UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

OR

Commission File Number 001-39208

Beam Therapeutics Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 857-327-8775

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to § 240.10D-1(b).  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $2.11 billion, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on Nasdaq on June 30, 2023, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second quarter.

The number of shares of registrant’s common stock outstanding as of February 20, 2024 was 81,657,714.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Such forward-looking statements reflect, among other things, our current expectations and anticipated results of operations, all of which are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements, market trends, or industry results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Therefore, any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical fact may be forward-looking statements and should be evaluated as such. Without limiting the foregoing, the words “anticipate,” “expect,” “suggest,” “plan,” “believe,” “intend,” “project,” “forecast,” “estimates,” “targets,” “projections,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “might,” “will,” and the negative thereof and similar words and expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of important risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in “Risk Factors Summary” and in “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this report. Unless legally required, we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking information to reflect actual results or changes in the factors affecting such forward-looking information. These forward-looking statements reflect, among other things:

When we use the terms “Beam,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we mean Beam Therapeutics Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis, unless the context indicates otherwise.

TRADEMARKS

We use BEAM and other marks as trademarks in the United States and/or in other countries. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and service marks and to those belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this report, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate in any way that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other entities’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other entity.

MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA

Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K concerning our industry and the markets in which we operate, including our general expectations, market position and market opportunity, is based on our management’s estimates and research, as well as industry and general publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties. We believe that the information from these third-party publications, research, surveys and studies included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is reliable. Management’s estimates are derived from publicly available information, their knowledge of our industry and their assumptions based on such information and knowledge, which we believe to be reasonable. This data involves a number of assumptions and limitations which are necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in “Risk Factors Summary” and “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this report. These and other factors could cause our future performance to differ materially from our assumptions and estimates.

RISK FACTORS SUMMARY

An investment in our common stock involves risks. You should consider carefully the following risks, which are discussed more fully in “Item 1.A. Risk Factors”, and all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K before investing in our common stock. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a biotechnology company committed to establishing the leading, fully integrated platform for precision genetic medicines. Our vision is to provide life-long cures to patients suffering from serious diseases. To achieve this vision, we have assembled a platform that includes a suite of gene editing and delivery technologies as well as internal manufacturing capabilities.

Our suite of gene editing technologies is anchored by our proprietary base editing technology, which potentially enables a differentiated class of precision genetic medicines that target a single base in the genome without making a double-stranded break in the DNA. This approach uses a chemical reaction designed to create precise, predictable and efficient genetic outcomes at the targeted sequence. Our proprietary base editors have two principal components: (i) a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, or CRISPR, protein, bound to a guide RNA, that leverages the established DNA-targeting ability of CRISPR, but is modified to not cause a double-stranded break, and (ii) a base editing enzyme, such as a deaminase, which carries out the desired chemical modification of the target DNA base. We believe this design contributes to a more precise and efficient edit compared to traditional gene editing methods, with the potential to dramatically increase the impact of gene editing. We are also pursuing a suite of delivery modalities, including both ex vivo and in vivo approaches, depending on tissue type. The elegance of the base editing approach, combined with a tissue specific delivery modality, provides the basis for a targeted, efficient, precise, and highly versatile gene editing system that is designed to be capable of gene correction, gene silencing, gene activation, gene modification, and/or multiplex editing of several genes simultaneously.

Our goal is to advance a broad, diversified portfolio of base editing programs against distinct, genetically validated editing targets, as well as an innovative, platform business model that will expand the reach of our programs to more patients. Overall, we are seeking to build the leading integrated platform for precision genetic medicine, which may have broad therapeutic applicability and the potential to transform the field of precision genetic medicines.

We are currently prioritizing the lead programs in our hematology and genetic disease portfolios, each of which have the potential to provide differentiated therapies for significant patient populations with high unmet medical need:

We are also continuing to advance our other hematology, genetic diseases and immunology/oncology programs:

Limitations of nuclease editing

Gene editing works by disrupting, inserting, or modifying genes in the natural context of the genome. Most established gene editing methods rely on a class of enzymes, called nucleases, to make a double-stranded break in the DNA at a targeted location. Nuclease editors have several significant limitations.

First, there is a lack of predictability in genetic outcomes when altering gene sequences with nucleases. Nuclease editors can be effective if the desired outcome is to knock out or switch off the whole gene, but do not allow for precise control of the specific genetic outcome at the target site and its effects may vary from individual to individual.

Second, there are potential toxicities associated with double-stranded breaks, such as activating the cell death response and/or genomic instability. In addition, if the double-stranded break occurs in the wrong place, the break can also lead to unwanted gene disruptions. Multiple edits using double-stranded breaks can compound this issue and lead to large-scale genomic translocations and rearrangements, potentially limiting the applicability of nuclease-based approaches in multiplex editing.

Third, while gene disruption with nucleases is efficient, making specific sequence changes to correct or modify genes remains largely inefficient. It also requires the simultaneous delivery of an additional DNA template containing the desired, corrected gene sequence, which needs to be positioned at the precise location where the double-stranded break has occurred. The requirement of an additional DNA template significantly increases the complexity of delivery.

Finally, nuclease editing does not allow for the correction of genes in non-dividing cells, further limiting their applications, given that the majority of cells in the adult body are non-dividing.

Base editors: A potential differentiated class of gene editors

Our base editing technology is a differentiated therapeutic approach to gene editing, potentially capable of altering the human genome at the foundational level of genetic information – a single base – without making a double-stranded break in the DNA. The elegance and simplicity of this approach can be thought of as a “pencil,” where the error is erased and the correct letter is written.

We believe our base editing platform offers meaningful advantages over established approaches in gene editing, including:

Our base editing technology

Our proprietary DNA base editors have two principal components that may be fused together or incorporated into one another to form a single protein. The first component is a CRISPR associated protein. These proteins have been adapted and engineered to target specific genomic locations in human cells. The targeting ability of the CRISPR protein has been preserved, but the cutting ability has been modified such that the CRISPR protein does not make a double-stranded break in the DNA. The second component of our base editors is a human deaminase, a class of naturally occurring enzymes. Our Cytosine Base Editors, or CBEs, and our Adenine Base Editors, or ABEs, each use a different, engineered deaminase, which we have designed to act only on single-stranded DNA. The deaminase makes a predictable chemical modification, called deamination, of the amine group on either adenine (A) or cytosine (C) bases.

The deaminase in a CBE will convert an amine group of C, resulting in the formation of uracil (U), which is read by the DNA polymerase as a thymine (T) base. Once this strand has been edited, the intermediate DNA consists of an edited strand, containing a U at the target locus, and an unedited strand with a guanine (G) base. The U:G is a mismatch and in order to preserve the edit, we modify the CRISPR to cleave the unedited single strand of the DNA, referred to as nicking. Nicking is intended to increase the efficiency of editing by inducing the cell to use the newly edited strand, and not the unedited strand, as the template for repair, resulting in a U:A pair with minimal translocations. Upon DNA repair or replication, the U is read as a T, resulting in a T:A pair, thereby completing the permanent conversion of a C:G base pair to a T:A base pair. Analogously, when an ABE is used instead of a CBE, the conversion of an amine group of A results in the formation of inosine, which is read by the DNA polymerase as a G, which subsequently leads to an A-to-G change. As a result, an A:T pair is converted to a G:C pair. Because the DNA is double-stranded, by targeting the non-coding strand, we can also convert a T:A pair to a C:G and a G:C pair to a A:T pair in the coding strand.

The modular and individual components of our base editors have the potential to be customized for specific diseases, potentially allowing us to create new programs with significant efficiencies in development. For instance, by changing the guide RNA and/or CRISPR protein, we can retarget base editors to different genomic locations based on their gene sequences. By changing the deaminase, we can retarget which base is edited (e.g., C or A). As a result, we believe our base editing technology is highly versatile, efficient, and scalable for the discovery of new drug candidates in the future.

Our base editing platform

We believe the unique advantages of base editing – single base editing precision, predictable editing outcome, high editing efficiency, and the avoidance of double-stranded breaks – make it a compelling approach for a wide range of therapeutic applications. This includes gene correction, gene modification, gene silencing and gene activation, as well as multiplex editing of several genes simultaneously.

To complement our next-generation gene editing technologies, we are also making significant investments in a suite of delivery technologies designed to deliver gene editing or other nucleic acid payloads to the right cells and enable potentially curative therapy. These delivery technologies include ex vivo modalities, such as electroporation, as well as in vivo modalities, such as LNPs. In our pipeline, we have initially focused on applications of these technologies where their delivery capabilities have already been clinically-validated by third parties, such as ex vivo editing of blood stem cells and LNP delivery to the liver. Longer term, we are also investing in more innovative delivery options, including through our collaboration with Orbital Therapeutics, Inc., or Orbital, which is focused on next-generation mRNA and non-viral delivery technology. We have also developed critical enabling capabilities such as mRNA manufacturing and cell processing for autologous and allogeneic cell therapy.

Due to the critical importance of high-quality manufacturing and control of production timing and know-how, we have also established a 100,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina intended to support a broad range of clinical programs. The facility, which initiated cGMP operations in late 2023, is designed to support manufacturing for our ex vivo cell therapy programs in hematology and our in vivo non-viral delivery programs for liver and liver-mediated diseases, with the capability to scale-up to support potential commercial supply. For our initial clinical trials, we expect to rely primarily on our internal manufacturing capabilities, along with CMOs with relevant manufacturing experience in genetic medicines. We believe this investment will maximize the value of our portfolio and capabilities, the probability of technical success of our programs, and the speed at which we can provide potentially life-long cures to patients.

In summary, we believe that building an integrated platform combining our gene editing capabilities with advanced delivery and manufacturing capabilities will give us the flexibility to develop a sustainable portfolio, featuring rapid development of new programs and lifecycle improvements in our core programs.

In addition to our internal pipeline, the breadth and depth of our integrated technology platform gives us the opportunity to create a hub for partnering with other companies, which is an important part of our business model. We believe this model will help us to unlock the full potential of precision genetic medicine across a wider array of possible applications, including many outside our core areas of focus.

Our overall goal with these platform activities is to continue expanding our access to the technologies and teams in genetic medicine that will maximize our long-term value creation and impact on patients.

