Kodiak Sciences Inc. (KOD) Business

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

Since its founding in 2009, Kodiak Sciences Inc. (“Kodiak,” the “Company,” “we” or “our”) has developed a new technology platform, the Antibody Biopolymer Conjugate (“ABC”) platform, for retinal medicines. Our goal is to prevent and treat the major causes of blindness by developing and commercializing next-generation therapeutics to address multiple unmet needs on the spectrum of retinal diseases.

Kodiak has developed three late-stage clinical programs based on its internal discovery and development engine. The lead investigational medicine, tarcocimab tedromer (“Zenkuda” or “KSI-301” or “tarcocimab”), is an anti-VEGF therapy built on Kodiak's proprietary ABC platform. Zenkuda has a mean ocular half-life in humans of 20 days, approximately three times longer than approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor ("VEGF") therapies, and is designed to maintain effective drug levels in ocular tissues for longer. Zenkuda is being developed as a mainstay intravitreal biologic monotherapy that provides high immediacy, driven by the enhanced formulation, and high durability, driven by the ABC platform and our science of durability, with the ultimate objective of providing, once approved, a flexible 1-month through 6-month label for all patients with retinal vascular disease (treatment-naïve, treatment-experienced, mild patients and severe patients).

Zenkuda has completed four successful Phase 3 pivotal studies: the Phase 3 GLOW1 and GLOW2 studies in diabetic retinopathy ("DR"), the Phase 3 BEACON study in retinal vein occlusion ("RVO"), and the Phase 3 DAYLIGHT study in wet AMD. In the GLOW1 and GLOW2 studies, Zenkuda successfully treated DR patients and prevented disease progression with 100% of patients on extended 6-month dosing at Year 1. In the BEACON study, during the first 6 months, Zenkuda-treated patients were dosed at 8-week intervals (as opposed to 4-week intervals for aflibercept). In the second 6 months, identical retreatment criteria were used for the Zenkuda and aflibercept arms, and nearly half of Zenkuda patients did not require any treatment while achieving similar vision and anatomical outcomes as the aflibercept group at one year. In the DAYLIGHT study, Zenkuda demonstrated non-inferior efficacy results and compelling safety and tolerability at a once-monthly dosing interval. Zenkuda is currently being studied in the Phase 3 DAYBREAK study in wet AMD, the final anticipated Phase 3 study in the program. In DAYBREAK, patients are treated on an every 1-month through every 6-month treatment interval, depending on an AI-driven assessment of disease activity. DAYBREAK has completed enrollment. DAYBREAK uses Zenkuda’s enhanced commercial 50 mg/mL formulation containing both conjugated and unconjugated antibody that is intended to balance immediacy and durability. Topline results for the DAYBREAK one-year primary endpoint are expected in 3Q 2026.

Kodiak’s second investigational medicine, KSI-501, is an anti-interleukin 6, or IL-6, VEGF-trap bispecific therapy built on the ABC platform and is being developed for high prevalence retinal vascular diseases and intended to address the leading unmet needs of extended durability and targeting disease biology beyond VEGF for differentiated efficacy. KSI-501 is designed to provide high immediacy/efficacy, driven by the enhanced formulation, and high durability, driven by the ABC platform and our science of durability. In preclinical models, KSI-501 was shown to be a potent inhibitor of VEGF and IL-6 and, further, was shown to normalize the blood retinal barrier, opening up the possibility that KSI-501 may be a disease-modifying therapy for retinal vascular diseases. Furthermore, higher intraocular levels of IL-6 correlated with poorer best corrected visual acuity (“BCVA”) outcomes over time in wet AMD patients treated with anti-VEGF monotherapy, which may indicate that IL-6 inhibition in combination with anti-VEGF therapy could lead to improved outcomes. Kodiak has advanced KSI-501 into the Phase 3 study DAYBREAK to evaluate its efficacy and safety in wet AMD. DAYBREAK has completed enrollment. DAYBREAK uses KSI-501's enhanced 50 mg/mL formulation containing both conjugated and unconjugated antibody that is intended to balance immediacy and durability. Topline results for the DAYBREAK one-year primary endpoint are expected in 3Q 2026.

Kodiak’s third investigational medicine, KSI-101, is a high strength (100 mg/mL) bispecific protein targeting IL-6 and VEGF. We are developing KSI-101 for patients with macular edema (retinal fluid) secondary to inflammation ("MESI"). MESI is a heterogenous group of diseases that clinically present with macular edema and visual impairment which are caused by a common pathophysiology–inflammation and blood retinal barrier disruption. The clinical presentation of retinal fluid and visual impairment is a mainstay in these patients, irrespective of the location of the inflammation inside of the eye (anterior, intermediate, posterior, or all intraocular compartments) or the specific etiology (defined autoimmune associated, idiopathic, post-procedural, or inflammatory choroidal neovascularization). Currently there are no available intravitreal biologic therapies addressing the spectrum of MESI diseases. We believe that MESI represents a new market segment separate from the established anti-VEGF market. Our completed dose-finding Phase 1b study APEX evaluated KSI-101 in two cohorts, Cohort 1 in patients with diabetic macular edema ("DME") and Cohort 2 in patients with MESI. APEX indicated that KSI-101 provided meaningful visual and anatomical gains in both DME and MESI and that KSI-101 was well tolerated. Meaningful treatment responses were seen in the MESI population, irrespective of the location of inflammation and

1

specific MESI etiology, opening up the potential for KSI-101 to become a unifying treatment for this patient population. Based on APEX, the top two dose levels tested were selected to advance into the Phase 3 program. The PEAK and PINNACLE Phase 3 studies are actively enrolling MESI subjects at the 5 mg and 10 mg dose levels versus sham. Topline data readouts for PEAK and PINNACLE are expected in 4Q 2026 and 2Q 2027, respectively.

