Enliven Therapeutics, Inc. (ELVN) Business

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of small molecule therapeutics to help people not only live longer, but live better. We aim to address existing and emerging unmet needs with a precision medicine approach that improves survival and enhances overall well-being. Our discovery process combines deep insights into clinically validated biological targets and differentiated chemistry with the goal of designing therapies for unmet needs. By combining clinically validated targets and specific target product profiles with disciplined clinical trial design and regulatory strategy, we aim to develop drugs that address unmet needs with an increased probability of clinical and commercial success. Validated targets are those whose role in disease pathology have been demonstrated by mechanistic and clinical studies. We are currently advancing ELVN-001 as well as pursuing multiple additional research-stage opportunities that align with our small molecule development approach.

The following table summarizes our clinical programs:

ELVN-001 is a potent, highly selective, small molecule kinase inhibitor designed to specifically target the breakpoint cluster region – Abelson (“BCR-ABL”) gene fusion, the oncogenic driver for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (“CML”). It is an adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), meaning it competes with ATP for binding at the kinase active site, thereby blocking phosphorylation and downstream oncogenic signaling.

Although the approval of BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (“TKIs”) changed prognosis of CML from a fatal disease to a manageable chronic condition, patients still face several barriers that limit their ability to achieve durable responses, maintain long-term treatment success, and sustain a good quality of life. Patients can develop primary or secondary resistance to currently available TKIs, preventing them from achieving or maintaining the level of response required for long-term survival. In addition, ATP-competitive TKIs (e.g. nilotinib, dasatinib) have off-target activity that may lead to adverse events, potentially requiring dose reductions or discontinuation. All approved TKIs are associated with drug-drug interactions that can affect the safety and efficacy of some medications, and most BCR-ABL TKIs must be taken either with food or on an empty stomach, making adherence more difficult. These factors underscore the significant global opportunity for therapies that can address these unmet needs.

As a selective ATP-competitive inhibitor, ELVN-001 is differentiated from other ATP-competitive inhibitors by avoiding off-target activity that may cause adverse events. With this potential additional safety margin, ELVN-001 may be optimally dosed to potentially drive better efficacy. Additionally, as a selective ATP-competitive TKI, ELVN-001 potentially represents a complementary option to allosteric BCR-ABL inhibitors (e.g., asciminib), which may play an increasingly important role in the standard of care for CML. Specifically, ELVN-001 was designed to have activity against emerging mutations known to confer resistance to allosteric TKIs, including asciminib. ELVN-001 was also designed to be a more attractive option for patients with comorbidities, on concomitant medications or desiring more freedom from stringent administration requirements. ELVN-001 is currently being evaluated in the Phase 1 ENABLE clinical trial in heavily pretreated patients with CML, and we plan to initiate ENABLE-2, a 2L+ Phase 3 pivotal trial in the second half of 2026.

3

In June 2025, we presented updated clinical data from the ENABLE trial at the European Hematology Association (“EHA”) 2025 Congress, followed by a webcast and conference call to discuss the latest results. As of the April 28, 2025, data cutoff, 90 patients had been enrolled in the ongoing Phase 1 trial across dose levels ranging from 10 mg once daily (“QD”) to 80 mg twice daily (“BID”), with 53 patients evaluable for major molecular response (“MMR”) by 24 weeks. The reported cumulative MMR rate was 47% by 24 weeks, with 32% of patients achieving MMR by 24 weeks. These data compared favorably to precedent Phase 1 trials of approved BCR::ABL TKIs, including asciminib, despite being studied in a more heavily pretreated patient population enrolled in ENABLE. ELVN-001 also continued to demonstrate a favorable safety and tolerability profile across all dose levels evaluated. As of the data cutoff, the median treatment duration was approximately 29 weeks, and the vast majority of patients remained on study.

In early December 2025, at the American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) 2025 Annual Meeting and Exposition, we presented a subset of ENABLE trial data focused on heavily pretreated patients with atypical BCR::ABL fusion transcripts, including mutations known to confer resistance to allosteric TKIs, such as asciminib. In this subset, ELVN-001 demonstrated encouraging anti-CML activity, providing an early signal of its potential to address the growing unmet need among patients with emerging mutations against allosteric TKIs.