Our base editing portfolio

We plan to advance multiple programs through clinical development in parallel, with each one potentially capable of delivering proof-of-concept in Phase 1 clinical trials in genetically defined patient populations and potentially reaching approval on an accelerated pathway. Our lead programs are focused on sickle cell disease and AATD, and we are also advancing programs in other genetic diseases, as well as immunology/oncology.

The following table summarizes the status of our primary programs:

Hematology

We are advancing hematology base editing programs in which HSCs are collected from a patient, edited using electroporation, a clinically validated technology for the delivery of therapeutic constructs into harvested cells, and then infused back into the patient following a myeloablative conditioning regimen, such as treatment with busulfan, the standard of care in HSC transplantation today. Once reinfused, the HSCs begin repopulating a portion of the bone marrow in a process known as engraftment. The engrafted, edited HSCs give rise to progenitor cell types with the corrected gene sequences. We are deploying this ex vivo approach in our BEAM-101 and ESCAPE base editing programs.

Sickle cell disease, a severe inherited blood disease, is caused by a single point mutation, E6V, in the beta globin gene. This mutation causes the mutated form of HbS to aggregate into long, rigid molecules that bend red blood cells into a sickle shape under conditions of low oxygen. Sickled cells obstruct blood vessels and die prematurely, ultimately resulting in anemia, severe pain (crises), infections, stroke, organ failure, and early death. Sickle cell disease is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States, affecting an estimated 100,000 individuals, of which a significant proportion are of African-American descent (1:365 births). Beta-thalassemia is another inherited blood disorder characterized by severe anemia caused by reduced production of functional hemoglobin due to insufficient expression of the beta globin protein. Transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia, or TDBT, is the most severe form of this disease, often requiring multiple transfusions per year. Patients with TDBT suffer from failure to thrive, persistent infections, and life-threatening anemia. The incidence of symptomatic beta-thalassemia is estimated to be 1:100,000 worldwide, including 1:10,000 in Europe. In the United States, based on affected birth incidence of 0.7 in 100,000 births, and increasing survival rates, we expect the population of individuals affected by this disease to be more than 1,400 and rising.

We are pursuing a long-term, staged development strategy for our base editing approach to treat hematological diseases that consists of advancing our lead ex vivo program, BEAM-101, in Wave 1, improving patient conditioning regimens in Wave 2, and enabling in vivo base editing with delivery directly into HSCs of patients via LNPs in Wave 3. We believe this suite of technologies – base editing, improved conditioning and in vivo delivery for editing HSCs – can maximize the potential applicability of our sickle cell disease programs to patients as well as create a platform for the treatment of many other severe genetic blood disorders.

Wave 1: Ex Vivo Base Editing via Autologous Transplant with BEAM-101

We are using base editing to pursue the development of BEAM-101 for the treatment of sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia. BEAM-101 is a patient-specific, autologous HSC investigational therapy designed to offer a potentially best-in-class profile, incorporating base edits that are intended to mimic single nucleotide polymorphisms seen in individuals with hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin, or HPFH. BEAM-101 aims to alleviate the effects of sickle cell disease or beta-thalassemia by increasing fetal hemoglobin, which is expected to increase functional hemoglobin production and, in the case of sickle cell disease, inhibit hemoglobin S polymerization.

In January 2024, we announced that the first patient in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of BEAM-101 for the treatment of sickle cell disease, which we refer to as our BEACON trial, has been dosed and successfully achieved engraftment. The BEACON trial is expected to include an initial “sentinel” cohort of three patients, treated one at a time to confirm successful engraftment, followed by dosing in up to a total of 45 patients. The clinical trial is designed to initially include patients ages 18 to 35 with severe sickle cell disease who have received prior treatment with at least one disease-modifying agent with inadequate response or intolerance. Following mobilization, conditioning and treatment with BEAM-101, patients will be assessed for safety and tolerability, with safety endpoints including neutrophil and platelet engraftment. Patients will also be assessed for efficacy, with efficacy endpoints including the change from baseline in severe vaso-occlusive events, transfusion requirements, hemoglobin F levels, and quality of life assessments. We expect to dose the remaining two patients in the sentinel cohort and initiate dosing in patients in the expansion cohort of the BEACON trial in the first half of 2024, and we plan to report initial data from multiple patients from the BEACON trial in the second half of 2024.

The beneficial effects of the fetal form of hemoglobin, or HbF, to compensate for mutations in adult hemoglobin were first identified in individuals with HPFH. Individuals who carry mutations that would have typically caused them to be beta-thalassemia or sickle cell disease patients, but who also have HPFH, are asymptomatic or experience a much milder form of their disease. HPFH is caused by single base changes in the regulatory region of the genes, HBG1 and HBG2, which prevents binding of one or more repressor proteins and increases the expression of gamma globin, which forms part of the HbF tetramer.

Using base editing, we are attempting to reproduce these specific, naturally occurring base changes in the regulatory elements of the gamma globin genes, preventing binding of repressor proteins and leading to re-activation of gamma globin expression, and thus the increase in gamma globin levels. Our preclinical in vitro and in vivo characterization of BEAM-101 using ex vivo delivery achieved precise and efficient editing of human CD34+ HSPCs, resulting in long-term engraftment and therapeutically-relevant increases in target gene expression in mice. Additionally, there have been no observed guide-dependent or guide-independent off-target events for this program.

Wave 2: Non-genotoxic Conditioning

In parallel with Wave 1 development, we also aim to improve the transplant conditioning regimen for patients undergoing HSCT, reducing toxicity challenges associated with HSCT standard of care. Conditioning is a critical component necessary to prepare a patient’s body to receive the ex vivo edited cells that must engraft in the patient’s bone marrow in order to be effective. However, today’s conditioning regimens rely on nonspecific chemotherapy or radiation, which are associated with significant toxicities. As a potential alternative to genotoxic conditioning regimens in HSCT, we are advancing our ESCAPE program. ESCAPE aims to avoid toxicity challenges associated with currently available conditioning regimens for patients with sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia ahead of autologous HSCT, by combining antibody-based conditioning with multiplex gene edited HSCs. ESCAPE may also have applications in other diseases of the blood and immune system where HSCT could deliver potential benefits but has been limited by toxicities associated with current standard of care conditioning regimens.

In December 2022, we presented preclinical data at the 2022 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Exposition, or ASH, on our ESCAPE program. Our ESCAPE sickle cell disease program consists of multiplex base edited HSCs that include a therapeutic edit for sickle cell disease at the HGB1/2 gene and an additional edit at CD117. Findings presented at ASH included the first in vivo preclinical data for the ESCAPE program, which builds upon data shared earlier in 2022 demonstrating that ESCAPE antibodies bound to wild-type CD117 and blocked binding of its ligand in mice. In addition, we observed depletion of unedited cells and enrichment of edited cells in mice dosed with ESCAPE antibodies.

We have made significant investments in our ESCAPE platform and we anticipate initiating Phase 1-enabling preclinical studies for the ESCAPE sickle cell disease program in 2024.

Wave 3: In Vivo Base Editing via HSC-targeted LNPs

We are also exploring the potential for in vivo base editing programs for sickle cell disease, in which base editors would be delivered to the patient through an infusion of LNPs targeted to HSCs, eliminating the need for transplantation altogether. This approach could provide a more accessible option for patients, particularly in regions where ex vivo treatment is challenging. In preclinical studies, we achieved in vivo validation of our most potent HSC-directed LNP, demonstrating:

Genetic Diseases

LNPs are a clinically validated technology for delivery of nucleic acid payloads to the liver. LNPs are multi-component particles that encapsulate the base editor mRNA and one or more guides and protect them from degradation while in an external environment, enabling the transient delivery of the base editor in vivo. Because only one dose of a base editing therapy may be needed in a course of treatment, LNPs are a suitable delivery modality that we believe is unlikely to face the complications seen with chronic use of LNPs, such as those observed when delivering oligonucleotides or mRNA for gene therapy. All of the components of the LNP, as well as the mRNA encoding the base editor, are well-defined and can be manufactured synthetically, providing the opportunity for scalable manufacturing. We are currently using LNPs to advance BEAM-302 and BEAM-301.

BEAM-302: In Vivo LNP liver-targeting for AATD

BEAM-302 is a liver-targeting LNP formulation of base editing reagents designed to offer a one-time treatment to correct the E342K point mutation (PiZZ genotype) predominantly responsible for the severe form of AATD. AATD is an inherited genetic disorder that can cause early onset emphysema and liver disease. The most severe form of AATD arises when a patient has a point mutation in both copies of the SERPINA1 gene at amino acid 342 position (E342K, also known as the PiZ mutation or the “Z” allele). This point mutation causes Alpha-1 antitrypsin, or AAT, to misfold, accumulating inside liver cells rather than being secreted, resulting in very low levels (10%-15%) of circulating AAT. In addition to resulting in lower levels, the PiZ AAT protein variant is also less enzymatically effective compared to wildtype AAT protein. CAs a consequence, the lung is left unprotected from neutrophil elastase, resulting in progressive, destructive changes in the lung, such as emphysema, which can result in the need for lung transplants. The mutant AAT protein also accumulates in the liver, causing liver inflammation and cirrhosis, which can ultimately cause liver failure or cancer requiring patients to undergo a liver transplant. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 individuals in the United States have two copies of the Z allele. There are currently no curative treatments for patients with AATD.

With the high efficiency and precision of our base editors, we aim to utilize our ABEs to precisely correct the E342K point mutation and restore the production of functional AAT protein. In 2020, we demonstrated the ability of base editors to directly correct the mutation causing AATD, providing both in vitro and in vivo preclinical proof-of-concept for base editing to correct this disease. In January 2024, we announced that we have submitted a CTA for BEAM-302, and, assuming CTA acceptance, we plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of BEAM-302 at trial sites located outside of the U.S. in the first half of 2024.

BEAM-301: In Vivo LNP liver-targeting for GSD1a

BEAM-301 is a liver-targeting LNP formulation of base editing reagents designed to correct the R83C mutation, the most prevalent disease-causing mutation for, and the mutation which results in the most severe form of, GSD1a. GSD1a is an autosomal recessive disorder caused by mutations in the G6PC gene that disrupts a key enzyme, G6Pase, critical for maintaining glucose homeostasis. Inhibition of G6Pase activity results in low fasting blood glucose levels that can result in seizures and be fatal. Patients with this mutation typically require ongoing corn starch administration, without which they may enter into hypoglycemic shock within one to three hours.