Beyond its clinical pipeline, Kodiak is advancing its platform technology to embed small molecules and other active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”), into Kodiak’s proprietary biopolymer backbone to enable high drug-antibody ratio (“DAR”) medicines. The diverse APIs are designed to be released over time to achieve targeted, multi-specific and tailored modulation of biological pathways. We believe this unique combination of high DAR and extended therapeutic benefit offers potential for broad and important utility for multifactorial ophthalmic and systemic diseases. We call this platform extension our Antibody Biopolymer Conjugate Drug (“ABCD”) Platform because we are extending our platform capabilities to include the conjugation of small molecule drugs whereas historically we primarily conjugated biologics such as antibodies. Our ABCD platform is advancing a next set of investigational therapies for high prevalence retinal diseases, including our novel “duet” technology for glaucoma and geographic atrophy.

In addition to advancing our pipeline, we have made progress in process development and commercial scale manufacturing, including the commissioning and regulatory approval of Ursus, our dedicated commercial-scale drug substance manufacturing facility that was custom-designed and built in collaboration with Lonza, a leading drug contract manufacturing firm. We believe these manufacturing efforts could position Kodiak for potential market share capture if tarcocimab and KSI-501 are approved.

To date, we have retained all global rights to make, use and sell its product candidates, which we believe preserves future value and allows for agile decision-making. Our objective is to develop our retina-focused product candidates, seek FDA approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates in major markets.

Zenkuda (tarcocimab) Clinical Program Summary

Kodiak’s lead clinical program Zenkuda is an investigational anti-VEGF therapy built on Kodiak’s ABC platform and is designed to maintain potent and effective drug levels in ocular tissues for longer than existing available agents. It is being developed as a mainstay intravitreal biologic monotherapy intended to provide high immediacy, driven by its enhanced formulation and high durability from our ABC platform. Our ultimate objective is to provide a flexible 1-month through 6-month label to enable earlier treatment and prevention of vision loss for patients with diabetic retinopathy and to develop a new high immediacy and high durability agent to improve outcomes for patients with other retinal vascular diseases.

To date, the original, clinical formulation of tarcocimab was studied in six pivotal clinical studies: Phase 3 GLOW1 study in diabetic retinopathy (“DR”), Phase 3 BEACON study in retinal vein occlusion (“RVO”), Phase 3 DAYLIGHT study in wet AMD, Phase 3 GLEAM and GLIMMER studies with identical study design in diabetic macular edema (“DME”), and Phase 2/3 DAZZLE study in wet AMD. Of the six registrational studies, GLOW1, BEACON and DAYLIGHT successfully met the primary endpoint. An enhanced, commercial formulation of tarcocimab was studied in one Phase 3 clinical trial, GLOW2, and is currently being studied in a second Phase 3 clinical trial DAYBREAK. The GLOW2 study in DR successfully met the primary endpoint, and DAYBREAK has completed enrollment. We anticipate being in a position to announce topline data for the primary endpoint for DAYBREAK in 3Q 2026 and intend to file a BLA for tarcocimab in DR, RVO and wet AMD.

Both GLOW2 and DAYBREAK use tarcocimab’s enhanced 50 mg/mL formulation containing both conjugated and unconjugated antibody that is intended to deliver high immediacy and high durability.

More information about study design and results, if completed, from each individual pivotal study are summarized next.

Ongoing Phase 3 Studies

DAYBREAK – Phase 3 Study in Patients with Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration

The Phase 3 DAYBREAK study is a non-inferiority study evaluating parallel investigational arms of Zenkuda and KSI-501 against active comparator aflibercept. The DAYBREAK study incorporates learnings from prior pivotal trials of Zenkuda and was designed to maximize the probability of meeting the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in visual acuity gains. Patients randomized to Zenkuda will receive individualized dosing every 4 to 24 weeks on an as needed basis following four monthly loading doses. Patients randomized to aflibercept will be dosed per label. The individualized dosing of Zenkuda is determined by a treat-to-dryness proactive approach using the presence of retinal fluid as a disease activity marker, which resembles retina specialists' practice and optimizes each patient's treatment, instead of using a combination of central subfield thickness ("CST") and vision loss. The objectives for Zenkuda in DAYBREAK are to assess its durability potential, strengthen its competitive position in wet AMD and bolster the possible regulatory application package for the program. DAYBREAK was designed to demonstrate the potential for Zenkuda to be a mainstay biologic for VEGF-driven retinal vascular diseases

2

with both a strong efficacy/immediacy (driven by its enhanced formulation) and a strong durability (driven by its ABC design and science of durability). Topline data for the one-year primary endpoint in DAYBREAK are expected in 3Q 2026.