In January 2026, we announced positive initial data from the Phase 1b portion of the ENABLE trial. As of the December 22, 2025 data cutoff, all patients in the 80 mg QD Phase 1b cohort (n=19) were evaluable for efficacy by 24 weeks. In these mature data, rates of MMR achievement (38%) and deep molecular response (“DMR)” (16%) compare favorably to precedent Phase 1 trials of approved BCR::ABL1 TKIs, including asciminib. In the more recently enrolled randomized 60 mg and 120 mg cohorts (n=41), 26 patients were evaluable for efficacy by 24 weeks. In this cohort, highly encouraging rates of MMR achievement (53%) and DMR (35%) were observed. ELVN-001 continues to demonstrate a favorable safety and tolerability profile across all evaluated doses. The safety profile observed in these Phase 1b cohorts remained consistent with previously reported data, with no new safety signals identified. These results further reinforce our belief that ELVN-001 has the potential to be a best-in-class ATP-competitive inhibitor for the treatment of CML. We are preparing for regulatory interactions with the FDA to align on dose selection and Phase 3 trial design, with initiation of ENABLE-2, the planned Phase 3 clinical trial of ELVN-001, anticipated in the second half of 2026.

ELVN-002 is a potent, highly selective, central nervous system (“CNS”) penetrant and irreversible human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (“HER2”) inhibitor with activity against wild type HER2 and various HER2 mutations. As a monotherapy agent and in combination, ELVN-002 has demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with both HER2+ and HER2 mutant tumors, including in patients whose tumor progressed on Enhertu and in patients with brain metastases, at doses that were well-tolerated. In May 2025, we made the decision to explore strategic alternatives for ELVN-002 so that we could prioritize ELVN-001.

We believe that our development approach, which is rooted in validated biology and differentiated chemistry, enables us to design and develop medicines with an improved therapeutic profile for patients. We continue to follow this approach to advance our research pipeline in diseases such as Graves’ disease, where we believe our target and indication-agnostic approach and expertise in complex medicinal chemistry can lead to new and improved treatments.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to help people not only live longer, but live better. The key elements of our strategy are:

•
Efficiently advance ELVN-001, a BCR-ABL TKI, through clinical development and regulatory approval. ELVN-001 is designed to be a potent and highly selective small molecule kinase inhibitor targeting the BCR-ABL fusion gene product for the treatment of CML. ELVN-001 is currently being evaluated in the Phase 1 ENABLE clinical trial in adults with CML. While our Phase 1 trial is focused on people with resistant or intolerant CML, our plan is to build a clinical dataset to enable future registrational trials that could support broad approval of ELVN-001 across all lines of therapy. We plan to initiate ENABLE-2, a 2L+ Phase 3 pivotal trial, in the second half of 2026. If we are successful in achieving clinically meaningful anti-cancer activity in specific patient populations, we expect to engage with regulatory authorities to discuss whether ELVN-001 may qualify for any of the FDA’s expedited regulatory approval pathways.

•
Expand our pipeline of potent and highly selective small molecule therapeutics to overcome the limitations of current therapies. We believe that our development approach, combined with our team’s unique ability to solve complex medicinal chemistry problems in a target- and indication-agnostic approach, offers a significant opportunity to develop

4

targeted therapies for a large variety of targets and indications. We have multiple small molecule programs in discovery that are focused on:

o
Targeting established and emerging disease drivers or clinically validated signaling nodes driving disease.

o
Addressing acquired resistance mutations and disease escape mechanisms of currently approved therapies or therapies in development.

o
Improving target selectivity and/or pharmacokinetic (“PK”) profile to drive improved efficacy, tolerability and overall well-being.

o
Drugging difficult and potentially first in class targets.

•
Increase our probability of clinical and commercial success by prioritizing targets with validated biology and establishing target product profiles (“TPPs”) from real-world market research. We believe the success of next generation therapeutics depends not only on clinical efficacy, but also on a differentiated product profile, including tolerability, dosing regimen, and specific drug administration requirements, that drives widespread adoption by physicians and patients in the real world. When selecting targets, we first evaluate the body of existing scientific knowledge, including both preclinical and clinical data, to prioritize biological mechanisms essential for pathogenesis. We then evaluate the disease indications that are most dependent on the selected target. Through market research, we directly engage with key opinion leaders, academic and community physicians, and payers in order to pinpoint the unmet medical need and identify potentially underappreciated or emerging market opportunities. By integrating scientific, clinical and commercial insights early in our research and development process, we formulate TPPs that our research team uses to establish testable preclinical hypotheses, which in turn guide the design of our product candidates. This approach helps mitigate both our development and commercial risk and allows us to discover and develop high-quality product candidates addressing critical limitations of existing therapies with substantial commercial opportunity.

•
Leverage our internally generated scaffold libraries and deep expertise to efficiently and consistently design and develop small molecule therapeutics for unmet needs. Our team has extensive experience in discovering, developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics. Our chemists invented or co-invented multiple approved small molecule therapeutics that have transformed the standard of care. Additionally, our chemistry leadership team has designed selective compounds against numerous small molecule targets. Leveraging this experience, we have built diverse libraries of unique, highly ligand-efficient scaffolds that we use to screen against our identified targets. We will only invest in a research program once we have identified an opportunity where we believe our chemistry and experience uniquely align with the unmet need and our TPP.