Our approach to treating patients with GSD1a is to apply base editing via LNP delivery to repair the two most prevalent mutations that cause the disease, R83C and Q347X. It is estimated that these two point mutations account for 300 and 500 patients, respectively, in the United States.

In October 2023, we presented new preclinical data demonstrating the ability of BEAM-301 to directly correct the R83C mutation. These data showed that a single dose of BEAM-301 restored clinically meaningful endpoints in in vivo rodent disease models out to at least one year. In the first half of 2024, we plan to submit an IND application to evaluate BEAM-301 for the treatment of GSD1a at a select number of trial sites in the United States.

Immunology/Oncology

We believe base editing is a powerful tool to simultaneously multiplex edit many genes without the unintended on-target effects that can result from simultaneous editing with nucleases through the creation of double-stranded breaks. The ability to create a large number of multiplex edits in T cells could endow CAR-T cells and other cell therapies with combinations of features that have the potential to dramatically enhance their therapeutic potential in treating hematological or solid tumors.

BEAM-201: Universal CD7-targeting CAR-T cells

BEAM-201 is a development candidate comprised of T cells derived from healthy donors that are simultaneously edited at TRAC, CD7, CD52 and PDCD1 and then transduced with a lentivirus encoding for an anti-CD7 CAR that is designed to create allogeneic CD7 targeting CAR-T cells, resistant to both fratricide and immunosuppression. We have dosed the first patient in a first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BEAM-201 in patients with relapsed/refractory T-ALL/T-LL. Key safety endpoints for the trial include treatment-emergent and treatment-related adverse events, and key efficacy endpoints include proportion of patients with complete or partial responses, proportion eligible for HSC transplant and proportion achieving minimal residual disease negative status. We are continuing enrollment in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial and expect to report an initial clinical dataset for BEAM-201 in the second half of 2024 and to seek potential partnership for this and other potential ex vivo CAR-T programs, including our ongoing research into creating next-generation allogeneic cell therapies with multiplex base editing.

Our portfolio of precision gene editing technologies

We have licensed a portfolio of three additional complementary gene editing technologies – prime editing, Cas12b nuclease editing and RNA base editing– for certain fields. Combined with base editing, we have assembled a broad and versatile portfolio of next generation gene editing technologies for the potential treatment of many severe diseases.

We have a license to prime editing from Prime Medicine, Inc. Prime editing may be able to achieve the rewriting of short sequences of DNA at a target location. Prime editing utilizes a CRISPR protein to target a mutation site in DNA and to nick a single strand of the target DNA. The guide RNA allows the CRISPR protein to recognize a DNA sequence that is complementary to the guide RNA and also carries a primer for reverse transcription and a replacement template. The reverse transcriptase copies the template sequence in the nicked site, installing the edit. As with base editing, prime editing does not cause double-stranded breaks in the target DNA, resulting in lower insertion and deletion rates than gene editing technologies that rely on double stranded breaks.

We have the exclusive right to develop prime editing technology for the creation or modification of any single base transition mutations, as well as any edits made for the treatment of sickle cell disease. Transition mutations (i.e., A-to-G, G-to-A, C-to-T, or T-to-C) are the largest single class of disease-associated genetic mutations and include all of our current targets for base editing programs.

We also have a license agreement with The Broad Institute, Inc., or Broad Institute, that gives us access to the Cas12b nuclease family, which allows us to make “cut” edits, which may be appropriate for some applications that require a double stranded break, or to use the general gene targeting ability of Cas12b for other gene editing applications.

Our Broad Institute license also gives us access to RNA base editing technology, a two-part modular system using an RNA-directed CRISPR protein for targeting RNA strands and a deaminase for editing. This CRISPR protein, known as Cas13, is modified so that it cannot break the RNA strand, and is fused to a deaminase capable of making a single base edit at a specific target location within the RNA strand.

Collaborations

We believe our collection of base editing, gene editing and delivery technologies has significant potential across a broad array of genetic diseases. To fully realize this potential, we have established and plan to continue to seek out innovative collaborations, licenses, and strategic alliances with pioneering companies and with leading academic and research institutions. Additionally, we have and intend to continue to pursue relationships that potentially allow us to accelerate our preclinical research and development efforts. We believe these relationships will allow us to aggressively pursue our vision of maximizing the potential of base editing to provide life-long cures for patients suffering from serious diseases.

Pfizer

In December 2021, we entered into a four-year research collaboration agreement with Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, focused on in vivo base editing programs for three targets for rare genetic diseases of the liver, muscle and central nervous system. Under the terms of the agreement, we will conduct all research activities through development candidate selection for three pre-specified, undisclosed targets, which are not included in our existing programs. Pfizer may opt in to exclusive, worldwide licenses to each development candidate, after which it will be responsible for all development activities, as well as potential regulatory approvals and commercialization, for each such development candidate. We have a right to opt in, at the end of Phase 1/2 clinical trials, upon the payment of an option exercise fee, to a global co-development and co-commercialization agreement with respect to one program licensed under the collaboration pursuant to which we and Pfizer would share net profits as well as development and commercialization costs in a 35%/65% ratio (Beam/Pfizer).

Apellis Pharmaceuticals

In June 2021, we entered into a research collaboration agreement, or the Apellis Agreement, with Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Apellis, focused on the use of our base editing technology to discover new treatments for complement system-driven diseases. Under the terms of the Apellis Agreement, we will conduct preclinical research on six base editing programs that target specific genes within the complement system in various organs, including the eye, liver, and brain. Apellis has an exclusive option to license any or all of the six programs and will assume responsibility for subsequent development. We may elect to enter into a 50-50 U.S. co-development and co-commercialization agreement with Apellis with respect to one program licensed under the collaboration.

Verve Therapeutics

In April 2019, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement, or the Verve Agreement, with Verve Therapeutics, Inc., or Verve, a company focused on gene editing for cardiovascular disease treatments, and in July 2022, we and Verve amended the Verve Agreement. Under the terms of the Verve Agreement, as amended, we granted Verve exclusive worldwide licenses under certain of our editing technologies for human therapeutic applications against a total of three liver-mediated, cardiovascular disease targets, including use of our base editing technology for each of these targets and use of certain of our gene editing technology for two of such targets. In exchange, we received shares of Verve common stock.

In October 2023, we entered into a transfer and delegation agreement, or the Lilly Agreement, with Eli Lilly and Company, or Lilly, pursuant to which Lilly acquired certain assets and other rights under the Verve Agreement, including our opt-in rights to co-develop and co-commercialize each of Verve’s base editing programs for cardiovascular disease, which consist of programs targeting PCSK9, ANGPTL3 and an undisclosed liver-mediated, cardiovascular target. In addition, Lilly acquired the right to receive any future milestone or royalty payments payable to us under the Verve Agreement. Under the terms of the Lilly Agreement, we received a $200.0 million payment and are eligible to receive up to $350.0 million in potential future development-stage payments upon the completion of certain clinical, regulatory and alliance events. In October 2023, we also entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement, or the Purchase Agreement, with Lilly providing for the sale and issuance of 2,004,811 shares, or the Shares, of our common stock to Lilly at a price of $24.94 per share, which was equal to a 15% premium to the volume-weighted average share price of our common stock over the 30 trading days prior to the date of the Purchase Agreement, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $50 million. The Purchase Agreement contains customary representations, warranties and covenants of each party.

Sana Biotechnology

In October 2021, we entered into an option and license agreement, or the Sana Agreement, with Sana Biotechnology, Inc., or Sana, pursuant to which we granted Sana non-exclusive research and development and commercial rights to our CRISPR Cas12b technology to perform nuclease editing for certain ex vivo engineered cell therapy programs. Under the terms of the Sana Agreement, licensed products include certain specified allogeneic T cell and stem cell-derived products directed at specified genetic targets, with certain limited rights for Sana to add and substitute such products and targets. The Sana Agreement excludes the grant of any Beam-controlled rights to perform base editing. In 2023, Sana initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SC291, its CD19-targeted allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy, in patients with various B-cell malignancies. In November 2023, Sana announced that the FDA cleared its IND application to initiate a first-in-human trial of SC291, in patients with various B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases. In January 2024, Sana announced that the FDA cleared its IND application to initiate a first-in-human trial of SC262, its CD22-directed allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy, in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. In connection with each of the foregoing events, Sana made immaterial milestone payments to us under the Sana Agreement.

Orbital Therapeutics

In September 2022, we entered into a license and research collaboration agreement, or the Orbital Agreement, with Orbital, pursuant to which each of us granted the other licenses to certain technology controlled during the three years after entry into the Orbital Agreement that are necessary or reasonably useful for the non-viral delivery or the design or manufacture of RNA for the prevention, treatment or diagnosis of human disease. Our license to Orbital is for all fields other than our exclusive field and also excludes the targets and substantially all of the indications that are the subject of our existing programs. Our exclusive field consists of all products and biologics that function in the process of gene editing or conditioning for use in cell transplantation, or that act in combination with any such products or biologics. Orbital’s license to us is for all fields other than Orbital’s exclusive field. Orbital’s exclusive field consists of products and biologics that function as vaccines and also of therapeutic proteins, other than therapeutic proteins (i) that use gene editing, (ii) for use in conditioning, (iii) for use in regenerative medicine, (iv) for use as a CAR immune therapy, including CAR-T, CAR-NK and CAR-macrophage compositions, (v) for use as a t-cell receptor therapy or (vi) that modulate certain immune responses. The licenses are exclusive in each party’s exclusive field for three years and non-exclusive in those fields thereafter. We and Orbital agreed that for a period of three years after entry into the Orbital Agreement, subject to limited exceptions, we would not research, develop and commercialize, or grant licenses to research, develop and commercialize, products or biologics within the other party’s exclusive field.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including the genetic medicines field, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. While we believe that our differentiated technology, scientific expertise, and intellectual property position provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from a variety of companies in these fields. Within these industries, we will compete with existing large pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies.