Completed Studies

GLOW1 and GLOW2 – Phase 3 studies in patients with diabetic retinopathy

GLOW1 and GLOW2 were prospective, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled, multicenter Phase 3 studies evaluating Zenkuda 5mg in participants with diabetic retinopathy. Both studies employed extended-interval dosing regimens with an ultimate treatment interval of every six months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of eyes improving by ≥2 steps on the Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale ("DRSS") from baseline to Week 48. Additional outcome measures include the proportion of eyes developing a sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy and the proportion of eyes improving ≥3 steps on DRSS from baseline to Week 48.

In the GLOW1 study, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either sham injections or Zenkuda via intravitreal injection at baseline, Week 8, Week 20 and Week 44, for a planned four injections in year one. The Phase 3 GLOW1 study demonstrated that, with extended 6-month dosing in every patient, Zenkuda can achieve strong efficacy both in treating existing disease (primary endpoint) and preventing vision threatening complications and disease progression (key secondary endpoint). In GLOW1, Zenkuda met its primary endpoint of the proportion of patients with at least a 2-step improvement on the DRSS score with 41.1% of Zenkuda-treated patients demonstrating at least a 2-step improvement versus 1.4% of patients in the sham group, a 29-fold increased response rate ratio (p-value 0.0001). Zenkuda also met all key secondary endpoints, including greater reductions in the proportion of patients developing sight-threatening complications (such as diabetic macular edema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy) versus sham, demonstrating an 89% decreased risk (2.3% with Zenkuda versus 21.0% with sham, p-value 0.0001).

The Phase 3 GLOW2 study was designed as a confirmatory study to the Phase 3 GLOW1 study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either sham injections or Zenkuda via intravitreal injection at baseline, Week 4, Week 8, Week 20 and Week 44, for a planned five injections in year one. The Phase 3 GLOW2 study confirmed findings from GLOW1 that, with extended 6-month dosing in all Zenkuda-treated patients, Zenkuda can achieve strong efficacy both in treating existing disease (primary endpoint) and preventing vision threatening complications and disease progression (key secondary endpoint). In GLOW2, Zenkuda met its primary endpoint of the proportion of patients with at least a 2-step improvement on the DRSS, with 62.5% of Zenkuda-treated patients demonstrating at least a 2-step improvement versus 3.3% of patients in the sham group, a 19-fold increased response rate ratio (p-value 0.0001). Zenkuda also met all key secondary endpoints, including greater reductions in the proportion of patients developing sight-threatening complications (such as diabetic macular edema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy), versus sham, demonstrating an 85% decreased risk (2.4% with Zenkuda versus 15.8% with sham, p-value ≤ 0.0001). Zenkuda was well-tolerated with low rates of common ocular adverse events. No cases of intraocular inflammation were reported in the study, and no cases of retinal vasculitis or occlusive retinal vasculitis were observed. The incidence of cataract in the study eye was low (2.3% with Zenkuda versus 1.6% with sham) and in line with expected background rates in patients with DR.

BEACON – Phase 3 Study in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Retinal Vein Occlusion

The Phase 3 BEACON study was a randomized, double-masked, multicenter, active comparator-controlled study in treatment naïve patients with vision loss and macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion, including both branch (“BRVO”) and central (“CRVO”) subtypes. In the initial six months of the study, patients received tarcocimab on a fixed every-8-week dosing regimen following 2 monthly loading doses or aflibercept 2mg on a fixed monthly dosing regimen per its label. In the second six months of the study, tarcocimab and aflibercept were tested head-to-head according to a pro re nata (“PRN”) protocol in which patients in both groups were treated only when disease reactivated according to matched predefined disease activity criteria.

In August 2022, Kodiak announced that the BEACON study met the primary efficacy endpoint of non-inferior visual acuity change from baseline at week 24 for subjects given tarcocimab every two months after 2 monthly loading doses compared to subjects given monthly aflibercept.

On September 7, 2023, Kodiak announced new one-year results from the BEACON study. Tarcocimab demonstrated matched efficacy with differentiated durability versus aflibercept in the head-to-head comparison. After 4 initiating doses in the first 6 months, 47% of tarcocimab-treated patients required no additional injections in the second 6 months while matching the vision and anatomic outcomes of aflibercept-treated patients. Despite receiving 6 initiating monthly doses, only 37% of aflibercept patients were injection free in the second half of the study. 77% of tarcocimab treated patients received 5 or fewer doses in year one, while 93% of aflibercept treated patients received 6 or more doses. BRVO patients received a median of 4.0 injections on tarcocimab versus 7.0 injections of aflibercept. Despite materially fewer injections in tarcocimab treated patients, vision outcomes favored tarcocimab-treated patients achieving an observed mean of 76.6 letters versus 75.6 letters for aflibercept treated patients. All RVO patients received a median of 5.0 injections on tarcocimab versus 7.0 injections of

3

aflibercept. Despite materially fewer injections in tarcocimab treated patients, vision outcomes favored tarcocimab-treated patients achieving an observed mean of 74.6 letters versus 74.3 letters for aflibercept treated patients.