•
Selectively evaluate strategic collaborations to accelerate our development timelines or maximize the clinical impact and commercial value of our portfolio globally. Leveraging our capabilities and expertise, we have developed each of our product candidates internally, and we currently have worldwide development and commercial rights to all of our pipeline assets. As we develop each of our product candidates, we will evaluate the need for potential strategic collaborations. We evaluate the potential cost of development and commercialization, the ability to generate near term proof-of-concept data, the path to maximize patient benefit and the estimated commercial opportunity of the product candidate. This evaluation could result in selective out-licensing, co-development and/or commercialization collaborations.

While we continue to make progress towards our mission, we are still in the early stages of development.

Our Team

We have assembled a team with significant expertise in drug discovery, development and commercialization with particular strengths in the discovery of small molecule therapeutics. Our team includes:

•
Small molecule experts and world-class chemistry from proven inventors of numerous clinical candidates and multiple FDA-approved cancer therapies, positioning us to advance our growing clinical development efforts.

•
Experienced clinical and commercial leaders with a track record of leading clinical development, regulatory approvals, and global commercial launches for oncology and hematology therapies.

5

•
Proven Leaders who have built or led research, development and commercial operations at companies including AbbVie, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Biogen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Johnson & Johnson and Pharmacyclics.

Our company is led by Rick Fair, our Chief Executive Officer, who joined Enliven in December 2025. Mr. Fair has more than 25 years of experience in product development and commercialization, including 20 years with leading large global pharmaceutical companies. Most recently, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals. Prior to that he held leadership roles at Johnson & Johnson and Roche/Genentech, where he led the Global Product Strategy Oncology/Hematology group. During this tenure, he oversaw the launch of five new therapies and numerous new indications across solid and hematologic tumors, and the commercialization plans for a $23 billion portfolio.

Enliven’s co-founders also continue to play active roles on our leadership team. Specifically, we were co-founded in 2019 by Sam Kintz, M.B.A., Joseph P. Lyssikatos, Ph.D. and Anish Patel, Pharm.D. Mr. Kintz, Head of Pipeline and our former President and Chief Executive Officer, has held research and strategy leadership roles at AbbVie-Stemcentrx, worked at Roche Venture Fund, focusing on life sciences investments, and previously served as a medicinal chemist in Genentech’s small-molecule discovery organization. Dr. Lyssikatos, our Chief Scientific Officer, is a renowned medicinal chemist and co-inventor or co-author on over 220 issued patents and peer-reviewed publications. He has led and been a key scientific contributor to over 30 programs. Dr. Lyssikatos helped build and scale Array BioPharma’s medicinal chemistry efforts and previously held leadership positions at Genentech and Biogen. Dr. Patel, our Chief Operating Officer, brings substantial development, medical affairs, and commercial experience, and previously held leadership roles at Pharmacyclics, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, and Berlex/Bayer.

Our executive leadership team also includes Helen Collins, M.D., Benjamin Hohl and Galya Blachman, Ph.D., Esq. Dr. Collins, our Chief Medical Officer, most recently served as Chief Medical Officer at Five Prime Therapeutics until its acquisition by Amgen. She previously held leadership positions in clinical development and medical affairs at Amgen and Gilead Sciences. Mr. Hohl, our Chief Financial Officer and Head of Corporate Development, worked at Goldman Sachs Healthcare Investment Banking for nearly a decade advising on and executing biopharmaceutical and life sciences financing and strategic transactions. Dr. Blachman, our Chief Legal Officer and Head of Business Development, most recently served as the General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of 5AM Ventures and the Chief Operating Officer of the 4:59 Initiative, 5AM Venture’s incubation arm. She previously worked at AbbVie/Stemcentrx and two corporate law firms.

BCR-ABL Program: ELVN-001

ELVN-001 is a potent, highly selective, small molecule kinase inhibitor for the treatment of CML. It specifically targets the BCR-ABL fusion gene - the oncogenic driver of CML - and functions as an ATP-competitive inhibitor of ABL1. ELVN-001 was designed to be exquisitely selective for BCR-ABL, potentially avoiding off-target adverse effects observed with other ATP-competitive TKIs thereby potentially enabling optimal dosing to drive increased efficacy. Further, ELVN-001 demonstrates activity against the most common mutations that confer resistance to the majority of approved CML TKIs. In addition, ELVN-001 was designed to have both a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile; and no drug-drug interactions or food-related effects, potentially enhancing safety and convenience. Clinical data from the Phase 1 ENABLE trial to date reinforce this differentiated profile and show favorable outcomes in safety, tolerability, efficacy, and convenience to currently approved therapies.