There are several other companies utilizing CRISPR/Cas9 nuclease technology, including Caribou Biosciences, Editas Medicine, CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Arbor Biotechnologies and Metagenomi. Several additional companies utilize other nuclease-based gene editing technologies, including other Cas nucleases, Zinc Fingers, Arcuses, and TAL Nucleases, including Sangamo Biosciences, Precision BioSciences, bluebird bio, Allogene Therapeutics, Mammoth Biosciences and Cellectis. Additionally, other gene editing modalities are emerging, including from Prime Medicine, Tessera Therapeutics, Scribe Therapeutics, Tome Biosciences, Life Edit (an ElevateBio company), PerkinElmer (formerly Horizon Discovery) and Intellia Therapeutics. PerkinElmer, Metagenomi, Revvity, and Intellia Therapeutics are developing base editing technology and Tessera Therapeutics is utilizing mobile genetic elements for gene editing. In addition, we face competition from companies utilizing various genetic medicines, epigenetic modulation, oligonucleotide, and CAR-T therapeutic approaches, among others.

Within the disease areas that we focus on, we are also aware of competing companies that have approved therapies, those with therapies in development, and others that may emerge in the future. For hemoglobinopathies, these companies include Global Blood Therapeutics (part of Pfizer), CRISPR Therapeutics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, bluebird bio, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Editas Medicine, Kamau Therapeutics, Fulcrum Therapeutics, and Agios Pharmaceuticals. For T-cell malignancies, these include iCell Gene Therapeutics, PersonGen and Wugen. More broadly in the immuno-oncology cell therapy space, these include Allogene Therapeutics, Cellectis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fate Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Poseida Therapeutics, Legend Biotech and Autolus Therapeutics. For our liver targeted therapies, these include Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicines, CRISPR Therapeutics, Wave Life Sciences, Moderna, Korro Bio, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Ultragenyx, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, LogicBio Therapeutics, Generation Bio and Vertex.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future that are approved to treat the same diseases for which we may obtain approval for our product candidates. This may include other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, and/or protein therapies.

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

Intellectual property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our platform technology, our programs, and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating any valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, exclusively licensing and filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our platform technology, existing and planned programs, and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available. Notwithstanding these efforts, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we have licensed or filed or may license or file in the future, and we cannot be sure that any patents we have licensed or patents that may be licensed or granted to us in the future will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see Item 1A., Risk factors—Risks related to our intellectual property, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our wholly owned and our in-licensed patents and patent applications cover various aspects of our base editing platform and our programs, including:

We also have an option to license patents and patent applications relating to CRISPR/Cas9 systems. We intend to continue to pursue, when possible, additional patent protection, including composition of matter, method of use, and process claims, directed to each component of our platform technology and the programs in our portfolio. As of December 31, 2023, our wholly-owned patent portfolio consisted of five issued U.S. patents, and six issued patents in jurisdictions outside the United States. We also have approximately 387 pending patent applications, including PCT applications, provisional patent applications and counterparts to the foregoing U.S. and foreign patents. In addition, Beam co-owns one issued U.S. patent and 26 pending patent applications between the Broad Institute, Inc., UCL Business, Ltd., and Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The patents and patent applications outside of the United States were filed in numerous jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore and South Africa. Many of our owned patents and patent applications are related to our DNA base editing technology, including claims to base editor variants with enhanced activities or novel properties, methods of using such base editors, methods of using such base editors for therapeutic indications, multiplex base editing in immune cells ex vivo, guide RNAs that target base editors to therapeutically relevant DNA sequences, and methods for evaluating base editing specificity. Certain of our owned patents and patent applications are related to viral and non-viral delivery technologies. If issued as U.S. patents, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patents would be expected to expire between 2039 and 2044, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

As of December 31, 2023, our in-licensed patent portfolio consisted of approximately 45 issued U.S. patents, and approximately 145 issued patents in jurisdictions outside the United States. We also have approximately 274 pending patent applications, including PCT applications, provisional patent applications and counterparts to the foregoing U.S. and foreign patents. The patents and patent applications outside of the United States were filed in numerous jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Russia and Singapore. The patents and applications from our in-licensed portfolio for DNA base editing include claims to novel base editors, claims to engineered deaminase enzymes (e.g., evolved TadA) used in the base editors, compositions including the base editor or engineered deaminase as a component, methods of using such base editors, including methods of using such base editors for therapeutic indications, and guide RNAs that target base editors to therapeutically relevant DNA sequences. The in-licensed patents and applications also cover various aspects related to the platform technology, including base editing systems that employ S. pyogenes Cas9, S. aureus Cas9, Cas9 PAM variants, inactive forms of Cas9, and/or Cas9 nickases, and systems for delivery of base editors. The patents and applications from our in-licensed portfolio for RNA base editing include claims to novel base editors, compositions including the base editor as a component, guide RNAs that target base editors to therapeutically relevant RNA sequences, and methods of using such base editors, including methods of using such base editors for therapeutic indications. The patents and applications from our in-licensed portfolio for Cas12b editing include claims to methods of using Cas12b to modify DNA (e.g., nuclease cleavage of DNA) and engineered and/or non-naturally occurring compositions including Cas12b as a component. The patents and applications from our in-licensed portfolio for delivery technologies include claims to novel lipid-based delivery systems and compositions, viral-based delivery systems and compositions, and methods of using such systems and compositions to deliver base editors. The patents and applications from our in-licensed portfolio for the balance of our platform include claims to compositions and methods for delivery of charged base editor proteins into cells, modification and improvements to the base editing systems including improvements to the nucleotide binding protein component, guide RNA component and base editing enzyme component of the base editing complex, methods for evaluating gene targeting and base editing efficiency and compositions and methods for prime editing. Our current in-licensed patents and patent applications, if the

appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire between 2034 and 2040, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions (or the corresponding foreign equivalent). For information related to our in-licensed intellectual property, see the subsection below titled “—Intellectual Property Licenses.”

We also have a nonexclusive license to conduct research activities and an option to exclusively license certain patents and patent applications directed to Cas9 and Cas12a from Editas, who in turn has licensed such patents from various academic institutions. In the case of Cas9, a number of the U.S. patents are subject to an interference declared by the Patent and Trademark office, and a number of the European patents are the subject of one or more oppositions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see Item 1., Business—Intellectual property—Intellectual property licenses and Item 1A., Risk factors—Risks related to our intellectual property, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies 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. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, or PTA, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened (e.g., if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent having an earlier expiration date). In some instances, such a PTA may result in a U.S. patent term extending beyond 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application related to the U.S. patent. Patent term extensions, or PTE, under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, are also possible for patents that cover an FDA-approved drug as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a PTE of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the PTE is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug, a method for using it, or a method of manufacturing it, may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if our products receive regulatory approval, we may be eligible to apply for PTEs on patents covering such products, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such PTE should be granted, and if granted, the length of such PTE. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see Item 1A., Risk factors—Risks related to our Intellectual property, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and confidential information to develop and maintain our proprietary position and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have implemented measures to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see Item 1A., Risk factors—Risks related to our intellectual property, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We also rely on trademark protection for our company name and related designs. As of December 31, 2023, our registered trademark portfolio contained approximately 35 registered/allowed trademarks and pending trademark applications in the United States and in certain overseas jurisdictions.

Intellectual property licenses

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

License Agreement with The President and Fellows of Harvard College

In June 2017, we entered into a license agreement with Harvard, as amended, or the Harvard License Agreement, pursuant to which we received an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under certain patent rights owned or controlled by Harvard to make, have made, offer for sale, sell, have sold and import licensed products in the field of the prevention or treatment of any and all human diseases and conditions, excluding human germline modification and products for non-human animal and plant applications. We also received a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to research, have researched, develop and have developed “enabled” products related to the Harvard patent rights which are not licensed products.

The licensed patents are directed, among other things, to C-to-T, A-to-G, and C-to-G base editors, for the treatment of certain diseases and conditions and to base editing, more generally.

Under the Harvard License Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop products incorporating the base editing technology covered in the licensed patents, in accordance with a development plan that we prepared and submitted to Harvard. The development plan includes certain development milestones that we are required to meet, as well as the timelines for the completion thereof, and we may update the development plan from time to time as we believe necessary, in our good faith judgment, for us to meet such milestones. If we are successfully able to gain regulatory approval in any country to introduce a licensed product into the commercial market in such country, then we are also required to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize such licensed product and make such licensed product reasonably available to the public. If we fail to meet any of the deadlines for the development milestones, then Harvard may, depending on the nature of the failure and the impacted milestones, either terminate the Harvard License Agreement or our licenses with respect to the applicable licensed product(s), subject to certain exceptions and opportunities for us to cure such failure. Additionally, we are required to meet development milestones for the development of a licensed product covered by certain sub-categories of licensed patents. Failure to achieve milestones with respect to such sub-categories gives Harvard the right to grant third parties non-exclusive licenses under such failed sub-categories.

The licenses granted to us under the Harvard License Agreement are expressly subject to certain preexisting rights held by Harvard and certain third parties. For example, certain of the licensed patents were developed by employees of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and were subsequently assigned to Harvard but remain subject to a non-exclusive license between Harvard and Howard Hughes, pursuant to which Howard Hughes received a license from Harvard under certain of the licensed patents for research purposes with the right to sublicense to non-profit and governmental entities. In addition, certain of the licensed patents claim or cover inventions resulting from research that was sponsored by the U.S. government, and the U.S. government retains certain rights with respect to such licensed patents under applicable U.S. law. Harvard additionally retains limited rights for itself and for other non-profit research organizations to practice the licensed patents for research, educational, and scholarly purposes. Furthermore, Harvard retains the right, beginning a certain period of time after regulatory approval of any licensed product in the U.S. or certain European countries, to grant third parties the non-exclusive right to develop, manufacture, have manufactured, import, have imported, offer for sale, sell, have sold or otherwise distribute or have distributed such licensed product or an equivalent thereof solely for sale on a locally-affordable basis in certain specified developing countries in which we do not have plans to seek regulatory approval.