Safety and tolerability were comparable between tarcocimab and aflibercept. Intraocular inflammation (“IOI”) rate was comparable between groups (tarcocimab 2.5% vs aflibercept 0.7%). No cases of inflammation associated with vascular occlusion or vasculitis were reported.

DAYLIGHT – Phase 3 Study in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Wet AMD

The DAYLIGHT study was a randomized, double-masked, active comparator-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of a high intensity dosing regimen of tarcocimab in 557 treatment-naïve subjects with wet AMD. On July 24, 2023, Kodiak announced that the DAYLIGHT study met the primary endpoint of non-inferior visual acuity gains at year 1 for tarcocimab dosed monthly compared to aflibercept dosed every 8 weeks following 3 monthly loading doses. Intraocular inflammation occurred in 3.3% of patients treated with monthly tarcocimab and 0.4% of patients treated with aflibercept with no vasculitis or occlusion.

GLEAM / GLIMMER – Paired Phase 3 Studies in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Diabetic Macular Edema

The GLEAM and GLIMMER studies were identically designed, randomized, double-masked, active comparator-controlled studies evaluating the efficacy, durability and safety of tarcocimab in 460 and 457 treatment-naïve subjects with DME, respectively, run in parallel.

On July 24, 2023, Kodiak announced that although high proportions of patients on meaningfully longer treatment intervals were observed with tarcocimab, with half of patients on every 24-week dosing at the primary endpoint, the GLEAM and GLIMMER studies did not meet their primary efficacy endpoints of showing non-inferior visual acuity gains for tarcocimab dosed every 8 to 24 weeks after 3 monthly loading doses compared to aflibercept given every 8 weeks after 5 monthly loading doses. At the primary efficacy endpoint of the GLEAM study, patients treated with tarcocimab gained an observed average of 6.4 eye chart letters (to 73.1 letters), compared with 10.3 letters for patients treated with aflibercept (to 76.5 letters). In GLIMMER, patients treated with tarcocimab gained an observed average of 7.4 eye chart letters at the primary endpoint (to 72.5 letters) compared with 12.2 letters (to 76.4 letters) for patients treated with aflibercept.

An unexpected increase in cataract adverse events was reported over time in the tarcocimab arms of both GLEAM and GLIMMER, with 19% on tarcocimab versus 9% on aflibercept at the primary endpoint based on the pooled safety population. Kodiak’s evaluation suggested that the decline in visual acuity associated with cataracts likely contributed meaningfully to the failure of each study.

Half of tarcocimab treated patients in the GLEAM and GLIMMER studies were on every 24-week dosing at the primary endpoint, two-thirds achieved at least one 6-month dosing interval during the studies, and three-quarters achieved at least one 5-month or longer treatment interval. Intraocular inflammation was rare, occurring in 1.3% and 0.2% of tarcocimab and aflibercept treated patients, respectively. No cases of intraocular inflammation with vasculitis or vascular occlusion were observed.

DAZZLE – Phase 2b/3 Study in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Wet AMD

The DAZZLE study was a global, multi-center, randomized pivotal study designed to evaluate the durability, efficacy and safety of tarcocimab in patients with treatment-naïve wet AMD. In February 2022 Kodiak announced that this initial pivotal study did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint of non-inferior visual acuity gains for subjects dosed on extended regimens every 12-, 16- or 20 weeks with tarcocimab compared to subjects given aflibercept every 8 weeks. Following this announcement, Kodiak discontinued the study and concluded remaining trial-associated activities.

KSI-501 Clinical Program Summary

KSI-501 is an investigational anti-IL-6, VEGF-trap bispecific therapy built on the ABC platform and is being developed for high prevalence retinal vascular diseases to address the leading unmet needs of extended durability and targeting disease biology beyond VEGF for differentiated efficacy. KSI-501 is designed to provide high immediacy/efficacy, driven by the enhanced formulation, and high durability, driven by the ABC platform and our science of durability.

In preclinical models, KSI-501 was shown to be a potent inhibitor of VEGF and IL-6 and, further, was shown to normalize the blood retinal barrier, opening up the possibility that KSI-501 may be a disease-modifying therapy for retinal vascular diseases. Furthermore, higher intraocular levels of IL-6 correlated with poorer BCVA outcomes over time in wet AMD patients treated with anti-VEGF monotherapy, which suggests that IL-6 inhibition in combination with anti-VEGF therapy could lead to improved outcomes.

4

Kodiak has advanced KSI-501 into the Phase 3 study DAYBREAK to evaluate its efficacy and safety in wet AMD. DAYBREAK has completed enrollment. DAYBREAK uses KSI-501's enhanced 50 mg/mL formulation containing both conjugated and unconjugated antibody that is intended to balance immediacy and durability.

