T cells that act to suppress an immune response, thus creating a more tolerogenic environment, which may play a therapeutic role in autoimmune diseases and in the prevention of allograft rejection after solid organ transplantation.

Tegoprubart is designed to negate the risk of thrombolytic events seen in the first generation of anti-CD40L antibodies by introducing structural modifications that have been shown in preclinical models to eliminate binding to the Fcγ receptors associated with platelet activation without altering the binding of tegoprubart to CD40L. In non-human primate studies, dosing of tegoprubart up to 200 mg/kg per week for 26 weeks, demonstrated no adverse events regarding coagulation, platelet activation or thromboembolism.

Figure 1: Mechanism overview of CD40L inflammatory signaling and tegoprubart site of action

Figure 1: Interaction of CD40 with CD40L on immune cells mediates activation of the co-stimulatory immune pathway, controlling “cross talk” between the adaptive and innate immune systems. Blocking CD40L shifts polarization away from pro-inflammatory signaling to T cell anergy, apoptosis, and polarization to a “T-reg” environment. (Source: Adapted from Kant et al., Principles of Immunosuppression in the Management of Kidney Disease: Core Curriculum 2022, AJKD.)

7

Table of Contents

Strategy

Our business strategy is to optimize the clinical and commercial value of tegoprubart and become a global biopharmaceutical company with a focused immunology franchise. Our strategy is to develop tegoprubart for the prevention of rejection of allograft (i.e., transplanting an organ from one human to another) and xenograft (i.e., transplanting an organ from an animal to a human) organs and cells, and for the treatment of ALS. We selected our indications based on preclinical and clinical data that was generated with either tegoprubart or historical anti-CD40L molecules. In January 2023, we announced plans to prioritize and focus resources on our kidney transplantation programs, discontinue the Company funded islet cell transplantation program and the IgAN program. We also remain committed to further progressing ALS clinical development and are working with key stakeholders on potential next steps to do so. However, we are unable to continue our clinical development of tegoprubart for people with ALS without additional financing.

The following chart summarizes the status of our current clinical development programs. Details for each program are outlined below.

Acquisition

In September 2020, we acquired Anelixis Therapeutics, Inc. (“Anelixis”), the company that owned and controlled the intellectual property related to tegoprubart. See Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies of the Notes to Financial Statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, for further details of grants and licenses related to this acquisition.

Prior to our acquisition of Anelixis, we focused on developing medicines for patients with disorders of the ear, nose, and throat (“ENT”). In June 2020, we announced that our lead program did not achieve statistical significance for the primary efficacy endpoints in the treatment of acute otitis media. As a result of this failure to achieve the primary study endpoint, we suspended the clinical development of our legacy ENT assets while we assessed potential development strategies. Following the June 2020 announcement, we significantly curtailed development expenses as we sought to identify strategic alternatives that would maximize stockholder value. As a result of these activities, we acquired Anelixis and raised additional capital in September 2020, as described above. After acquiring Anelixis, we terminated our ENT activities and returned our product rights to the original license holders in July 2021.

Clinical Development of Tegoprubart for the Prevention of Allograft Rejection in Kidney Transplantation

In January 2023, we announced plans to prioritize and focus resources on our kidney transplantation programs. We are first focusing on kidney transplantation as this is the most common type of solid organ transplantation in the U.S. with an estimated 270,000 Americans living with a transplanted kidney. There are an estimated 27,000 kidneys transplanted annually in the U.S. Approximately 90,000 people in the U.S. are on a waiting list where they typically wait an average 3-5 years for a kidney transplant while about 5,000 people in the U.S. in need of a kidney transplant die each year waiting for a suitable kidney. Approximately 11% of U.S. people on the waiting list are waiting for a repeat transplant. There remains a critical shortage of kidneys and other organs available for transplantation.

8

Table of Contents

There has been little innovation in immunosuppression therapy for organ transplant patients over the past 30 years. The standard of care immunosuppressive drugs used post-transplant have been shown to reduce the risk of organ rejection, but they are also associated with potentially toxic side effects. Organ transplant recipients require immunosuppression on a lifelong basis, and any disruption in the immunosuppression therapy can trigger transplant rejection. Calcineurin inhibitors (“CNI”s) are a critical component of most immunosuppressive regimens to prevent acute and long-term kidney transplant rejection. However, chronic exposure to CNIs (tacrolimus is the drug most commonly used) is associated with nephrotoxicity, hypertension, new onset diabetes due to pancreatic beta cell toxicity, as well as central nervous system (“CNS”) side effects, like tremor. Over time, these CNI side effects may significantly damage the transplanted kidneys or result in a requirement for reduced exposures to CNIs which can lead to an increased risk of rejection. Moreover, CNS side effects like tremors may result in patients decreasing their adherence to their medicines. Today, an implanted kidney is expected to fail within 10-15 years on average using currently available immunosuppression options. The fact that American transplant patients are on average in their 50s means that many of them will ultimately need a second or even third transplant procedure during their lifetime or a return to dialysis.

The central role of CD40L signaling in generating pro-inflammatory responses makes it a highly attractive candidate for therapeutic intervention in the protection of transplanted organs and prevention of transplant rejection. Results from prior studies demonstrate that targeting and blocking CD40L has the potential for better efficacy and improved safety, including reduced risk of nephrotoxicity, diabetes, hypertension, and other side effects associated with standard-of-care CNIs such as tacrolimus.