CML Disease and Market Background

CML accounts for approximately 15% to 20% of adult leukemias. This disease is divided into three stages of progressively advanced disease termed chronic phase (“CP”), accelerated phase, and blast crisis. Nearly 95% of patients with CML are diagnosed in CP. The annual incidence of CML has remained steady in the last decade at approximately two cases per 100,000 adults, corresponding to 9,000 newly-diagnosed CML patients in the United States in 2020. The prevalent population - estimated at 110,000 in 2020 - continues to grow, driven largely by improved survival rates attributable to the availability of BCR-ABL TKIs.

Treatment of CML was transformed in 2001 with the approval of imatinib, the first-generation small molecule BCR-ABL TKI. Subsequent approvals of second-generation TKIs (dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib) were driven by improved efficacy as measured by higher rates of MMR, a specific measure of BCR-ABL transcript levels in the blood. While more effective than imatinib, the second-generation TKIs were associated with off-target effects that reduced their tolerability. A third-generation TKI, ponatinib, further increased efficacy but carried more serious adverse events, limiting its use primarily to patients who had failed prior treatments. In 2021, an allosteric TKI, asciminib was approved, offering potential advantages over earlier generation TKIs. Unlike ATP-competitive TKIs, asciminib is an allosteric inhibitor that specifically targets the ABL myristoyl pocket. Clinical trial results and early commercial experience indicate that asciminib is both efficacious and well tolerated, leading to its early adoption in the

6

treatment paradigm. In Novartis’ fourth quarter 2025 results, asciminb achieved an annualized sales run-rate of approximately $1.6 billion, with projected peak annual sales of $4 billion.

Despite these treatment options, significant clinical challenges remain. These include primary or secondary resistance to available therapies; off-target effects that may require dose reduction or discontinuation; drug-drug interactions that can affect the safety and efficacy of medicines for other conditions; and food effects that require carefully navigating dosing around mealtimes, potentially reducing treatment adherence. As a result, the CML market is characterized by increasing rates of treatment switching as physicians work to identify the optimal therapy for each patient. Approximately 25% of patients switch treatment within the first year, and up to 40% switch within the first five years. Switching occurs more rapidly in the second and later lines of therapy.

ELVN-001 Opportunity

We believe there is significant opportunity for ELVN-001 to improve upon existing therapies and potentially establish itself as the best-in-class ATP-competitive TKI in CML. First, as the only highly selective ATP-competitive BCR-ABL TKI, ELVN-001 is expected to have fewer off-target effects that lead to adverse events, dose reductions and treatment discontinuation commonly seen in second- and third-generation TKIs. Second, its selectivity could potentially enable dosing that achieves superior target coverage compared with second-generation TKIs. Third, ELVN-001 was designed to address common mutations that confer resistance to BCR-ABL TKIs, such as T315I; which may collectively translate into a stronger efficacy profile. Fourth, ELVN-001 has low risk of drug-drug interactions and no reported food effects, potentially making it easier for patients to maintain adherence and fit therapy into their daily lives. For all these reasons, we believe that ELVN-001 has the potential to play a major role in the future treatment of CML.

In particular, we believe ELVN-001 is well-positioned to complement allosteric inhibitors like asciminib given its distinct binding mechanisms: ATP-site/active form vs. allosteric/inactive form. ELVN-001 has demonstrated activity against asciminib-emergent mutations associated with lack of efficacy and treatment discontinuation in the asciminib pivotal trials. In the ENABLE Phase 1 trial, patients whose CML has developed known asciminib-resistant mutations have responded to ELVN-001. Given this, if approved, we believe that ELVN-001 will initially play an important role post-asciminib. Should ELVN-001 be approved in the front-line setting, we believe that clinicians may choose either ELVN-001 or an allosteric TKI in newly diagnosed patients, and would alternate between TKIs with different mechanisms of action in subsequent lines to find optimal balance of efficacy, safety and patient experience for each patient.

Clinical Development Plan

We are currently enrolling our Phase 1 ENABLE clinical trial in adult patients with CML and initiated Phase 1b dose expansion in mid-2024. ENABLE is designed to characterize the safety, tolerability, PK properties and preliminary efficacy of ELVN-001 in a population of patients with CML. The objectives of the Phase 1 trial are to:

1.
Assess the safety and tolerability of ELVN-001 when administered to patients with CML.

2.
Understand the relationship between dose and schedule of drug with PK and anti-tumor activity.

3.
Determine recommended doses for further clinical evaluation in patients with CML with and without the T315I mutation.

Our key efficacy measure will be the reduction of BCR-ABL transcripts in peripheral blood. Additionally, we are conducting an ongoing study in Japan that we believe will enable patient enrollment in our Phase 3 trial.