About DAYBREAK (and KSI-501)

The DAYBREAK study is a non-inferiority study evaluating parallel investigational arms of KSI-501 and Zenkuda against active comparator aflibercept. Patients randomized to KSI-501 will receive fixed every 8-week dosing with additional individualized dosing (up to monthly dosing) on an as needed basis after four monthly loading doses. Patients randomized to aflibercept will be dosed per label. Using the same treat-to-dryness approach as Zenkuda, coupled with fixed intensive proactive dosing, our goal is to maximize both the probability of meeting the primary endpoint as well as the probability of demonstrating additional efficacy benefits. The primary endpoint is non-inferiority in change in visual acuity from baseline to the average of Week 40, 44 and 48. The objective for KSI-501 in DAYBREAK is to explore the efficacy potential of bispecific IL-6 and VEGF inhibition in a broad treatment-naïve wet AMD population. DAYBREAK has completed enrollment. Topline data for the one-year primary endpoint in DAYBREAK are expected in 3Q 2026.

KSI-101 Clinical Program Summary

KSI-101 is a high strength (100 mg/mL) bispecific protein targeting IL-6 and VEGF. We are developing KSI-101 for patients with macular edema (retinal fluid) secondary to inflammation ("MESI"). MESI is a heterogenous group of diseases that clinically present with macular edema and visual impairment which are caused by a common pathophysiology–inflammation and blood retinal barrier disruption. The clinical presentation of retinal fluid and visual impairment is a mainstay in these patients, irrespective of the location of the inflammation inside of the eye (anterior, intermediate, posterior or all intraocular compartments) or the specific etiology (defined autoimmune associated, idiopathic, post-procedural or inflammatory choroidal neovascularization).

Currently there are no available intravitreal biologic therapies addressing the spectrum of MESI diseases. We believe that MESI represents a new market segment separate from the established anti-VEGF market.

Our completed dose-finding Phase 1b study APEX evaluated KSI-101 in two cohorts, Cohort 1 in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and Cohort 2 in patients with MESI. APEX demonstrated that KSI-101 provides meaningful visual and anatomical gains in both DME and MESI and that KSI-101 is well tolerated. Meaningful treatment responses were seen in the MESI population, irrespective of the location of inflammation and specific MESI etiology, opening up the potential for KSI-101 to become a unifying treatment for this patient population.

Based on APEX, the top two dose levels tested were selected to advance into the Phase 3 program. The PEAK and PINNACLE Phase 3 studies are actively enrolling MESI subjects at the 5 mg and 10 mg dose levels versus sham.

About PEAK and PINNACLE

The PEAK and PINNACLE studies are superiority studies evaluating two dose levels of KSI-101 (5 mg and 10 mg) compared to sham treatment in patients with MESI. PEAK and PINNACLE are identical in study design with key differences in patient population. PEAK includes patients with more severe disease (moderate to severe macular edema and vision impairment) and PINNACLE includes patients with milder disease (mild macular edema and any vision impairment), as well as patients with moderate to severe macular edema with good vision. Together, PEAK and PINNACLE are designed to enroll complementary patient populations and to cover a wide spectrum of MESI patients.

Patients randomized to the KSI-101 treatment arms will receive fixed monthly dosing for 6 doses (from Day 1 to Week 20), with subsequent individualized dosing (up to monthly dosing) for 6 additional visits (Week 24 to Week 44). Patients in the sham arm will receive monthly sham dosing for 6 doses followed by sham PRN. The primary and key secondary endpoints will be evaluated at Week 24. PEAK and PINNACLE are now actively enrolling patients. Topline data readouts for PEAK and PINNACLE are expected in 4Q 2026 and 2Q 2027, respectively.

Antibody Biopolymer Conjugate Drug Substance Manufacturing

In August 2020, we entered into a manufacturing agreement with Lonza for the clinical and commercial supply of the Company’s antibody biopolymer conjugate drug substance which included a custom-built manufacturing facility. The manufacturing agreement has an initial term of 8 years, and the Company has the right to extend the term up to a total of 16 years. The Company and Lonza each have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events.

In April 2021, the agreement was amended to provide for greater manufacturing flexibility, to define a comprehensive mandate as an antibody biopolymer conjugates manufacturing facility to be used for the Company’s antibody biopolymer conjugates pipeline, at clinical as well as commercial scales, across a broad capacity range under the tight quality controls required for ophthalmology and retinal medicines and to allow for future process and equipment changes as needed.

5

Under the agreement, Kodiak and Lonza planned a custom-built facility (“Ursus”) dedicated to the commercial-scale manufacturing of Kodiak’s drug substance. In January 2023, the custom-built manufacturing suite Ursus was commissioned as a cGMP facility. Kodiak worked together with Lonza and regulatory authorities to obtain approval for Ursus, and we released our first commercial scale cGMP batch of tarcocimab in July 2023. Separately, tarcocimab drug product based on our enhanced formulation was released in March 2024 and is being used in the GLOW2 and DAYBREAK pivotal studies.

KSI-501 and KSI-101 Manufacturing

We have been progressing the manufacturing of KSI-501 and KSI-101 in support of ongoing clinical studies. Clinical material for both KSI-501 (50 mg/mL strength in our enhanced formulation) and KSI-101 (100 mg/mL strength) were successfully manufactured in the first quarter of 2024.