Tegoprubart seeks to address challenges associated with current immunosuppressive transplantation regimens using CNI-based therapies. The ability to prevent acute and chronic transplant rejection without the need for CNIs has the potential to transform the clinical management of preventing graft rejection by mitigating the adverse events associated with CNIs and improving long-term graft survival, thus potentially decreasing the need for repeat kidney transplants and increasing organ availability for other patients on the wait list. By identifying and advancing novel strategies in immunosuppression including targeting the CD40L pathway, we may be able to help organs remain functional for longer and potentially throughout the natural lifespan of each recipient.

In aggregated data from the published studies referenced in Figure 1 below, non-human primates undergoing allograft renal transplantation receiving anti-CD40L monotherapy (e.g., 5c8, AI794, IDEC-131) had longer average survival than both those receiving anti-CD40 monotherapy (e.g., 4D11, cH5D12, Chi220, ASKP1240), tacrolimus monotherapy or untreated controls (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Inhibition of CD40L improved survival vs. CD40 inhibition in non-human primate kidney transplantation monotherapy studies

9

Table of Contents

Figure 2: Kaplan-Meir estimates of the probability of rejection free survival by treatment group from eleven published studies of allograft kidney transplant in non-human primates. Sources: Perrin, 2022; Song, 2014; Song, 2016; Duan, 2017. Note: In aggregated data from published studies, NHPs receiving anti-CD40L (e.g., 5c8, AI794, IDEC-131) immunomodulation monotherapy post kidney transplantation had longer average survival than those receiving anti-CD40 monotherapy (e.g., 4D11, cH5D12, Chi220, ASKP1240), tacrolimus monotherapy or untreated controls. Tac = tacrolimus. Meta-analysis is not based on head-to-head studies. Differences between any individual programs may vary.

We have received regulatory approvals in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, for a Phase 1b clinical trial of tegoprubart in up to 36 subjects, replacing tacrolimus as an immunosuppressive regimen component in patients undergoing de novo kidney transplantation. Each participant will receive rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction and a maintenance regimen consisting of tegoprubart, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint of the study is safety. Other endpoints include glomerular filtration rate (“eGFR”), characterizing the pharmacokinetic profile of tegoprubart, and the incidence of biopsy proven rejection. The first subject in the Phase 1b study was dosed in July 2022.

Better graft function as assessed by eGFR has been associated with improved long-term patient and graft survival and is an early predictor of future graft failure. Historical studies have reported average eGFRs generally in the low 50 mL/min/1.73m2 range during the first year after kidney transplant using current standard of care immunosuppression. An eGFR of 50 mL/min/1.73m2 or below indicates chronic kidney disease.

We reported interim safety and efficacy results from the Phase 1b clinical trial in March 2023, and provided updated data in November 2023, June 2024 and August 2025.

At the time of the August 2025 update, which reported data as of July 2025, 32 patients undergoing kidney transplantation have been enrolled in the Phase 1b study. Updated data showed that kidney function, as assessed by eGFR, stabilized after the first month post-transplant and remained in the range of approximately 68 mL/min/1.73 m2 through 12 months for patients (n = 12) who remained on tegoprubart. Kidney function in the intention-to-treat population (n=15) was approximately 63 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 12 months. Data from historical studies using the standard of care, calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression therapy, typically report aggregate mean eGFR of approximately 53 mL/min/1.73 m2 during the first year after kidney transplant. In addition, preliminary abbreviated iBox data was presented suggesting that tegoprubart may improve 5-year graft survival. Abbreviated iBox, a composite biomarker panel developed by the Paris Transplant Group, incorporates kidney function (eGFR, proteinuria) and immunologic response (donor-specific antibodies) parameters into a single prognostic score. Based on data collected as of July 2025, abbreviated iBox scores were -3.75 in the intention-to-treat population and -4.11 in the on-treatment population, which compare favorably to a -2.98 historical mean for calcineurin inhibitors. A difference in abbreviated iBox score of -0.40 at 12 months is considered predictive of a 4-5% difference in 5-year graft survival suggesting that tegoprubart may have a predicted 5-year allograft survival rate of over 96%. As of July 2025, there were six (18.8%) rejection episodes, and 75% of patients who experienced a rejection had received low-dose rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction. All rejection episodes were successfully treated. Of the patients who experienced a rejection episode and completed a year in the study, three who remained on tegoprubart had a mean eGFR of approximately 73 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 12 months, indicating full recovery of kidney function, while the two patients who switched to standard of care tacrolimus had a mean eGFR of approximately 34 mL/min/1.73 m² at 12 months.

In July 2022, we received Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application clearance from the FDA for our controlled, Phase 2 BESTOW trial of tegoprubart for the prevention of transplant rejection in persons receiving a kidney transplant. The BESTOW study is a multi-center, two-arm, active comparator, head-to-head superiority clinical study, with approximately 120 participants undergoing kidney transplantation in the U.S. and other countries to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of tegoprubart compared to the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus. The study’s primary objective is to assess graft function as measured by estimated eGFR at 12 months post-transplant in participants treated with tegoprubart compared to tacrolimus. Secondary objectives are the assessment of graft survival, biopsy-proven acute rejection, and the incidence of new onset diabetes mellitus after transplant. The BESTOW study is running in parallel to the ongoing Phase 1b clinical trial of tegoprubart in kidney transplantation. The first subject in the BESTOW study was dosed in August 2023 and the last patient was dosed on September 4, 2025.