Assuming the results of the Phase 1 clinical trials are supportive, and subject to feedback from regulatory authorities, subsequent trials would include a randomized pivotal trial(s) in patients with CML. Should efficacy and safety data also support potential benefit in patients with T315I mutations, we would discuss with the FDA the optimal path forward for this patient population, which has limited treatment options. We plan to initiate ENABLE-2, a 2L+ Phase 3 pivotal trial, in the second half of 2026.

In November 2024, ELVN-001 received Orphan Drug Designation for CML. Where possible, we plan to explore other applicable regulatory strategies pursued by other targeted therapy companies, for example Breakthrough Therapy and Fast Track designation, FDA Priority Review and/or Accelerated Approval. However, because our product candidates are in early development, there can be no assurance that the FDA will permit us to utilize an expedited approval process for any of our product candidates. The FDA’s accelerated approval pathways do not guarantee an accelerated review by the FDA. Even if our product candidates are granted a designation or qualify for expedited development, it may not actually lead to faster development or expedited regulatory review and approval or increase the likelihood that they will receive FDA approval.

7

Additional Programs

Our development approach, rooted in validated biology and differentiated chemistry, creates a unique opportunity to design, develop and deliver medicines with an improved therapeutic profile for patients. To realize this potential, we continue advancing our research pipeline in diseases with remaining unmet need, such as Graves’ Disease, leveraging our target- and indication-agnostic approach.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, the expertise of our team, and our development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face increasing competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market, and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, in establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, and in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Additional mergers and acquisitions may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Our commercial potential could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer or more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, and are more convenient or less expensive than products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we can, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or could otherwise make the development or commercialization of our products more complicated. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be efficacy, safety and patient convenience.

There are currently six BCR-ABL TKIs FDA approved for use in CML: Novartis AG’s Gleevec (imatinib), Tasigna (nilotinib), and Scemblix (asciminib), Bristol Myers Squibb’s Sprycel (dasatinib), Pfizer’s Bosulif (bosutinib), and Takeda’s Iclusig (ponatinib). Most of these BCR-ABL inhibitors target additional tyrosine kinases, which can lead to debilitating side effects. Iclusig is indicated for patients with CML who have resistance or intolerance to at least two prior TKIs. It is also approved for CML with the T315I mutation. However, due to its off-target kinase activity, this agent carries four black box warnings and is poorly tolerated requiring dose reductions that limit its efficacy. In 2024, Scemblix received accelerated approval by the FDA for newly diagnosed CML in addition to its full approval for previously treated CML, and CML with the T315I mutation. It is designed to allosterically inhibit BCR-ABL by binding to the myristoyl pocket, which is remote from the active site and is a novel mechanism compared to previous drugs approved for use in CML. Other BCR-ABL TKIs under investigation include Ascentage Pharma’s olverembatinib, Terns Pharmaceuticals’ TERN-701, TargetRx’s TGRX-678, and others at various stages of development.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to manufacture our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacturing should any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval. We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to package, label, store and distribute our investigational product candidates, as well as our commercial products should marketing approval be obtained. We believe that this strategy allows us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure by eliminating the need for us to invest in our own manufacturing facilities, equipment and personnel while also enabling us to focus our expertise and resources on the discovery and development of our product candidates.

To date, we have obtained the custom-manufactured starting materials for active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”) manufacture from Pharmaron and Hande Sciences and our good manufacturing practice (“GMP”) APIs from Pharmaron. The drug product for the ELVN-001 program is manufactured at Latitude Pharmaceuticals Inc., Quotient Sciences, and CoreRx. We could contract with other contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for the starting materials as the raw materials we use are commonly used and are available from multiple sources. We are in the process of developing our supply chain for our product candidate and intend to put in

8

place framework agreements under which third-party CMOs will generally provide us with necessary quantities of APIs and drug product on a project-by-project basis based on our development needs.

As we advance our product candidate through development, we plan to explore adding backup suppliers for the API and drug product in order to protect against any potential supply disruptions.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary or intellectual property rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary or intellectual property rights. We expect that we will seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We may also rely on trade secrets, know-how, trademarks, continuing technological innovation and licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position.

As of January 1, 2026, our patent portfolio includes issued and pending patent applications that we own related to our HER2 and BCR-ABL programs.