ABC Platform Development and Pipeline

With regards to our pipeline programs, dual cytokine-targeting bispecific antibody programs KSI-102 (anti-TNFa/IL-6) and KSI-103 (anti-IL-1/IL-6) continue to progress through pre-IND activities, targeting diseases of ocular inflammation and following on our development activities with KSI-101 for the treatment of macular edema secondary to inflammation.

We are advancing our platform technology to embed small molecules and other active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”) into our proprietary biopolymer backbone to enable high drug-antibody-ratio (“DAR”) medicines. The diverse APIs are designed to be released over time to achieve targeted, multi-specific and tailored modulation of biological pathways. The unique combination of high DAR and tailored therapeutic benefit offers potential for broad application to multifactorial systemic and ocular diseases and builds directly from our Antibody Biopolymer Conjugate technology and its 15 years of design, development and manufacturing experience. We call this platform extension our Antibody Biopolymer Conjugate Drug (“ABCD”) Platform because we are extending our platform capabilities to include the conjugation of small molecule drugs whereas historically we primarily conjugated biologics such as antibodies.

One program is for the treatment of glaucoma, embedding in the biopolymer backbone (i) an NLRP3 small molecule inhibitor, and (ii) a second small molecule that lowers intraocular pressure (“IOP”). The NLRP3 inflammasome is an intracellular complex that drives inflammation and cell death and is known to play a key role in glaucoma progression. The goal of this duet program is to create an intravitreally injected therapy that delivers two mechanisms of action (“MOA”) in a sustained release fashion, to fulfill the unmet needs in the glaucoma field for a long-durability therapy that delivers MOAs beyond IOP lowering and has the potential for quarterly dosing.

The second program is for the treatment of geographic atrophy (“GA”). There are two approved therapies, both complement inhibitors, and they require monthly or every other month intravitreal injections and neither sufficiently halts disease progression. Our program explores the potential to embed in the biopolymer backbone (i) a macrocyclic peptide inhibitor of the complement pathway, and (ii) an NLRP3 small molecule inhibitor. The NLRP3 inflammasome is known to play a key role in AMD disease biology. The objective of this duet program is to create an intravitreally injected ABCD platform-enabled therapy with a dual mechanism of action to achieve better efficacy and extended durability, for quarterly dosing, as compared to currently approved therapies for GA, which are based on a single mechanism of action and are dosed monthly or every other month.

Our retina duet programs in glaucoma and GA built with our ABC platform continue to progress towards IND.

Digital Health Platform Development

Our VETi (Visual Engagement Technology and imager) program has achieved significant advancements in hardware, software and algorithms development. VETi is our AI- and machine-learning-enabled wearable headset with applications in retina care alongside broader opportunities in identity security and cognitive sciences. This progress is reflective of Kodiak’s long term planning and execution towards an enhanced identity as a vision sciences company, integrating proprietary therapeutics and next-generation vision technologies.

Competition

The current standard of care for DR (including DME), RVO and wet AMD consists of intravitreal administration of anti-VEGF therapies. Leading agents include Avastin, Eylea and Eylea HD, Vabysmo, Lucentis and its biosimilars. These therapies are well-established, widely utilized and broadly reimbursed by third-party payors.

Among these, Vabysmo, a bispecific antibody targeting both VEGF-A and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), has achieved significant market adoption since its launch and now treats a substantial share of treated patients. Vabysmo demonstrated non-inferior visual acuity outcomes versus Eylea in Phase 3 trials across wet AMD, DME and RVO, with extended dosing intervals of up to every 16 weeks in a meaningful proportion of patients.

6

Regeneron’s Eylea HD is a major competitive product, with FDA approvals across wet AMD, DME, DR and RVO. In Phase 3 trials, Eylea HD demonstrated non-inferior visual acuity compared to standard-dose Eylea with extended dosing intervals of up to every 12–16 weeks for many patients.

There are also other companies and research organizations developing treatments targeting other molecular targets, potential gene therapy treatments, stem cell transplant treatments, medical devices as well as biosimilars for the treatment of DR, RVO and wet AMD. We believe the therapeutic space of retinal diseases may become increasingly competitive in the future.

Overall, the retinal disease treatment landscape is increasingly competitive, with multiple established agents and a continued shift toward therapies offering extended durability and reduced treatment burden.

Government Regulation

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 or biologic 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, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations, and biologics under the FDCA, the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics 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.

Any future product candidates must be approved by the FDA through either a new drug application, or NDA, or a BLA, 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 requirements;

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

•
approval by an independent institutional review board, or 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, or GCP, requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication;

•
submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA;

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

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

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

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

7

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

The data required to support an NDA or BLA 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 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 good laboratory practice 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 also approves 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 on-going 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 or BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

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, side effect tolerability and safety of the drug.

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

8

•
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, 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.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be 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 or BLA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for 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 important 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. 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 or biologic 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 studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. 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 shelf life.