On November 6, 2025, we announced topline efficacy and safety data from the Phase 2 BESTOW trial evaluating tegoprubart for the prevention of kidney transplant rejection. Safety and efficacy results supported the potential for tegoprubart to provide effective immunosuppression with a favorable safety and tolerability profile compared to tacrolimus. Safety findings underscore tegoprubart’s potential to maintain effective immunosuppression while minimizing the metabolic, neurologic, and cardiovascular toxicities characteristic of tacrolimus-based therapy. Notably, new-onset diabetes developed in approximately 17% of patients receiving tacrolimus versus 2% receiving tegoprubart. Tremor was markedly higher in the

10

Table of Contents

tacrolimus group (25.0% vs. 1.6%) and cardiovascular effects, including hypertension (25.0% vs. 15.9%), hypertensive crisis (7.8% vs. 1.6%), and heart failure (4.7% vs. 0%) all favored tegoprubart. Delayed graft function occurred less often with tegoprubart and required shorter dialysis (14.3% vs. 25%; 4.6 days vs. 6.1 days) suggesting potential reductions of 115 days on dialysis post-transplant per 100 deceased donor kidney recipients on tegoprubart versus tacrolimus. Sepsis or bacteremia occurred more frequently in the tacrolimus arm (17.2% vs. 4.8%) and viral infection rates (CMV, BK, EBV, fungal) were similar across groups, with no cases of Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder or Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy. Additionally, overall rates of serious adverse events were comparable between treatment arms. From an efficacy standpoint, tegoprubart achieved an eGFR of approximately 69 mL/min/1.73 m² (n=51) at 12 months compared to 66 mL/min/1.73 m² for tacrolimus (n=56). Although the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, tegoprubart maintained strong renal function, delivering what the Company believes is one of the highest mean eGFR level reported to date in kidney transplant clinical trials evaluating rejection prevention. Subgroup analyses showed higher eGFRs in nearly all tegoprubart subgroups compared to tacrolimus, particularly among living-related donor recipients (72 mL/min/1.73 m² vs. 62 mL/min/1.73 m²) and high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI 35) transplants (62 mL/min/1.73 m² vs. 53 mL/min/1.73 m²). In the deceased donor subgroup, tegoprubart achieved a mean eGFR of approximately 68 mL/min/1.73 m² at 12 months compared to 68 mL/min/1.73 m² for tacrolimus. The efficacy failure composite endpoint, comprising death, graft loss and biopsy proven acute rejection, is the approval endpoint historically recognized by the FDA. Efficacy failure composite endpoint was 22% in the tegoprubart group versus 17% in the tacrolimus group, demonstrating non-inferiority for tegoprubart versus tacrolimus, using a 20% non-inferiority margin. We believe these results, if replicated in a Phase 3 study, would be sufficient to support tegoprubart’s approvability. The rate of acute rejection in all biopsies was 20.6% for tegoprubart group compared with 14.1% in the tacrolimus group. Among patients in the tegoprubart group who experienced acute rejection and remained on treatment through month 12, mean eGFR was 73 mL/min/1.73 m² compared to 50 mL/min/1.73 m² in those who switched to tacrolimus. Additionally, there was one case of donor-specific antibodies in the tegoprubart arm versus two in the tacrolimus arm.

In October 2023, we enrolled the first participant in a Phase 2 open-label extension study which is designed to evaluate the long-term safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of tegoprubart in participants who have completed one year of treatment in either the ongoing Phase 1b study or the Phase 2 BESTOW study.

In January 2026, we presented 24-month follow-up data from eight patients enrolled in the Phase 1b trial long-term extension evaluating tegoprubart in kidney transplantation at the American Society of Transplant Surgeons Winter Symposium held in Scottsdale, Arizona. During the reported follow-up period, no episodes of biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, new-onset diabetes mellitus, or de novo donor-specific antibody formation were observed among participating patients. Mean eGFR increased over the measurement period from 67.0 mL/min/1.73 m² at 12 months to 74.2 mL/min/1.73 m² at 24 months.

In 2026, we plan to seek guidance from the FDA regarding the design of a potential Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating tegoprubart in kidney transplantation and, subject to regulatory feedback and alignment, may initiate a Phase 3 trial.

Clinical Development of Tegoprubart for the Prevention of Allograft Rejection in Xenotransplantation

While inhibition of CD40L has shown it may play an important role in immunosuppression in allograft kidney transplantation, this mechanism of action has also demonstrated that it may be a promising option in xenotransplantation (i.e., transplanting an organ from an animal to a human).

In January 2023, we entered into a non-exclusive collaborative research agreement with eGenesis, Inc., (“eGenesis”), under which eGenesis gained access to tegoprubart for preclinical and clinical xenotransplantation studies in support of eGenesis’ kidney, heart and islet cell xenotransplantation programs.

To date, tegoprubart has been used as a key component of the immunosuppression regimen in four xenotransplantation procedures: three involving genetically modified pig kidneys and one involving a genetically modified pig heart. Two of the kidney transplant recipients remain alive. One continues to maintain kidney function with the transplanted pig kidney, while the other had the graft removed on day 271 and has since received an allograft kidney from a donor.