For the BCR-ABL program, we own four active patent families with claims directed to BCR-ABL tyrosine-kinase inhibitory compounds as composition of matter, as well as claims directed to pharmaceutical compositions and combinations comprising such compounds and uses of such compounds, e.g., treatment of CML, acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (“ALL”), or mixed phenotype acute leukemia, including refractory leukemias associated with a T315I mutation in BCR-ABL. The first family includes three issued U.S. patents, one issued Japanese patent, and one issued Chinese patent that expire in 2041 absent any patent term extensions or terminal disclaimers; and pending non-provisional applications in the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and Hong Kong. The second family includes pending non-provisional applications in the U.S., China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Hong Kong. Any patents that may issue from the first or the second family are expected to expire in 2041, absent any patent term adjustment, patent term extensions, or terminal disclaimers. The third and the fourth families each include a Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) application and a pending non-provisional application in Taiwan. Any patents that may issue from the third and the fourth families are expected to expire in 2045, absent any patent term adjustment, patent term extensions, or terminal disclaimers. Any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications in relation to our BCR-ABL program are expected to expire between 2041-2045, absent any patent term adjustment, patent term extensions, or terminal disclaimers.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, the patent term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. Additionally, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (“Hatch-Waxman Act”) permits patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the length of time a drug is under regulatory review while a patent that covers the drug is in force. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended.

Similar provisions are available in the EU and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, if available. However, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and, if granted, the length of such extensions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see the section “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Expiration dates referred to above are without regard to potential patent term extension or other market exclusivity that may be available to us.

9

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trademarks and other proprietary information and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our proprietary information. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. Our agreements with employees also provide that all inventions conceived by the employee in the course of employment with us or from the employee’s use of our confidential information are our exclusive property. However, such confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The patent positions of biotechnology companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third- party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, alter our products or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or our failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights required to develop or commercialize our future products may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. For more information, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Government Regulations

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products. Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

U.S. Drug Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Drugs also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-market may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our product candidates are considered small molecule drugs and must be approved by the FDA through the new drug application (“NDA”) process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

•
completion of extensive preclinical studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with good laboratory practice (“GLP”);

•
submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

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

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication;

10

•
submission to the FDA of an NDA after completion of all pivotal trials;

•
determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to accept the filing for substantive review;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug will be produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) requirements assuring that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•
potential FDA audit of the preclinical study and/or clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA filing;

•
FDA review and approval of the NDA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee, prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug in the United States; and

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

The data required to support an NDA are generated in two distinct developmental stages: preclinical and clinical. The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for any current and future product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Preclinical Studies and IND

The preclinical developmental stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin.

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, 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 clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB must also approve the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA. The FDA will generally accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with the FDA requirements for use of foreign clinical trials, including the requirements set forth at 21 CFR 312.120, the laws and regulations of the foreign regulatory authorities where the trial was conducted, such as the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), whichever provides greater protection of the human subjects, and with GCP and GMP requirements,

11

and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection, if deemed necessary, and the practice of medicine in the foreign country is consistent with the United States.

Clinical trials in the United States generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap.

•
Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers or disease- affected patients who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, tolerability and safety of the drug.

•
Phase 2 clinical trials involve studies in disease-affected patients to determine the dose and dosing schedule required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further PK and pharmacodynamic information is collected, possible adverse effects and safety risks are identified, and a preliminary evaluation of efficacy is conducted.

•
Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a large number of patients at multiple sites and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use and its safety in use, and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval. These trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing.

Depending on the product candidate and the FDA’s data requirements, some clinical programs may proceed from Phase 1b trial to a registration trial or other variations of the different phases of clinical development process noted above. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, are conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. The sponsor is also responsible for submitting written IND safety reports, including reports of serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, and any clinically significant increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or concerns related to the design of our clinical trial. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. 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 a trial may move forward at designated check-points based on access to certain data from the trial.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal safety studies and also must develop additional information about the chemical and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process, as performed by the manufacturing facility, must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of our product candidates. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that our product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their labeled shelf life.

We may be required to develop and implement additional clinical trial policies and procedures designed to help protect subjects from public health concerns, such as COVID-19 infection. To the extent the FDA issues additional guidance and policies, compliance with such changes may materially impact our business and clinical development timelines. Changes to existing policies and regulations can increase our compliance costs or delay our clinical plans.

NDA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data is analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA,

12

along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. In short, the NDA is a request for approval to market the drug in the United States for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug.

The application must include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be legally marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for each marketed human drug. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular-entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular-entity NDA designated for Priority Review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will 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 will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies and/or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA’s interpretation of data may differ from our interpretation. Further, FDA’s “real-time” release of newly issued Complete Response Letters associated with withdrawn or abandoned applications, if applicable to any of our product candidates, can materially impact our business and competitive advantage.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

13

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. However, competitors may receive approval either for a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication for which we are seeking approval, or if a product candidate is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication. If one of our products designated as an orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than that which is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the EU has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which gives deference to regulatory agencies’ statutory interpretations in litigation against federal government agencies, such as the FDA, where the law is ambiguous. This landmark Supreme Court decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, such as market exclusivities, which could lead to uncertainties in the industry. Further, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the Trump administration may lead to new policies, changes in the regulations, or disruptions to the operations of federal agencies, any of which may impact our clinical development plans.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA meeting with the FDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious or life- threatening condition and, if approved, it would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies.