Although the licenses granted to us under the Harvard License Agreement are exclusive, Harvard may grant a license to a third party under the licensed patents to research, develop, and commercialize a product directed to one or more particular targets, or a proposed product, in the field under limited circumstances. If a third party that is not a specified competitor of ours inquires with Harvard for such a license, and then attempts to enter into a sublicense agreement with us after being referred to us by Harvard and fails to do so after a certain period of time and presents to Harvard a proposal including certain information describing the proposed development and commercialization of such product, then Harvard may notify us of such proposal. If we are not researching, developing or commercializing such a proposed product, then we can notify Harvard as to whether we are interested in developing such proposed product, entering into a sublicense agreement with such third party to develop such proposed product, or entering into a sublicense with another third party to develop the same proposed product. If we inform Harvard that we are interested in developing such proposed product, then we will prepare a development plan, similar in scope to the development plan under the Harvard License Agreement, to develop such proposed product. If we inform Harvard that we are interested in entering into a sublicense agreement pursuant to which a third party would receive a sublicense from us under the licensed patents to develop such proposed product, then we will have a specified period of time to enter into such a sublicense agreement and provide reasonable evidence thereof. If we are not researching, developing, or commercializing such a proposed product, fail to provide a development plan, or fail to enter into a sublicense agreement with respect to such proposed product, in each case, within specified time periods, then Harvard may grant a license to the applicable third party under the licensed patents to research, develop, and commercialize such proposed product.

We are permitted to further sublicense our rights under the Harvard License Agreement to third parties, provided that any such sublicense agreement with a third party must remain in compliance with and be consistent with the terms of the Harvard License Agreement, and certain rights granted to us under the Harvard License Agreement can only be sublicensed to bona fide collaboration partners who are working with us to develop one or more licensed products. In addition, any such sublicense agreement must include certain provisions to ensure our ability to comply with the Harvard License Agreement. We are also responsible for any breaches of a sublicense agreement by the applicable sublicensee, if such breach results in a material breach of the Harvard License Agreement, provided that if we cure the breach or diligently enforce our rights to terminate the sublicense, we will not be subject to termination by Harvard for the sublicensee’s breach, even if it resulted in a material breach of the Harvard Agreement.

In exchange for the licenses granted to us under the Harvard License Agreement, we initially issued to Harvard 101,363 shares of our common stock and subsequently issued 765,549 shares of our common stock pursuant to anti-dilution rights in the Harvard License Agreement. We are also required to pay to Harvard an annual license maintenance fee ranging from low-to-mid five figures to low six figures, depending on the particular calendar year. Harvard is also entitled to receive potential clinical and regulatory milestones in the mid-to-high eight figure range, and to receive success payments based on increases in the fair market value of our common stock. If we undergo a change of control during the term of the Harvard License Agreement, then certain of the milestone payments would be increased. We paid Harvard a total of $9.0 million upon the completion of our Series A and Series B financings.

In May 2021, the first success payment measurement occurred and amounts due to Harvard were calculated to be $15.0 million. We elected to make the payment in shares of our common stock and issued 174,825 shares of our common stock to settle this liability on June 10, 2021. We may additionally owe Harvard success payments of up to an additional $90.0 million.

With respect to the sale of licensed products by us, our affiliates or our sublicensees, Harvard is entitled to receive low single digit royalties on net sales of licensed products until, on a country-by-country basis, the latest of the expiration of (i) the last to expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering the applicable licensed product, (ii) the period of exclusivity associated with such licensed product in such country or (iii) a certain number of years after the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. We are entitled to certain reductions and offsets on these royalties with respect to a licensed product in a given country and certain increases in the event we, our affiliates or sublicensees bring patent challenges relating to any licensed patents (subject to an ability to delay and/or avoid such increases by diligently seeking to terminate and/or terminating the sublicense that has taken the applicable action). If we sublicense our rights to develop or commercialize a licensed product under the Harvard License Agreement to a third party and we receive non-royalty sublicense income, then Harvard is entitled to a percentage of such consideration, ranging from the high single digits to an amount in the first decile depending on the date in which such sublicense agreement is executed and the stage of development our licensed products at such time.

Harvard is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of all licensed patents, provided that we have customary consultation, comment, and review rights with respect to such prosecution and maintenance activities. We are responsible for Harvard’s documented out-of-pocket expenses with respect to such prosecution and maintenance, but if Harvard enters into a license agreement with a third party pursuant to which it grants such third party a license under the licensed patents outside of our field, then Harvard must use reasonable efforts to include a provision in such agreement that provides for an apportionment of prosecution and maintenance costs between us and such third party with respect to such licensed patents. If we choose to no longer pay for the prosecution and maintenance costs of a given licensed patent, then we will be relieved of such payment obligation, but our license with respect to such licensed patent will also terminate.

Unless earlier terminated, the Harvard License Agreement will remain in effect until the later of the last-to-expire valid claim of the licensed patents or the end of the last to expire royalty term. We may terminate the Harvard License Agreement at our convenience following written notice to Harvard. Either party may terminate the Harvard License Agreement for a material breach of the other party, subject to a notice and cure period. Harvard may also terminate the Harvard License Agreement in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency or if we fail to procure and maintain insurance. Upon expiration or termination of the Harvard License Agreement, the licenses granted to us will terminate and all rights under the licensed patent rights will revert to Harvard.

License Agreement with Editas Medicine, Inc.

In May 2018, we entered into a license agreement, or the Editas License Agreement, with Editas pursuant to which we received an exclusive (even as to Editas), royalty-bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license under certain patent rights owned or controlled by Editas related to certain base editing technologies and CRISPR technology to develop, commercialize, make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell and import certain base editing products for the treatment of human diseases or conditions. The license we received is non-exclusive with respect to certain specified targets. Our licensed field excludes the use of certain gene editing technologies in certain fields of use that have already been licensed to other partners of Editas, provided that our licensed field may expand if the fields licensed to other Editas partners are reduced or are otherwise modified as a result of any termination, expiration, or amendment to Editas’ agreements with such partners. In addition, we received a royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive license under a separate set of patent rights owned or controlled by Editas to conduct research activities in our licensed field and for which we have an option to obtain an exclusive license from Editas.

Certain of the patents licensed to us under the Editas License Agreement were licensed to Editas from Broad Institute and Harvard and certain of the patents for which we have an option to obtain a license were licensed to Editas from the Massachusetts General Hospital, or MGH. Accordingly, the licenses granted to us under the Editas License Agreement are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in each of the license agreements concerning the licensed patents between Broad Institute, Harvard and Editas, or the Broad/Harvard Head Licenses, and each of the license agreements concerning the patents for which we have an option to obtain a license between MGH and Editas, or the MGH Head Licenses.

As described above, Editas granted us an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license under certain patents on a patent family-by-patent family basis. If we so exercise the option with respect to a patent family of such optioned patents, then we would receive an exclusive license to such patent family of the same scope as the other patents exclusively licensed to us under the Editas License Agreement. In order to exercise an option with respect to a patent family of these optioned patents we would pay an eight-figure option exercise fee, depending on the date in which particular option is exercised.

Under the Editas License Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop a licensed product in our licensed field in each of the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, or U.K., Germany, France, Italy and Spain. If we are successfully able to gain regulatory approval in any country for a licensed product, then we are also required to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize such licensed product in such country. We also have sole control and responsibility over all regulatory activities with respect to the development of licensed products.

We are permitted to further sublicense certain of our rights under the Editas License Agreement to third parties, provided that any such sublicense agreement with a third party must remain in compliance with and be consistent with the terms of the Editas License Agreement and the Broad/Harvard Head Licenses and MGH Head Licenses, as applicable. We are also responsible for any breaches of a sublicense agreement by the applicable sublicensee and are responsible for all payments due under the Editas License Agreement by operation of any such sublicense. Following the signing of the Editas License Agreement, we obtained the right to further sublicense our rights the licensed patents from Broad Institute and Harvard to third parties, provided that we comply with certain sublicensing requirements under each of the Broad/Harvard Head Licenses as if we were Editas, as well as certain other customary conditions. We have not obtained any such right from MGH allowing us to further sublicense our rights under the licensed patents from MGH to third parties and will require written consent in the event we wish to further sublicense such rights to a third party.

Upon the execution of the Editas License Agreement, we paid Editas an upfront fee of $180,000. We also issued to Editas 1,833,333 shares of our Series A-1 Preferred Stock and 1,222,222 shares of our Series A-2 Preferred Stock. In addition, if any of our commercial, regulatory, development or sales activities with respect to the licensed products triggers a milestone payment or sublicense income that Editas owes under the Broad/Harvard Head Licenses or the MGH Head Licenses, then we are required to pay Editas the full amount of such milestone payment or sublicense income, as applicable; provided that we will not pay Editas for any sublicense income due as a result of our payment of any option exercise fee to Editas. Aggregate milestone amounts under the Editas License Agreement could equal up to $68.8 million for each product developed and commercialized using rights related to certain base editing technologies and CRISPR technology; in the event we develop and commercialize products covered by claims from the additional patent families licensed or optioned to us under the Editas License Agreement, aggregate milestone payments could equal up to $74.0 million per product. The percentage of sublicense income we would owe under the Editas License Agreement ranges from none to amounts between 10% and 20%. In addition, we agreed to pay for a portion of the annual license maintenance fees and prosecution and maintenance costs that Editas incurs itself or owes under the Broad /Harvard Head Licenses and the MGH Head Licenses with respect to the licensed patents. The upfront fee, equity issuance, and option exercise payments we make to Editas under the Editas License Agreement constitute both consideration for the licenses granted to us under the Editas License Agreement and reimbursement for prosecution and maintenance costs for the licensed patents.

With respect to the sale of licensed products by us, our affiliates or our sublicensees, we are required to pay to Editas an amount equal to the royalty rates that it owes to Broad Institute, Harvard, or MGH under its applicable in-licenses, plus an additional low- to mid-single digit royalty on net sales of licensed products, depending on whether such licensed product is covered by an Editas-owned patent and based on the aggregate worldwide net sales of licensed products in a given calendar year. We are entitled to certain reductions and offsets on these royalties with respect to a licensed product in a given country and if Editas is entitled to receive any reductions or offsets in respect to its royalty payment obligations under the relevant Broad/Harvard Head Licenses or MGH Head Licenses, then Editas will use reasonable efforts to avail itself of such reductions, which in turn would reduce our royalty payment obligations under the Editas License Agreement. The royalty term expires on licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the later of (i) the last-to-expire royalty term in such country under any applicable Broad/Harvard Head License or MGH Head License, and, if such product is covered by a licensed Editas-owned patent, (ii) the date at which such product is no longer covered by a valid claim of a licensed Editas-owned patent in such country.