Clinical Development of Tegoprubart for the Prevention of Allograft Rejection in Islet Cell Transplantation (“ICT”)

Type 1 diabetes (“T1D”) is a T cell mediated autoimmune disease with progressive loss of insulin producing pancreatic beta cells and affects approximately 2 million persons in the United States. Approximately 33% of people with

11

Table of Contents

T1D report impaired awareness of hypoglycemia regardless of continuous glucose monitoring or automated insulin usage. Approximately 12% of people with T1D experience recurrent severe hypoglycemic events annually, putting them at higher risk for adverse outcomes. Approximately 5% to 8% of adults with T1D experience diabetic ketoacidosis annually, often as a result of poor glycemic control. ICT is gaining attention as a therapeutic option for T1D because it can restore physiological insulin secretion, minimize the risk of hypoglycemic unawareness, and reduce the risk of death due to severe hypoglycemia. The advances made in this field over the past decade have improved patient outcomes, and the procedure has been evolving from an experimental treatment to a clinical treatment option.

A number of issues are believed to continue to hamper the overall success of ICT and to need to be addressed in order for there to be widespread clinical acceptance. These include the acute loss of transplanted islets with current immunosuppressive treatments, particularly those with CNI-based therapies, due to islet cell toxicity and alloreactive immunologic responses to transplanted islets. Over time, the progressive loss of islet cells and decline in islet cell function can lead to the need for multiple transplants in order for T1D patients to have optimal response to blood glucose levels and possibly achieve insulin independence. Tegoprubart seeks to address the challenges associated with current ICT immunosuppressive regimens using CNI-based therapies, by replacing the CNIs with tegoprubart to prevent rejection and protect the transplanted cells. We believe that tegoprubart may unlock the ICT market by potentially improving islet cell graft survival and reduce the side effects associated with standard of care regimens.

Historical studies in nonhuman primate models of ICT have demonstrated that treatment with anti-CD40L antibodies induces long term islet cell function and graft survival, even as a monotherapy. Tegoprubart has shown pre-clinical, proof-of-concept efficacy in a non-human primate model of T1D, where animals undergoing ICT maintained glucose control and sustained levels of C-peptide with chronic tegoprubart treatment for up to a year. Compared to combination immunosuppressive therapy including CNIs, tegoprubart monotherapy was more effective in preventing long term islet cell rejection, associated with better graft function, and showed an improved safety profile.

In 2022, the FDA granted orphan designation to tegoprubart for the prevention of allograft rejection in pancreatic islet cell transplantation.

In January 2024, we announced that tegoprubart would be evaluated in an investigator-initiated clinical trial conducted at the University of Chicago Medicine’s Transplant Institute. The study is designed to assess the safety of a calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression regimen utilizing tegoprubart in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus undergoing islet cell transplantation. We are not funding the trial and our involvement is limited to supplying tegoprubart for use in the study.

As of November 2025, preliminary data from the first six subjects enrolled in the study demonstrated improvements in glycemic control following islet transplantation, with all six subjects achieving insulin independence after one or two transplant procedures. The first three participants have remained insulin-free for more than one year following transplantation, while additional subjects achieved insulin independence within several weeks following transplantation and have maintained hemoglobin A1c levels below 6% during follow-up. All treated subjects have remained free of severe hypoglycemic events since transplantation.

Tegoprubart has been generally well tolerated to date, with no reported serious infections, thromboembolic events, or biopsy-confirmed rejection events observed during the reported follow-up period, and without evidence of kidney or neurological toxicities commonly associated with calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression. As of November 2025, a total of eight patients had undergone islet transplantation using tegoprubart as the core immunosuppressive agent, and one additional patient with calcineurin inhibitor-associated nephrotoxicity had been transitioned from tacrolimus to tegoprubart.

Clinical Development of Tegoprubart for ALS

ALS is a progressive, paralytic disorder characterized by degeneration of motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. In the U.S., the incidence is estimated at approximately 5,000 cases per year with a prevalence of approximately 30,000 cases overall. Despite 3 approved drugs, in most cases, death from respiratory failure occurs between 3 to 5 years from diagnosis, with 50% of patients living at least 3 years from diagnosis and only 20% of patients living at least 5 years from diagnosis.

While the exact pathogenic mechanism of ALS is still not fully understood, there is strong evidence indicating that neuroinflammation plays an important role in the disease’s pathogenesis. Neuroinflammation in ALS is characterized by the infiltration of lymphocytes and macrophages into the central nervous system, and the activation of microglia and reactive astrocytes. Reactive astrocytes and microglia as well as infiltrating lymphocytes, dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages

12

Table of Contents

and immune complexes have been identified in cerebrospinal fluid and neural tissues in both animal models of ALS and at autopsy in ALS patients.