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval, if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well- controlled post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA may withdraw drug approval or require changes to the labeled indication of the drug if confirmatory post-market trials fail to verify clinical benefit or do not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit to justify the risks associated with the drug. If the FDA concludes that a drug shown to be effective can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted, it may require such post-marketing restrictions as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the product.

Additionally, a drug may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life- threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The benefits of breakthrough therapy designation include the same benefits as fast track designation, plus intensive guidance from the FDA to ensure an efficient drug development program. Fast Track designation, Priority Review, Accelerated Approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or may decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

14

Post-Approval Requirements

Any drug products manufactured or distributed by us or our partners pursuant to FDA approvals will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, drug sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market and imposes requirements and restrictions on drug manufacturers, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling, known as “off-label use,” industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Further, for certain types of modifications made to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP regulations and other laws and regulations. In addition, the FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS 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. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

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 studies 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, warning letters, or holds on post-approval clinical studies;

•
refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications;

•
suspension or revocation of product approvals;

•
product seizure or detention;

•
refusal to permit the import or export of products; and

•
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.

Other U.S. Regulatory Matters

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are subject to various healthcare laws, regulation, and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Our conduct, including that of our

15

employees, as well as our business operations and relationships with third parties, including current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third- party payors, customers, and others may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as, sell, market, and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

•
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Moreover, the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) 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 (“FCA”).

•
The federal false claims, including the civil FCA that can be enforced by private citizens through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, and civil monetary penalties prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government, and/or impose exclusions from federal health care programs and/or penalties for parties who engage in such prohibited conduct.

•
HIPAA, which prohibits, among other things, executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters.

•
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their implementing regulations, which also impose obligations on covered entities such as health insurance plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and certain health care providers and their respective business associates, including mandatory contractual terms as well as their covered subcontractors, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information.

•
The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) information regarding certain payments and other transfers of value made to covered recipients, including physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician healthcare providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as information regarding ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

•
Analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, state laws that require biotechnology companies to comply with the biotechnology industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state and local laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and require the registration of their sales representatives, state laws that require biotechnology companies to report information on the pricing of certain drug products, and state and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Pricing and rebate programs must also comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the ACA. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. In addition, the distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. Products must meet applicable child- resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act as well as other applicable consumer safety requirements.

16

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, injunctions, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.

U.S. Patent-Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of any future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, 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 or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later, and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later, 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 drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, 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 patent term for our currently owned or 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 NDA.

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for a generic version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness or generate such data themselves.

European Union Drug Development

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the member state regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated, it must be approved in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority (“NCA”), and one or more Ethics Committees (“ECs”).

In April 2014, Regulation EU No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) was adopted to replace the Clinical Trials Directive. The Clinical Trials Regulation entered into application on January 31, 2022 and is intended to simplify the current rules for clinical trial authorization and standards of performance. For instance, it provides a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, a European Union portal and database. The new clinical trial portal and database will be maintained by the EMA in collaboration with the European Commission and the European Union Member States. The objectives of the new Regulation include consistent rules for conducting trials throughout the European Union, consistent data standards and adverse events listing, and consistent information on the authorization status. Additionally, information on the conduct and results of each clinical trial carried out in the European Union will be made publicly available. From January 31, 2025, or the end of the transition period, any trials approved under the Clinical Trials Directive that continue running will need to comply with the Clinical Trials Regulation, and their sponsors must enter information on the trials in the Clinical Trials Information System.

17

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which is comprised of the 27 Member States of the EU and four European Free Trade Association States (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein), medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization (“MA”). There are two types of marketing authorizations.

•
The Community MA is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”), of the EMA, and is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicines such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The Centralized Procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.

•
National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this National MA can be recognized in another Member States through the Mutual Recognition Procedure. If the product has not received a National MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the Decentralized Procedure. Under the Decentralized Procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (“RMS”). The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics (“SOPC”), and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Member States Concerned) for their approval. If the Member States Concerned raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SOPC, labeling or packaging proposed by the RMS, the product is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States (i.e., in the RMS and the Member States Concerned).