As between the parties, Editas is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of all licensed patents, provided that we have certain information, comment, and review rights for certain of the licensed patents.

Unless earlier terminated, the Editas License Agreement will expire on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis on the expiration of the applicable royalty term with respect to such licensed product in such country. We may terminate the Editas License Agreement on written notice to Editas subject to a specified notice period. Either party may terminate the Editas License Agreement for a material breach of the other party, subject to a notice and cure period. Editas may also terminate the Editas License Agreement if we challenge the validity of any of the licensed patents, subject to customary carveouts. Upon expiration or termination of the Editas License Agreement in its entirety or with respect to a family of patents, the licenses granted to us will immediately terminate in its entirety or solely with respect to the expired or terminated patent family, as the case may be; however, if we have the right to terminate the Editas License Agreement due to Editas’ material breach of the Editas License Agreement, then in lieu of so terminating the Editas License Agreement, we can elect to reduce our royalty payment obligations under the Editas License Agreement by certain specified percentages.

License Agreement with The Broad Institute, Inc.

In May 2018, our affiliate, Blink Therapeutics Inc., or Blink, entered into a license agreement, as amended, or the Broad License Agreement, with Broad Institute. In September 2021, Blink merged with and into Beam, such that Blink’s separate corporate existence ceased and Beam continued as the surviving corporation and the successor by merger to the Broad License Agreement with respect to Blink. Under the Broad License Agreement, and as further detailed below, we received certain rights to RNA base editing technology, including the RNA editor platforms RESCUE™ and REPAIR™, which use Cas13 linked to a deaminase to deliver single base A-to-I or C-to-U editing of RNA transcripts, respectively, as well as the Cas12b nuclease family of gene editing enzymes.

More specifically, under the Broad License Agreement, Broad Institute granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing and sublicensable license under certain patent rights to the extent owned or controlled by Broad Institute (including via an interinstitutional agreement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, and Harvard) comprising (i) certain patent rights claiming or disclosing novel CRISPR enzymes and systems (including those related to DNA cleaving) or systems, methods and compositions for targeted nucleic acid editing, in each case to exploit products covered by such patents, (ii) certain product-specific patent rights claiming or disclosing novel CRISPR enzymes and systems, methods and compositions for targeted nucleic acid editing, in each case to exploit base editor products covered by such patents and (iii) certain patent rights generally related to gene targeting to exploit base editor products covered by such patents, in each case to make, have made, offer for sale, sell, have sold and import certain licensed products.

Under the Broad License Agreement, we have also been granted (i) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing and sublicensable license under all patents exclusively licensed to us under the Broad License Agreement to make, have made, offer for sale, sell, have sold and import certain products in our field that were made, discovered, developed or determined to have utility through the use of such patents in a research or discovery program commencing before May 2021 or through the use of transferred materials from Broad Institute but that are not covered by the licensed patents and (ii) a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing and sublicensable internal research license under all patents exclusively licensed to us. All licenses granted to us by Broad Institute exclude human germline modification, the stimulation of biased inheritance of particular genes or, with certain exceptions, traits within a plant or animal population and certain modifications of the tobacco plant and are subject to certain retained rights of Broad Institute, Harvard and MIT and the U.S. federal government. Broad Institute additionally retains limited rights for itself, Harvard and MIT and for other non-profit research organizations to practice the licensed patents for research, educational, and scholarly purposes.

Under the Broad License Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop licensed products in accordance with a development plan that Blink prepared and submitted to Broad Institute. The development plan includes certain development milestones that we are required to meet, as well as the timelines for the completion thereof, and we may update the development plan from time to time if we believe, in our good faith judgment, that such update is needed in order to improve our ability to meet such development milestones. We will not be able to delay such development milestone timelines without providing a reasonable explanation and plan to Broad Institute and provided further that Broad Institute’s approval of the explanation and plan in its reasonable discretion is required for any milestone timeline extension of more than a specified number of years. If we are successfully able to gain regulatory approval in any country to introduce a licensed product into the commercial market in such country, then we are also required to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize such licensed product and make such licensed product reasonably available to the public.

Additionally, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to pursue the viability of the technology covered, claimed or disclosed in certain sub-categories of licensed patents and must initiate a discovery program for the development of a licensed product covered by a valid claim, or otherwise generally enabled, by the use of such sub-category of the licensed patents during a certain period of time following the execution of the Broad License Agreement and submit an updated development plan and development milestones reasonably acceptable to Broad Institute for such sub-category of the licensed patents within such period of time. If we fail to use commercially reasonable efforts to pursue the viability of such technology or to initiate a discovery program or to submit an updated development plan in the specified time period then the license under such sub-category of the licensed patents will terminate and, if such sub-category of the licensed patents consists of base editor patent rights, our rights with respect to gene targeting licensed patents shall convert to non-exclusive so that such rights may be licensed for use to such terminated base editor licensed patents.

Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard also retain the right to grant further licenses under specified circumstances to third parties, other than specified entities, that wish to research, develop, and commercialize a product that would otherwise fall within the scope of our exclusive license grant from Broad Institute and Harvard pursuant to Broad Institute, Harvard and MIT’s inclusive innovation model. If, after a specified period of time, such a third party inquires with Broad Institute for such a license and presents to Broad Institute a proposal including information describing the proposed development and commercialization of such a proposed product, then Broad Institute may notify us of the request and the requester’s identity, and the nature of the specific proposed product, including the applicable gene to which the proposed product is directed. Broad Institute is not required to share any other information provided by the requester to us in connection with the inclusive innovation model. If we are not researching, developing or commercializing such a proposed product, then we can notify Broad Institute as to whether in good faith we are interested in developing such proposed product, entering into a sublicense agreement with such requesting third party to develop such proposed product, entering into a sublicense with another third party to develop such proposed product, or that we are not interested in any of the foregoing. If we inform Broad Institute that we are interested in developing such proposed product, then we will prepare a development plan, similar in scope to the development plan under the Broad License Agreement, to develop such proposed product and must commence the development program for such proposed product within a specified period. If we inform Broad Institute that we are interested in entering into a sublicense agreement pursuant to which the inquiring third party or another third party would receive a sublicense from us under the licensed patents to develop such proposed product, then we may enter into such a sublicense agreement and provide reasonable evidence thereof during the period. If we decline to conduct the foregoing activities or do not complete such activities within the specified period, which period is reduced by the period of time the requesting third party has previously negotiated with us, then Broad Institute may grant a license to the applicable third party under the licensed patents to research, develop, and commercialize such proposed product, and our license to such the applicable patent rights will, at Broad Institute’s election, terminate with respect to the gene that is the subject of the proposed third party product.

We are permitted to sublicense the licensed patents to affiliates and third parties, provided that any such sublicense agreement must remain in compliance with and be consistent with the terms of the Broad License Agreement. In addition, any such sublicense agreement must include certain customary provisions to ensure our ability to comply with the Broad License Agreement. We are also responsible for any breaches of a sublicense agreement by the applicable sublicensee and are responsible for all payments due under the Broad License Agreement by operation of any such sublicense.

As partial consideration for the rights granted under the Broad License Agreement, Broad Institute received 1,940,000 shares of Blink’s common stock. The shares issued to Broad Institute were exchanged into 865,240 shares of our common stock in connection with our acquisition of Blink on September 25, 2018.

Under the Broad License Agreement, we are also required to pay Broad Institute an annual license maintenance fee ranging from the low- to mid-five figures to the low-six figures, depending on the particular calendar year. Broad Institute is also entitled to receive clinical and regulatory milestones totaling in the mid-to-high eight figure range, and to receive success payments based on increases in the fair market value of our common stock.

In May 2021, the first success payment measurement occurred and amounts due to Broad Institute were calculated to be $15.0 million. We elected to make the payment in shares of our common stock and issued 174,825 shares of our common stock to settle this liability on June 10, 2021. We may additionally owe Broad Institute success payments of up to an additional $90.0 million.

We are also required to pay royalties in the low single digits for products covered by the licensed patents with such royalty reduced by a certain percentage for products enabled by the licensed patents or transferred materials, but not covered by the licensed patents. The royalty rate payable by us is subject to customary reductions and offsets on these royalties with respect to a product in a given country. The royalty term for a product in a country will terminate on the later of the expiration of (i) the last to expire licensed patent covering the applicable product, (ii) the period of exclusivity associated with such product in such country or (iii) a certain period of time after the first commercial sale of such product in such country. If we sublicense our rights to develop or commercialize a licensed product under the Broad License Agreement to a third party and receive non-royalty sublicense income, then Broad Institute is entitled to a percentage of such consideration, ranging from the high single digits to an amount in the low first decile, dependent on the development stage of products under the Broad License Agreement at the time of sublicense execution.

Broad Institute is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of all licensed patents, provided that we have certain consultation, comment, and review rights with respect to such prosecution and maintenance activities of exclusively licensed patent rights.

Unless earlier terminated, the Broad License Agreement will remain in effect until the later of the last-to-expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering our licensed products or the end of the last to expire royalty term. We may terminate the Broad License Agreement for its convenience following written notice to Broad Institute subject to a specified notice period. Either party may terminate the Broad License Agreement for a material breach of the other party, subject to a notice and cure period. Broad Institute may also terminate the Broad License Agreement in the event of our bankruptcy or insolvency, if we fail to procure and maintain insurance or if we, our affiliates or sublicensees bringing patent challenges relating to any licensed patents (subject to a cure period for us to terminate the sublicensee that has taken the applicable action).

License Agreement with Bio Palette Co., Ltd.

On March 27, 2019, we entered into a license agreement, or the Bio Palette License Agreement, with Bio Palette Co., Ltd., or Bio Palette, pursuant to which we received an exclusive (even as to Bio Palette and its affiliates), sublicensable license under certain patent rights related to base editing owned or controlled by Bio Palette to research, make, have made, import, export, distribute, use, have used, sell, have sold or offer for sale, and otherwise exploit products for the treatment of human disease throughout the world, but excluding products in the microbiome field in Asia. In addition, we granted Bio Palette an exclusive (even as to us and our affiliates) license under certain patent rights related to base editing and gene editing owned or controlled by us to research, make, have made, import, export, distribute, use, have used, sell, have sold or offer for sale, and otherwise exploit products in the microbiome field in Asia, subject to our right, in its sole discretion, to expand Bio Palette’s license (and the applicable royalty obligations) to the entire territory. Each party to the Bio Palette Agreement retains non-exclusive rights to develop and manufacture products in the microbiome field worldwide for the sole purpose of exploiting those products in its own territory. Each party agrees to certain coordination obligations in the microbiome field in the event that either party determines not to exploit their rights in such field.