Tegoprubart is designed to block CD40L binding to CD40, thereby potentially inhibiting neuroinflammatory pathways leading to disease progression in ALS. In vitro proof-of-concept studies have shown that tegoprubart binds to CD40L in human cells and blocks CD40L binding on antigen presenting cells and activated T cells. The potential for therapeutic benefit of CD40L blockage in treating ALS has been demonstrated in a SOD1 mouse model of ALS, where a murine anti-CD40L antibody, MR1 (as defined below), prolonged survival and delayed the onset of neurological disease progression. These pathophysiological manifestations are believed to be due to reduced immune cell infiltration of macrophages into skeletal muscle and their destroying denervated nerves. The plasticity of the nervous system to repair itself in the absence of this immune cell attack is believed to result in improved neuromuscular junction occupancy and improved muscle function. Blocking CD40L signaling also prevents pro-inflammatory polarization of lymphocytes, reduced neuroinflammation and improved motor neuron survival in rodent ALS models (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Blocking CD40L Improves Survival and Pathophysiology Associated with ALS

Figure 3: Anti-CD40L (“MR1”) treatment decreases CD68+ macrophages, improves neuromuscular junction occupancy and improves motor neuron survival. (A) Quantification of reduction of CD68+ macrophages by anti-CD40L treatment at day 100. (White bar, control IgG); gray bar (anti-CD40L–treatment); black bar (untreated age-matched non-transgenic mice) (B) Quantification of neuromuscular occupancy in SOD1 mice prior to overt symptoms (day 70) versus after symptom onset (day 85) treated with an IgG control antibody (vehicle) or anti-CD40L antibody. (C) Quantitative comparison of lumbar spinal cord motor neuron counts per mm2 in IgG vehicle control (White bar) versus anti-CD40L treated mice (grey bar) at day 100 (Lincecum, 2010).

In 2018, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to tegoprubart for ALS. In 2019, we completed a single ascending dose Phase 1 study of tegoprubart in healthy volunteers and people with ALS. In this study, the doses of tegoprubart studied were well tolerated in healthy adult subjects and adults with ALS. Tegoprubart demonstrated low anti-drug antibody responses that were not dose related, linear dose proportionality across the dose ranges, and a half-life of up to 26 days.

In October 2020, we initiated a Phase 2a, open-label, multi-center study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple doses of tegoprubart in adult subjects with ALS. Fifty-four subjects with ALS were enrolled into the study in the United States and Canada at 13 ALS treatment sites. Ascending doses of tegoprubart were administered as IV infusions to four sequentially enrolling cohorts. The first two cohorts consisted of nine participants, and the last two cohorts of 18 participants each. All enrolled subjects received six infusions of tegoprubart over a 12-week period. Blood samples for target engagement, and exploratory biomarkers for inflammation and neurodegeneration were taken and analyzed. Participant-focused clinical outcomes were also assessed. In May 2022, we completed the Phase 2a study and released positive topline results. Tegoprubart successfully met the primary endpoints of safety and tolerability. Fifty of the fifty-four subjects completed all six study infusions, and adverse events were typical of an ALS patient population. Tegoprubart was well-tolerated, and no drug-related serious adverse events were observed. No new safety signals emerged. Anti-drug antibodies (“ADAs”) were present in less than 5 percent of samples. All ADAs were of low titer and did not impact tegoprubart drug

13

Table of Contents

levels. Tegoprubart target engagement was demonstrated in all dose cohorts with increasing target engagement in a dose-dependent manner, plateauing at the 4 and 8 mg / kg dosing levels using CD40L and CXCL13 biomarkers related to T cell and B cell function, respectively. Tegoprubart exposure decreased inflammatory biomarker levels, in a dose dependent manner, in 20 of 32 pro-inflammatory proteins. Pro-inflammatory biomarkers reduced included biomarkers also associated with IgA nephropathy and kidney transplant rejection, such as IgA, IgE, IgM, C3, CXCL9, and CXCL10.

We are seeking to further progress ALS clinical development and plan to work with key stakeholders on potential next steps to do so. However, we will be unable to continue our clinical development of tegoprubart for people with ALS without additional financing specific for our ALS program, and we can provide no assurances that we will be able to obtain financing on acceptable terms or at all.

Clinical Development of Tegoprubart for IgA Nephropathy

In January 2023, the Company announced the deprioritization of its IgAN program and all IgAN clinical development activities were discontinued in 2023. IgAN is the leading cause of chronic glomerulonephritis, a state of inflammation producing damage to the filtering part of the kidney. Disease manifestation and clinical presentation involves renal dysfunction characterized by proteinuria with a slow relentless course. Approximately 30%-40% of persons living with IgAN ultimately reach end stage renal disease (“ESRD”). The standard of care for ESRD is dialysis or kidney transplant, which represents a significant economic burden as well as a major impact on a patient’s quality of life. With an estimated prevalence of approximately 150,000 persons in the United States, IgAN is one of the most common autoimmune glomerulonephropathies. In the United States, oral budesonide Tarpeyo was approved for use in IgAN by the FDA in December 2021 and Kinpeygo received conditional approval by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in July 2022.

In August 2022, we received IND clearance from the FDA to evaluate tegoprubart for the treatment of IgAN. The Phase 2 global study was a 96-week open-label, dose ranging trial, and included both a high dose and a low dose cohort. The primary endpoint was change in urinary protein:creatinine ratio at week twenty-four. Secondary endpoints included change in estimated eGFR at week 96 as well as safety and tolerability. The first subject was dosed in May 2022. We reported interim safety data from the Phase 2 high dose cohort in March 2023.

Intellectual Property

Eledon’s success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, novel discoveries, product technologies and other know-how, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our product candidates by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates.