NDA/BLA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data are 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 or BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. In short, the NDA or BLA is a request for approval to market the drug or biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug or safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may 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 FDA. FDA approval of an NDA or BLA must be obtained before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each NDA or BLA 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 approved human drugs and biologics. 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 or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

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

9

Before approving an NDA or BLA, 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 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 or BLA, 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 or BLA 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 or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA, 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 or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

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 and biologics that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biologics 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 or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting.

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, 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, or IMM, that 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 or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. If the FDA concludes that a drug or biologic 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 or biologic 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.

Abbreviated Licensure Pathway of Biological Products as Biosimilar or Interchangeable

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be highly similar to an FDA-licensed reference biological product. An application for licensure of a biosimilar product must include information demonstrating biosimilarity based upon the following, unless the FDA determines otherwise:

•
analytical studies demonstrating that the proposed biosimilar product is highly similar to the approved product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components;

10

•
animal studies (including the assessment of toxicity); and

•
a clinical study or studies (including the assessment of immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics) sufficient to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more conditions for which the reference product is licensed and intended to be used.

In addition, an application must include information demonstrating that:

•
the proposed biosimilar product and reference product utilize the same MOA for the condition(s) of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling, but only to the extent the MOA are known for the reference product;

•
the condition or conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling for the proposed biosimilar product have been previously approved for the reference product;

•
the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the proposed biosimilar product are the same as those for the reference product; and

•
the facility in which the biological product is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure that the biological product continues to be safe, pure, and potent.

Biosimilarity means that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components; and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product. In addition, the law provides for a designation of “interchangeability” between the reference and biosimilar products, whereby the biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. The higher standard of interchangeability must be demonstrated by information sufficient to show that:

•
the proposed product is biosimilar to the reference product;

•
the proposed product is expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient; and

•
for a product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the biosimilar and the reference product is no greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.

FDA approval is required before a biosimilar may be marketed in the United States. In addition, as with BLAs, biosimilar product applications will not be approved unless the product is manufactured in facilities designed to assure and preserve the biological product’s safety, purity and potency.

The timing of final FDA approval of a biosimilar for commercial distribution depends on a variety of factors, including whether the manufacturer of the branded product is entitled to one or more statutory exclusivity periods, during which time the FDA is prohibited from approving any products that are biosimilar to the branded product. The FDA cannot approve a biosimilar application for 12 years from the date of first licensure of the reference product. Additionally, a biosimilar product sponsor may not submit an application for four years from the date of first licensure of the reference product. A reference product may also be entitled to exclusivity under other statutory provisions. For example, a reference product designated for a rare disease or condition (an “orphan drug”) may be entitled to seven years of exclusivity, in which case no product that is biosimilar to the reference product may be approved until either the end of the 12-year period provided under the biosimilarity statute or the end of the seven-year orphan drug exclusivity period, whichever occurs later. In certain circumstances, a regulatory exclusivity period can extend beyond the life of a patent, and thus block biosimilarity applications from being approved on or after the patent expiration date. In addition, the FDA may under certain circumstances extend the exclusivity period for the reference product by an additional six months if the FDA requests, and the manufacturer undertakes, studies on the effect of its product in children, a so-called pediatric extension.

Post-Approval Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping requirements, requirements to report adverse experiences, and comply with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. 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, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or

11

manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a 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:

•
the 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;

•
applications, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

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

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs and biologics 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 Laws

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

For example, in the United States, our business operations, including any sales, marketing and scientific and educational programs, also must comply with state and federal fraud and abuse laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statue and false claims laws; federal data privacy and security laws; and federal transparency laws related to payments and/or other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals and teaching hospitals. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute 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 Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the 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 False Claims Act. Federal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment of federal funds, and knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private), and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

12

Many states have similar laws and regulations that may differ from federal law in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, states have anti-kickback and false claims laws that may be broader in scope than analogous federal laws and may apply regardless of payor. In addition, the federal physician payment transparency requirements, sometimes referred to as the “Physician Payments Sunshine Act,” created under the ACA and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses and their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information as well as their covered subcontractors, relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of such individually identifiable health information. In addition, state data privacy laws that protect the security of health information may differ from each other and may not be preempted by federal law.

Moreover, several states and local jurisdictions have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales and marketing activities, report information related to drug pricing, require certain regulatory licenses to manufacture or distribute products commercially and/or the registration of sales representatives, and prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above.

Pricing and rebate programs must 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. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The manufacturing and distribution of biologic and 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.

Failure to maintain compliance with these healthcare laws could result in the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Data Privacy and Security

Data privacy and security laws in the U.S. are also increasingly complex and changing rapidly. Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance.

In addition, the processing of personal data in connection with clinical trials in the EU must comply with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR. The EU GDPR imposes stringent data protection requirements and provides for penalties for noncompliance that can include bans on processing personal data and fines of up to the greater of 20 million euros or four percent of worldwide annual revenues. The EU GDPR requires organizations to give detailed disclosures about how they collect, use and share personal data; under certain conditions, obtain explicit consent to process sensitive personal data, such as health or genetic information; contractually require vendors to meet data protection requirements; maintain adequate data security measures; notify regulators and affected individuals of certain data breaches; meet extensive privacy governance and documentation requirements; and afford individuals’ data protection rights, including their rights to access, correct and delete their personal data.