If Bio Palette comes into the control of any other patent right that is useful for the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of any human diseases or conditions and intends to grant a license under that patent right in certain defined fields and in certain defined territories, we have the exclusive right of first negotiation for an exclusive license under that patent right in those fields and territories. If we come into the control of any other patent right that is useful in certain defined fields and intend to grant a license under that patent right in those fields in certain defined territories, Bio Palette has the exclusive right of first negotiation for an exclusive license under that patent right in those fields and territories.

As part of the Bio Palette License Agreement, if we form a Scientific Advisory Board, then Bio Palette will have the right to appoint two representatives to such board until the conclusion of the period ending five years after the effective date of the Bio Palette License Agreement. Additionally, we and Bio Palette agree to communicate with each other regarding potential base editing collaborations in Japan.

We are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop a licensed product in the United States, Japan, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and Spain. For any licensed product in our licensed field and territory that receives regulatory approval, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize that licensed product in the relevant country. Bio Palette is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop a licensed product in Japan. For any licensed product that receives regulatory approval, Bio Palette is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize such licensed product in the relevant country.

Certain of the patents licensed to us under the Bio Palette License Agreement were licensed to Bio Palette from Kobe University under a license agreement we refer to as the Kobe Head License. Accordingly, the licenses granted to us under the Bio Palette License Agreement are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Kobe Head License, which include provisions providing for certain rights to be retained by third parties including governmental authorities.

We and Bio Palette are both permitted to sublicense the licensed patents to affiliates and third parties, provided that the applicable terms of the Bio Palette License Agreement and the Kobe Head License would apply to such affiliates and third parties. The sublicensing party is also responsible for any breaches of such terms by the applicable sublicensee and is responsible for all payments due under the Bio Palette License Agreement by operation of any such sublicense.

Upon the execution of the Bio Palette License Agreement, we paid Bio Palette an upfront fee of $0.5 million. In connection with the execution of the Bio Palette License Agreement, we issued to Bio Palette 16,725 shares of our common stock, with an agreement to issue additional shares of our common stock in the low six figures in the event that the referenced Bio Palette patent issues in the United States. Upon the issuance of a certain Bio Palette patent in the United States in June 2020, we made a milestone payment to Bio Palette of $2.0 million and, in July 2020, issued to Bio Palette 175,000 shares of our common stock valued at $0.3 million. We also agreed to pay a royalty at a fraction of a percent on net sales of products that are covered by the patents licensed by Bio Palette to us, and Bio Palette agreed to pay a royalty at a fraction of a percent on net sales of products that are covered by the patents licensed by us to Bio Palette. The royalty term for a product in a country will terminate on the later of the expiration of (i) patent-based exclusivity with respect to such licensed product in such country or (ii) regulatory exclusivity with respect to such licensed product in such country.

Any intellectual property arising out of activities under the Bio Palette License Agreement will be owned by the party inventing such intellectual property. Bio Palette is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of all patents licensed by Bio Palette to us, provided that we have customary consultation, comment and review rights with respect to such prosecution and maintenance activities solely with respect to national entries of a certain specified PCT application. We have the sole right to prosecute and maintain patents licensed by us to Bio Palette.

Unless earlier terminated, the Bio Palette License Agreement will expire on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the applicable royalty term for each such licensed product and country. Each party has the right to terminate the Bio Palette License Agreement for convenience with respect to the license granted to such party subject to a specified notice period. Either party may terminate the Bio Palette License Agreement with respect to the license granted to the other party for a material breach by the other party, subject to a specified notice and cure period. Additionally, either party may also terminate the Bio Palette License Agreement in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency or if the other party, its affiliates or sublicensees brings a patent challenge relating to any licensed patents (but, in the case of such a patent challenge by a sublicensee, subject to a cure period for such party to terminate its agreement with the sublicensee that has taken the applicable action).

Government regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, or EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storage, record keeping, reimbursement, advertising, promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting and import and export, pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceutical products, including biological products. Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process or post-approval may subject a sponsor for marketing approval to delays in development or approval, as well as administrative and judicial sanctions.

The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions and compliance with applicable statutes and regulatory requirements, both pre- and post-approval, and obtaining reimbursement status will continue to require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The regulatory requirements applicable to biological product development, approval, and marketing are subject to change, and regulations and administrative guidance often are revised or reinterpreted by the agencies in ways that may have a significant impact on our business. Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use.

Licensure and regulation of biologics in the United States

In the United States, our candidate products are regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act, or the PHSA, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, the implementing regulations of the FDA and other federal, state and local statutes and regulations.

The FDA must approve a product candidate for a therapeutic indication before it may be marketed in the United States. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products is referred to as a sponsor. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

Preclinical studies and investigational new drug application

Before testing any investigational biological product in humans, including a gene editing product candidate, the product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animal studies. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application.

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved drug or biological product to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved new drug application, or NDA. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks or any issues surrounding chemistry, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, for the proposed product. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin. Preclinical or nonclinical testing typically continues even after the IND is submitted.

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

Expanded access to an investigational drug for treatment use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application.

There is no requirement for a manufacturer to provide expanded access to an investigational product. However, if a manufacturer decides to make its investigational product available for expanded access, FDA reviews requests for expanded access and determines if treatment may proceed. Expanded access may be appropriate when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere with initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

Under the FDCA, sponsors of one or more investigational products for the treatment of a serious disease(s) or condition(s) must make publicly available their policy for evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access for individual patients. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides an additional mechanism for patients with a life-threatening condition who have exhausted approved treatments and are unable to participate in clinical trials to access certain investigational products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial, are the subject of an active IND, and are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Unlike the expanded access framework described above, the Right to Try Pathway does not require FDA to review or approve requests for use of the investigational product. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its investigational products available to eligible patients under the Right to Try Act.

Human clinical trials in support of a BLA

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

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

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group may recommend continuation of the study as planned, changes in study conduct, or cessation of the study at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the study. Finally, research activities involving infectious agents, hazardous chemicals, recombinant DNA, and genetically altered organisms and agents may be subject to review and approval of an Institutional Biosafety Committee, or IBC, in accordance with NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules.

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

In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety or effectiveness after approval. Such trials are typically referred to as post approval or post marketing clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of biologics approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting post approval or post marketing clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products. The FDA generally recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene-therapy related delayed adverse events in a long-term follow-up study of fifteen years for integrating vectors, up to fifteen years for herpes virus vectors capable of establishing latency, up to fifteen years for microbial vectors known to establish persistent infection, up to fifteen years for gene editing products, and up to five years for AAV vectors. The FDA recommends that these long-term follow-up studies include, at a minimum, five years of annual physical examinations followed by annual queries, either in-person or by phone or written questionnaire, for the remaining observation period.

In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans. In January 2024, the FDA issued draft guidance setting out its policies for the collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials.

In June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s, or ICH, recently updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the occurrence 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, or at all. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry maintained by the NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. The NIH’s Final Rule on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017. The FDA has issued several pre-notices for voluntary corrective action and several notices of non-compliance during the past two years. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues.

Interactions with the FDA During the Clinical Development Program

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, a sponsor is given the opportunity to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-NDA meetings as well as end of phase meetings such as end of Phase 2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues and should not require input from more than three disciplines or Divisions of FDA. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure.

Clinical Studies Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval

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

The acceptance by the FDA of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of U.S. approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

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

Pediatric Studies

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, a BLA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must submit a pediatric study plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. The PSP outlines the proposed pediatric study or studies they plan to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The FDA must then review the information submitted, consult with the sponsor, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

For investigational products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of a sponsor, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors and FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than 90 days after FDA’s receipt of the study plan. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements, under specified circumstances. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law now requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. It further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has recently taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. The FDA also maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population.

Special regulations and guidance governing gene therapy products

It is possible that the procedures and standards applied to gene therapy products and cell therapy products may be applied to any CRISPR/Cas9 product candidates we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point. The FDA has defined a gene therapy product as one that mediates its effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and which are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms. The products may be used to modify cells in vivo or be transferred to cells ex vivo prior to administration to the recipient. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, at FDA regulates gene therapy products. Within CBER, the review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the Office of Therapeutic Products, or OTP, and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its reviews.

The FDA has issued numerous guidance documents regarding gene therapies. Although the FDA’s guidance documents are not legally binding, compliance with certain aspects of them is likely necessary to gain approval for any product candidate we may develop. The guidance documents provide recommendations and additional clarity as to factors that the FDA will consider at each stage of gene therapy development and relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the CMC information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA application; measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies; and gene therapy products for the treatment of rare diseases.

If a gene therapy trial is conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving any NIH funding for research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, the trial must be conducted in accordance with the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. Research conducted at such institutions that involves the transfer of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, or DNA or RNA derived from recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, into human subjects must undergo review and approval by an IBC before it commences. Many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

Compliance with cGMP and cGTP requirements

The FDA’s regulations require that pharmaceutical products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceuticals are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently.

Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the NDA sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved product.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. Material changes in manufacturing equipment, location, or process post-approval, may result in additional regulatory review and approval. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.

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

Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. The manufacturing facilities may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. If a manufacturing facility is not in substantial compliance with the applicable regulations and requirements imposed when the product was approved, regulatory enforcement action may be taken, which may include a warning letter or an injunction against shipment of products from the facility and/or recall of products previously shipped.