Our intellectual property portfolio includes issued patents and pending patent applications directed toward (i) isolated antibodies and (ii) methods of treatment using the isolated antibodies that block the interaction of CD40L and CD40 to treat CD40L-related diseases or disorders. We own and have exclusive rights to ten active patent families, of which three families are exclusively licensed and the rest are wholly-owned by Eledon. The first exclusively-licensed family is directed to methods for treating ALS with antibodies and includes two issued United States patents and 14 issued foreign patents (Japan, Hong Kong, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland). Absent any patent term adjustments or extensions, patents in this family expire in December 2029. The second exclusively-licensed family is directed to tegoprubart, with 11 pending applications, and issued patents including five issued United States patents and 23 issued foreign patents (Australia, Belgium, Switzerland, China, Germany, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Singapore). Absent any term adjustments or extensions, patents in this family expire in February 2036. The third exclusively-licensed family is directed to therapeutic anti-CD40L antibodies, with 14 pending applications, including one pending United States patent application, and issued patents, including one issued United States patent and nine issued foreign patents (China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia). Absent any term adjustments or extensions, patents in this family expire in May 2038. Our Eledon-owned patent families are directed to methods for treating neurodegenerative disorders, kidney disorders, and transplant rejection. Two of our Eledon-owned patent families are pending in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and Singapore, three of our Eledon-owned patent families are at the Patent Cooperation Treaty stage, and three of our Eledon-owned patent families are

14

Table of Contents

at the provisional stage. Absent any term adjustments or extensions, any patents to issue from the pending applications in these patent families would expire between May 2043 and November 2046, respectively.

Patents extend for varying periods according to the date of patent filing or grant and the legal term of patents in various countries where patent protection is obtained. The actual protection afforded by a patent, which can vary from country to country, depends on the type of patent, the scope of its coverage and the availability of legal remedies in the country.

Eledon also protects its proprietary information by requiring its employees, consultants, contractors, and other advisors to execute nondisclosure and assignment of invention agreements upon commencement of their respective employment or engagement. In addition, Eledon also requires confidentiality or service agreements from third parties that receive confidential information or materials.

See Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies of the Notes to Financial Statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the caption “Grants and Licenses” for further information about the Company’s intellectual property.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by continuing technological advancement and significant competition. While we believe that our product candidates, technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products. The availability of reimbursement from the government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical studies, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

The competitive conditions faced by the Company are also described in greater detail in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the caption “We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing competing products before or more successfully than we do.”

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of tegoprubart or any future product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently rely on third parties for raw materials and the manufacturing of drug substance and drug product for non-clinical and clinical activities. As of the date of this Annual Report, we have not experienced any difficulty in obtaining raw materials required with respect to the manufacturing of tegoprubart. We believe we have enough drug substance and drug product on hand and manufacturing capacity with our third-party manufacturing providers to meet forecasted clinical trial demand.

We also rely on third parties to label, store and distribute drug product for our non-clinical and clinical trials.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, including federal, state, and local authorities, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the manufacturing, research and clinical development, marketing, labeling, and packaging, storage, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, advertising and promotion, and export and import of pharmaceutical and biological products, such as those we are developing. Pricing of such products is also subject to

15

Table of Contents

regulation in many countries. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Government Regulation

The FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and its implementing regulations, and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and its implementing regulations. FDA approval is required before any new unapproved drug or biologic or dosage form, including a new use of a previously approved drug, can be marketed in the U.S. Drugs and biologics are also subject to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time during the product development process, clinical testing, approval process or after approval, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any FDA enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

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

•
completion of extensive preclinical laboratory tests and preclinical animal studies, all performed in accordance with the Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) regulations;

•
submission to the FDA of an IND which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually;

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

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for each proposed indication;

•
completion of manufacturing scale up and stability studies, all performed in accordance with the Good Manufacturing Practices (“GMP”) regulations;

•
preparation of and submission to the FDA of a biologics license application (“BLA”) or a new drug application, or NDA, after completion of all pivotal clinical trials;

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

•
a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of a BLA or NDA to file the application for review;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities where the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) regulations;

•
potential FDA audit of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA or NDA; and

•
FDA review and approval of a BLA or NDA prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the product.

The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

16

Table of Contents

An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans in clinical trials. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for human trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational new drug. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. An IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to the proposed clinical trials. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before clinical trials can begin. Accordingly, submission of an IND may or may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. The FDA may impose a clinical hold at any time during clinical trials and may impose a partial clinical hold that would limit trials, for example, to certain doses or for a certain length of time.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with Good Clinical Practices (“GCPs”) which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the efficacy 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. Additionally, approval must also be obtained from each clinical trial site’s IRB before the trials may be initiated, and the IRB must monitor the trial until completed. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries.

The clinical investigation of a drug is generally divided into three phases. Although the phases are usually conducted sequentially, they may overlap or be combined.

•
Phase 1. The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to evaluate the safety, dosage tolerance, metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the investigational new drug in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness.

•
Phase 2. The drug is administered to a limited patient population to evaluate dosage tolerance and optimal dosage, identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks, and preliminarily evaluate efficacy.

•
Phase 3. The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites to generate enough data to evaluate dosage, clinical effectiveness and safety, to establish the overall benefit-risk relationship of the investigational new drug product, and to provide an adequate basis for physician labeling.

In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of a BLA or NDA for a product candidate on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials after approval. In other cases, a sponsor may voluntarily conduct additional clinical trials after approval to gain more information about the drug. Such post-approval studies are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials.