European data protection laws generally restrict the transfer of personal data from Europe, including from the European Economic Area, or EEA, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, to the U.S. and most other countries unless the parties to the transfer have implemented specific safeguards to protect the transferred personal data. Legal challenges have in the past and may in the future be successful in limiting the mechanisms available to transfer personal data across national borders.

13

The failure to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations could result in significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans or restrictions on processing personal data; and orders to destroy or not use personal data. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition.

U.S. Health Care Reform

In the United States and other jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future financial results or operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. The ACA was enacted in 2010 and since its enactment, there have been amendments and judicial, Congressional and executive branch challenges to certain aspects. For example, on July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or the OBBBA, was signed into law, which narrowed access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The OBBBA also is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. Congress is also considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired ACA subsidies. The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with several pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct to consumer platform, or TrumpRx, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions include (1) directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives; (3) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s Strategy Report released in September 2025, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact "The Great Healthcare Plan," to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies are intended to significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks.

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.

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 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (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 and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA 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 or BLA.

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 a 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, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another 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

14

for a 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.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

European Union Drug Development

As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union 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, or NCA, and one or more Ethics Committees, or ECs. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

The EU clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. Recently enacted Clinical Trials Regulation EU No 536/2014 ensures that the rules for conducting clinical trials in the EU will be identical. In the meantime, Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC continues to govern all clinical trials performed in the EU.

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the EEA, which is comprised of the 27 Member States of the European Union (including Norway and excluding Croatia), Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or 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, or 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.

15

•
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, or RMS. The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics, or SPC, 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, SPC, 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 above described procedures, 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.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. In the United States no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug or biological products exists. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of our products will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price-controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. For example, HHS imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. HHS has also been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to 20 products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. Adoption of general controls and measures, coupled with the tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceutical drugs.

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

16

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications 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 also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology and product candidates and continuing innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field. Although we are not party to any material in-license agreements as of the date of this Annual Report, we may in the future pursue in-licensing opportunities to strengthen our proprietary position in the field. We additionally rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions when available, and may seek and rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations. Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions, and improvements; to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including our patents; and to operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

We have prosecuted numerous patents and patent applications and possess know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of our ABC Platform, tarcocimab, KSI-501 or KSI-101, including related manufacturing processes and technology. As of December 31, 2025, we were the assignee of record for approximately 15 U.S. issued patents, and the applicant for approximately 20 U.S. pending patent applications and seven pending PCT applications directed to certain of our proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements and our most advanced product candidates. In addition, 54 patents are issued in jurisdictions outside of the United States and 88 patent applications are pending in jurisdictions outside of the United States, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Macau, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and South Korea. In many cases, these patents and patent applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States are counterparts to the foregoing U.S. patents and patent applications. For example, these patents and patent applications include claims directed to:

•
therapeutic proteins and biologically active agents conjugated to a biopolymer;

•
specific therapeutics; and

•
components of our therapeutics.

In the normal course of business, we intend to pursue, when possible, composition, method of use, dosing and formulation patent protection, as well as manufacturing and drug development processes and technology. The patents and patent applications we have filed outside of the United States are in Europe, Japan and various other jurisdictions.

Individual patents extend for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance, and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued for applications filed in the United States are effective for 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of patents outside of the United States varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date.

Our issued U.S. patents will expire on dates ranging from 2027 to 2040. If patents are issued on our pending patent applications, the resulting patents are projected to expire on dates ranging from 2030 to 2045. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

As of December 31, 2025, we have a total of 36 pending trademark applications and issued trademark registrations. These include four trademark registrations and four pending trademark applications in the United States, and 27 trademark registrations and one pending trademark application in jurisdictions outside of the United States. Of the trademark registrations in jurisdictions outside of the United States, 17 are in China, two are in each of the European Union, Japan and the United Kingdom, and one is in each of Canada, India, Singapore and Switzerland. The pending trademark application in a jurisdiction outside of the United States is in Canada. We also may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our technology and product candidates, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with those who have access to our confidential information, including our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators and advisors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our

17

trade secrets may otherwise become known or may be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators, and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and products, please refer to the section on “Part I, Item 1A — Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2025, we had 124 employees worldwide, of whom 10 were based outside of the United States. Of our employees, 36 hold a Ph.D. or M.D. (or equivalent) degree. None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We continually assess employee turnover, recruitment initiatives, compensation and benefits programs, safety in performing critical laboratory work and other matters relevant to human capital management, and we review results with our Board of Directors on a periodic basis. We aim to offer competitive compensation (including salary, incentive bonus, and equity) and benefits packages in each of our locations and in each of employee groups at each level around the globe as assessed with internal and external benchmarking data.

Additional Information

We were organized in June 2009 in Delaware as a limited liability company. In September 2015, we converted to a Delaware corporation and, in connection with the conversion, changed our name to "Kodiak Sciences Inc." Our principal executive office is located at 1250 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304. Our telephone number is (650) 281-0850.

We maintain an internet website at the following address: www.kodiak.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any other filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.

We 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, or 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. In addition, the SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.