Under the procedures described above, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. Similar to the U.S. patent term-restoration, Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPCs”) serve as an extension to a patent right in Europe for up to five years. SPCs apply to specific pharmaceutical products to offset the loss of patent protection due to the lengthy testing and clinical trials these products require prior to obtaining regulatory marketing approval.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidate for which we may seek regulatory approval. Sales in the United States will depend, in part, on the availability of sufficient coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, which include government health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and the Veterans Administration, as well as managed care organizations and private health insurers. Prices at which we or our customers seek reimbursement for our product candidates can be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by third-party payors.

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product is typically separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be available. Additionally, in the United States there is no uniform policy among payors for coverage or reimbursement. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval processes. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, successful commercialization of, and obtaining a satisfactory financial return on, any product we develop may not be possible.

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 marketing, we may need to conduct expensive studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, which would be in addition to the costs expended to obtain regulatory approvals. Third-party

18

payors may not consider our product candidates to be medically necessary or cost-effective compared to other available therapies, or the rebate percentages required to secure favorable coverage may not yield an adequate margin over cost or may not enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there has been, and continues to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect the profitable sale of product candidates, including potential changes as a result of the new presidential administration. Among policy makers and payors in the United States, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the United States pharmaceutical industry.

The ACA, among other things: (1) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; (2) created a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for certain drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; (3) established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs; (4) expanded the availability of lower pricing under the 340B drug pricing program by adding new entities to the program; (5) expanded the eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; (6) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; (7) created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (and 70% commencing January 1, 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and (8) established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drugs.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, in June 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case on procedural grounds without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period in 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. This executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review existing policies and rules that limit access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA, among others. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and healthcare measures promulgated by the Trump administration will impact the ACA, our business, financial condition and results of operations. Complying with any new legislation or reversing changes implemented under the ACA could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013, which, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2032, unless Congress takes further action. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, effective January 1, 2024, the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs were eliminated. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In August 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes prescription drug provisions

19

that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) can qualify for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D drugs in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each drug has been announced. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, up to an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, up to 20 additional Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Various industry stakeholders, including certain pharmaceutical companies and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of IRA are unconstitutional. Further, the current administration has issued executive orders focused on decreasing prescription drug prices, including directing the Secretary of HHS to establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy drugs directly from manufacturers who sell at a most-favored-nation price and directing the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the U.S. In November 2025, CMS announced a voluntary initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model) to introduce the option of most-favored-nation pricing to the Medicaid program, whereby a drug manufacturer may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. Government agreements with pharmaceutical companies and other measures that use most-favored-nation pricing targets for prescription drugs or that increase generic and biosimilar drug entry sooner than expected can have a material adverse effect on our industry, ability to set adequate pricing for new drugs to recover R&D costs, ability to attract potential investors and potential buyers in the future, or the pricing of our approved product in the U.S. and in foreign countries. The impact of future legislative, executive and administrative actions of the government on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states are considering or have recently enacted state drug price transparency and reporting laws that could substantially increase our compliance burdens and expose us to greater liability under such state laws once we begin commercialization after obtaining regulatory approval for any of our products. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state healthcare legislation in the United States directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action will be taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Employees and Human Capital

Our Values

We foster an inclusive, collaborative culture committed to realizing our mission – to help people not only live longer, but live better. Our core values include:

•
Integrity—do the right thing for patients, our team, and our community.

•
Passion—love what we do.

•
Collaboration—listen to and value all voices.

•
Drive—innovate, take risks, and advance with a sense of urgency.

Our human capital resource objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

20

As of December 31, 2025, we had 60 full-time employees. Of these employees, 45 were engaged in research or product development and clinical activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

Former Enliven was incorporated in the State of Delaware in June 2019. On February 23, 2023, we completed our business combination with Former Enliven in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 13, 2022 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among us, Former Enliven, and Iguana Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and our wholly owned subsidiary (“Merger Sub”), pursuant to which, among other matters, Merger Sub merged with and into Former Enliven, with Former Enliven continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of us and the surviving corporation of the Merger. In connection with the closing of the Merger, we effected a 1-for-4 reverse stock split (the “Reverse Stock Split”) and changed our name to Enliven Therapeutics, Inc. Following the completion of the Merger, the business conducted by Former Enliven became the primary business conducted by us.

Our principal executive offices are located at 6200 Lookout Road, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Our telephone number is 720-647-8519. Our website address is www.enliventherapeutics.com. Information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website or any website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K unless expressly noted.

We may announce material information to the public through filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), our website (www.enliventherapeutics.com), press releases, public conference calls, and public webcasts. We use these channels, as well as social media, to communicate with the public about us, our product candidates and other matters. We also make available on or through our website certain reports and amendments to those reports that we file with or furnish to the SEC in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). These include our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make this information available on or through our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The SEC also maintains a website that contains our SEC filings. The address for the SEC website is www.sec.gov.