Sponsors must also report to the FDA, within certain timeframes, serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator’s brochure, or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product candidate. The FDA, the IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives or competitive climate.

The clinical trial process can take three to ten years or more to complete, and there can be no assurance that the data collected will support FDA approval or licensure of the product. Results from one trial are not necessarily predictive of results from later trials.

17

Table of Contents

A drug being studied in clinical trials may be made available to individual patients in certain circumstances. Pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”) which was signed into law in December 2016, the manufacturer of an investigational drug for a serious disease or condition is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for individual patient access to such investigational drug (compassionate use). This requirement applies on the later of 60 calendar days after the date of enactment of the Cures Act or the first initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial of the investigational drug. At this time, Eledon does not have a program for the compassionate use of an investigational product outside of a clinical trial as it is not applicable to our investigational products.

Submission of a BLA or NDA to the FDA

Assuming successful completion of all required testing (e.g., completion of pivotal clinical trials) in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, detailed investigational new drug product information is submitted to the FDA in the form of a BLA or NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs and NDAs is subject to an application user fee and these fees are typically increased on an annual basis. Applications for orphan drug products are exempted from the BLA and NDA user fees and may be exempted from product and establishment user fees, unless the application includes an indication for other than a rare disease or condition. No application user fees were paid for tegoprubart in calendar 2025.

A BLA or NDA for a new molecular entity must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from several alternative sources, including investigator-initiated trials that are not sponsored by Eledon. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational new drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.

Once a BLA or NDA for a new molecular entity has been submitted, the FDA’s goal is to review the application within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application relates to an unmet medical need in a serious or life-threatening indication, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. The review process is often significantly extended by the FDA’s requests for additional information or clarification.

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

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

The FDA’s Decision on a BLA or NDA

The FDA evaluates a BLA to determine whether the data demonstrate that the biologic is safe, pure, and potent, or effective, and an NDA to determine whether the drug is safe and effective. After the FDA evaluates the BLA or NDA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the product will be produced, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data or an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. Even if such additional information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA or NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval and issue a denial. The FDA could also approve the BLA or NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) plan to mitigate risks, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to

18

Table of Contents

proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct one or more post-market studies or clinical trials. Such post-market testing may include Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

Pediatric Trials and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (“PREA”) as amended, BLAs and NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of an investigational new drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric populations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within sixty days of an end-of-phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, 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 if certain criteria are met. The FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs. The requirements for pediatric data do not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. In the future we may seek pediatric approval for tegoprubart applications in connection with renal and islet cell transplantations, which may require the submission of a PSP.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent 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 the five-year and three-year non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA or NDA 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 FDA-requested pediatric trials are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection covering 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 accept or approve another application relying on the BLA or NDA sponsor’s data.

Post-Approval Requirements

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

Drug manufacturers are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical quantities of our product candidates and expect to rely in the future on third parties for the production of commercial quantities. Future FDA and state inspections may identify compliance issues at our facilities or at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production, distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or

19

Table of Contents

holder of an approved BLA or NDA, including withdrawal or recall of the product from the market or other voluntary, FDA-initiated or judicial action that could delay or prohibit further marketing. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

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

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

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

•
refusal of the FDA to approve pending BLAs or NDAs or supplements to approved BLAs or NDAs, or suspension or revocation of licenses or withdrawal of approvals;

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

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

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

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States.

Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product is the first to receive FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity. The Company received orphan drug designations for tegoprubart for the treatment of ALS and prevention of allograft rejection in pancreatic islet cell transplantation.

Patent Term Restoration

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA or NDA, plus the time between the submission date and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. 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 and within 60 days of the product’s approval. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of the patent term for one of our currently owned or

20

Table of Contents

licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA or NDA.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (“RLD”).

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to an RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the generic drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates that the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD and it assigns a therapeutic equivalence rating to the approved generic drug in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider an “AB” therapeutic equivalence rating to mean that a generic drug is fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of an “AB” rating often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

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

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

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

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

•
the required patent information has not been filed;

•
the listed patent has expired;

•
the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or

•
the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the new product.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification

21

Table of Contents

automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

European Union/Rest of World Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. The cost of establishing a regulatory compliance system for numerous varying jurisdictions can be very significant. Although many of the issues discussed above with respect to the United States apply similarly in the context of the European Union (“EU”) and in other jurisdictions, the approval process varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

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

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP the applicable regulatory requirements, and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational medicinal product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The content of the BLA or NDA filed in the United States is like that required in the EU, except, among other things, country-specific document requirements.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing product licensing, pricing, and reimbursement vary from country to country.

Countries that are part of the EU, as well as countries outside of the European Union, have their own governing bodies, requirements, and processes with respect to the approval of pharmaceutical and biologic products. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Authorization Procedures in the EU

Medicines can be authorized in the EU by using either the centralized authorization procedure or national authorization procedures.

•
Centralized procedure. The EMA implemented the centralized procedure for the approval of human medicines to facilitate marketing authorizations that are valid throughout the European Economic Area (“EEA”). This procedure results in a single marketing authorization issued by the EMA that is valid across the EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human medicines that are: derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, and officially designated orphan medicines.

•
For medicines that do not fall within these categories, an applicant has the option of submitting an application for a centralized marketing authorization to the European Commission following a favorable opinion by the EMA, as long as the medicine concerned is a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if its authorization would be in the interest of public health.

22

Table of Contents

•
National authorization procedures. There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several EU countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

•
Decentralized procedure. Using the decentralized procedure, an applicant may apply for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU country of medicinal products that have not yet been authorized in any EU country and that do not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure.

•
Mutual recognition procedure. In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one EU Member State, in accordance with the national procedures of that country. Following this, further marketing authorizations can be sought from other EU countries in a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization.

In some cases, a Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) or a request for waiver or deferral, is required for submission prior to submitting a marketing authorization application. A PIP describes, among other things, proposed pediatric trials and their timing relative to clinical trials in adults. A PIP will be submitted to EMA and other EU countries, as required. The PIP will need to be submitted early during product development before marketing authorization applications are submitted. The timing of PIP submission cannot be after initiation of pivotal trials or confirmatory (phase 3) trials. In the future we may seek pediatric approval for tegoprubart applications in connection with renal and islet cell transplantations, which may require the submission of a PIP.

Exclusivity of New Chemical Entities and New Fixed Dose Combinations

In the EU, new chemical entities, sometimes referred to as new active substances as well as new fixed dose combinations, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. This data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for eight years, after which a generic application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but not approved for two years. 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 their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

Exceptional Circumstances/Conditional Approval

Orphan drugs or drugs with unmet medical needs may be eligible for EU approval under exceptional circumstances or with conditional approval. Approval under exceptional circumstances may be applicable to orphan products and is used when an applicant is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use because the indication for which the product is intended is encountered so rarely that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, when the present state of scientific knowledge does not allow comprehensive information to be provided, or when it is medically unethical to collect such information. Conditional marketing authorization may be applicable to orphan medicinal products, medicinal products for seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases, or medicinal products to be used in emergency situations in response to recognized public threats. Conditional marketing authorization can be granted on the basis of less complete data than is normally required in order to meet unmet medical needs and in the interest of public health, provided the risk-benefit balance is positive, it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide the comprehensive clinical data, and unmet medical needs will be fulfilled. Conditional marketing authorization is subject to certain specific obligations to be reviewed annually.

Accelerated Review

Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”)). Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days, excluding clock stops.

23

Table of Contents

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit.

The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. By way of example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively (the “Affordable Care Act”), contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs sold to Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal healthcare programs. Since its enactment, there have been several judicial, administrative, executive and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning in January 2024.

Additionally, The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, (the “IRA”), includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 beginning in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D; allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs without generic competition; require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation; and delay until January 1, 2032 the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one orphan designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple orphan designations or has multiple approved indications, it may not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. Further, judicial challenges to the IRA may have an impact on the implementation of the IRA’s provisions; and the overall effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known. Adoption of further government controls, measures and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures could limit payments for pharmaceuticals.

In European countries, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed to by the government. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

24

Table of Contents

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, the emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States and other countries has increased, and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. 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 we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

If we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we may be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

•
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce, or in return for, the purchase or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;

•
federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent;

•
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, (“HIPAA”), which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program and making false statements relating to healthcare matters;

•
the federal transparency laws, including the provision of the Affordable Care Act referred to as the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, that requires drug and biologics manufacturers to disclose payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians and teaching hospitals and ownership interests of physicians and their immediate family members;

•
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”) and its implementing regulations, which imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information; and

•
state law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The Affordable Care Act broadened the reach of the fraud and abuse laws by, among other things, amending the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

We are also subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) which prohibits improper payments or offers of payments to foreign governments and their officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Safeguards we implement to discourage improper payments or offers of payments by our employees, consultants, and others may be ineffective, and violations of the FCPA and similar laws may result in severe criminal or civil sanctions, or other liabilities or proceedings against us, any of which would likely harm our reputation, business, financial condition and result of operations.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid and imprisonment, damages, fines 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.

25

Table of Contents

Employees

As of March 13, 2026, Eledon had 33 employees, all of whom are full-time. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

Otic Pharma, Ltd. (“Otic”) was founded in the State of Israel in 2008. In 2015, Otic established U.S. operations and moved its corporate headquarters to Irvine, California. In 2017, Otic consummated a reverse merger with Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Tokai”), a Delaware corporation that was incorporated on March 26, 2004, pursuant to which, among other things, Tokai purchased from Otic and its stockholders all of the common and preferred shares of Otic in exchange for the issuance of a certain number of shares of common stock of Tokai (the “Reverse Merger”). Following the Reverse Merger, Tokai changed its name to Novus Therapeutics, Inc. On September 14, 2020, the Company acquired Anelixis Therapeutics, Inc. (“Anelixis”), a Delaware Corporation, after which Anelixis became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. On January 4, 2021, the Company changed its name from Novus Therapeutics, Inc. to Eledon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Our executive offices are located at 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250, Irvine, California 92612. The Company also has a research and development office in Burlington, Massachusetts. Our telephone number is (949) 238-8090 and our website is www.eledon.com.

You are advised to read this Annual Report on Form 10-K in conjunction with other reports and documents that we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In particular, please read our definitive proxy statement, which will be filed with the SEC in connection with our 2026 annual meeting of stockholders, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and any current reports on Form 8-K that we may file from time to time. You may obtain copies of these reports after the date of this annual report directly from us or from the SEC at its website at www.sec.gov. We make our periodic and current reports available on our internet website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.