Submission of a BLA

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with information relating to the product’s CMC and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA as part of an application requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications. The fee required for the submission of a BLA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, is substantial (for example, for federal fiscal year 2024, this application fee is approximately $4.05 million), and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, set at $416,734 per eligible prescription drug product for federal fiscal year 2024. These fees are typically adjusted annually, and exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the sponsor is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of the BLA within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor by that time whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, the FDA’s regulations for applications state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that the FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. Typically, an RTF will be based on administrative incompleteness, such as clear omission of information or sections of required information; scientific incompleteness, such as omission of critical data, information or analyses needed to evaluate safety, purity and potency or provide adequate directions for use; or inadequate content, presentation, or organization of information such that substantive and meaningful review is precluded. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept a BLA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. The FDA may inform the sponsor of certain requirements for information when it accepts the BLA or by the 74th day of the receipt of the BLA. Thereafter, the FDA may submit “information requests” to the sponsor in the course of the agency’s review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. 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 standard application for an investigational product that is a new molecular entity, and six months from the filing date for an application with “priority review.” The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the sponsor to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of a BLA to extend beyond the PDUFA goal date.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with IND and GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified the FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.

Additionally, the FDA may refer the BLA, including applications for novel product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA or its advisory committee may interpret data differently than the NDA sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA may also re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the sponsor during the review process.

The FDA’s Decision on a BLA

The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe, pure and potent. To reach this determination, the FDA must determine that the expected benefits of the proposed product outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety, purity and potency in the BLA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks.

The FDA typically requires a robust safety database and substantial evidence of the efficacy of the product. The term “substantial evidence” has been interpreted by the FDA to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. This approach was subsequently endorsed by Congress in 1998 with legislation providing, in pertinent part, that “If [the FDA] determines, based on relevant science, that data from one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation and confirmatory evidence (obtained prior to or after such investigation) are sufficient to establish effectiveness, the FDA may consider such data and evidence to constitute substantial evidence.” In December 2019, the FDA issued draft guidance further explaining the studies that are needed to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness. It has not yet finalized that guidance, but the FDA did issue draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical trial to demonstrate efficacy.

In addition, before approving an application, the FDA will determine whether the facility in which the product is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendations, if any, and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL.

A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other 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 CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six-month extension to respond. For those seeking to challenge the FDA’s CRL decision, the FDA has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution. During the product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a REMS is necessary to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. That is, the approval will be limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population or indication) described in the FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including post-marketing clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast track, breakthrough therapy, priority review and regenerative advanced therapy designations

The FDA has several programs designed to expedite the development and approval of drugs and biological products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review designation, and regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT) designation. These designations are not mutually exclusive, and a product candidate may qualify for one or more of these programs. While these programs are intended to expedite product development and approval, they do not alter the standards for FDA approval.

The FDA may grant a product fast track designation if it is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for such disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA, and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s marketing application before the application is complete in some circumstances. Fast track designation may be rescinded if FDA believes that the product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to aid sponsors in designing the clinical trials in an efficient manner. Breakthrough designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

With passage of the 21st Century Cures Act in December 2016, Congress authorized an additional expedited program for regenerative medicine advanced therapies. A product is eligible for RMAT designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of RMAT designation include the benefits available to breakthrough therapies, including potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints. RMAT designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of the treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of such condition. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and it shortens the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

Accelerated approval pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long, and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

For drugs granted accelerated approval, FDA generally requires sponsors to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies with due diligence, failure to confirm a clinical benefit during the post-approval studies, or dissemination of false or misleading promotional materials would allow the FDA to withdraw the product approval on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated approval are subject to prior review by the FDA unless FDA informs the sponsor otherwise.

With passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require (i) a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded; (ii) a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed); and (iii) use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics.

Post-approval regulation

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

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

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

The FDA strictly regulates the advertising and labeling of prescription drug products, including biological products. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. In addition, the sponsor of an approved drug in the United States may not promote that drug for unapproved, or off-label, uses, although a physician may prescribe a drug for an off-label use in accordance with the practice of medicine. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.

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

After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or dosing regimens, manufacturing changes, or additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. In addition, the FDA may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved products that have been commercialized, and the FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs.

The FDA may withdraw product 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 issues with manufacturing processes, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety signals; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

Finally, if there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the sponsor may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or a BLA supplement, which may require the sponsor to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. Securing FDA approval for new indications is similar to the process for approval of the original indication and requires, among other things, submitting data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the product’s safety and efficacy in the new indication. Even if such trials are conducted, the FDA may not approve any expansion of the labeled indications for use in a timely fashion, or at all. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements that are now assessed as program fees for certain approved drugs.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

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

Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for certain tax credits. In addition, if a drug candidate that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for that drug for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years following product approval unless the subsequent product candidate is demonstrated to be clinically superior. Absent a showing of clinical superiority, FDA cannot approve the same product made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless it has the consent of the sponsor or the sponsor is unable to provide sufficient quantities.

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

Gene therapy products present novel issues for assessing when two products are the “same” for orphan exclusivity purposes. In September 2021, the FDA issued a final guidance document describing its current thinking on when a gene therapy product is the “same” as another product for the purpose of orphan exclusivity. Under the guidance, if either the transgene or vector differs between two gene therapy products in a manner that does not reflect “minor” differences, the two products would be considered different drugs for orphan drug exclusivity purposes. FDA will determine whether two vectors from the same viral class are the same on a case-by-case basis and may consider additional key features in assessing sameness. While the guidance provides some additional clarity on FDA’s approach to assessing “sameness,” significant ambiguity and uncertainty remain as to how FDA will assess viral vectors in the same class, what differences in vector or transgene are considered minor, and what additional features may be considered.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the indication for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a second application for a clinically superior version of the product for the same use. Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand or the subsequent product with the same drug for the same condition is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or provide a major contribution to patient care. This is the case despite an earlier court opinion holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously required the FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Under Omnibus legislation signed in December 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drugs and biologics that received orphan drug designation before enactment of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA, in 2017, but have not yet been approved or licensed by the FDA.

In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the agency to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” It is unclear how this court decision will be implemented by the FDA. Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved.

Pediatric exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent regulatory exclusivity in the United States. Specifically, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act provides for the attachment of an additional six months of exclusivity, which is added on to the term of any remaining regulatory exclusivity at the time the pediatric exclusivity is granted. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data, even if the data do not show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied.

Biosimilars and exclusivity

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars.

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

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. This 12-year exclusivity period is referred to as the reference product exclusivity period and bars approval of a biosimilar but notably does not prevent approval of a competing product pursuant to a full BLA (i.e., containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the product). The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. In December 2022, Congress clarified through FDORA that the FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product. The law also includes an extensive process for the innovator biologic and biosimilar manufacturer to litigate patent infringement, validity, and enforceability prior to the approval of the biosimilar.

Since the passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, including laws governing pharmacy practices, which are state-regulated, to regulate the use of biosimilars.

Patent term restoration and extension

A patent claiming a new biological product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for a single patent for an approved product as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date a clinical investigation involving human beings is begun and the submission date of a marketing application less any dime during which the sponsor failed to exercise due diligence, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date less any dime during which the sponsor failed to exercise due diligence. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

FDA approval of companion diagnostics

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

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

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

The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval, or PMA, simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the sponsor must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee, which for federal fiscal year 2024 is $483,560 and the small business fee is $120,890.

A clinical trial is typically required for a PMA application and, in a small percentage of cases, the FDA may require a clinical study in support of a 510(k) submission. A manufacturer that wishes to conduct a clinical study involving the device is subject to the FDA’s IDE regulation. The IDE regulation distinguishes between significant and non-significant risk device studies and the procedures for obtaining approval to begin the study differ accordingly. Also, some types of studies are exempt from the IDE regulations. A significant risk device presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject. Significant risk devices are devices that are substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or treating disease or in preventing impairment to human health. Studies of devices that pose a significant risk require both FDA and an IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study. Many companion diagnostics are considered significant risk devices due to their role in diagnosing a disease or condition. Non-significant risk devices are devices that do not pose a significant risk to the human subjects. A non-significant risk device study requires only IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study.

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

Federal and state data privacy and security laws

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI, used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them. Any clinical trials we conduct will be regulated by Subpart A of 45 CFR 46, also known as the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. Moreover, new laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

At the state level, in 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. It also provides California residents a private right of action, including the ability to seek statutory damages, in the event of a breach involving their personal information. Compliance with the CCPA is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance. On November 3, 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which will expand the CCPA to incorporate additional provisions, including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA will also expand personal information rights of California residents, including creating a right to opt out of sharing of personal information with third parties for advertising, expanding the lookback period for the right to know about personal information held by businesses, and expanding the right to erasure for information held by third parties. Most CPRA provisions took effect on January 1, 2023, though the obligations apply to any personal information collected after January 1, 2022. These provisions may apply to some of our business activities. In addition, more than 12 other states, already have passed state privacy laws. For example, the State of Washington passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023, which specifically regulated health information that is not otherwise regulated by the HIPAA rules. Other states have already passed similar laws and other states may do so in the future. In addition, Congress has also debated passing a federal privacy law. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of any products for which we or our collaborators obtain regulatory and marketing approval.

Regulation and procedures governing approval of medicinal products in the EU and the U.K.

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

Non-clinical studies

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

Clinical trial approval

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

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

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

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the Clinical Trials Directive, remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the EU at the EU Clinical Trials Register.

Marketing authorization

To obtain a marketing authorization, or MA, for a gene therapy product under the EU regulatory system, a sponsor must submit an application via the centralized procedure administered by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA. Specifically, the grant of an MA in the EU for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC lays down specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products, and tissue engineered products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA’s Committee for Advance Therapies which provides a draft opinion regarding the application for marketing authorization and which is subject to final approval by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of that final approval.

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

Conditional approval

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

Exceptional Circumstances

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

Regulatory data exclusivity in the EU

In the EU, new chemical entities approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for a period of eight years. This also applies to biosimilars. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. In addition, if a pediatric investigation plan is accepted, then a further year of market exclusivity might be obtained (or in the alternative a patent extension (SPC) of a further 6 months). For orphan medicinal products, the periods are separate and different in that there is a total of 10-year data exclusivity and if they have a PIP, there is a further two-year extension to that 10-year period. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical or biological entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Periods of authorization and renewals

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

Regulatory requirements after marketing authorization

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. In addition, the manufacturing of authorized products, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s GMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the EU, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. The marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the EU under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended.

PRIME designation in the EU

The EU has a Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme that is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

Pediatric studies

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, sponsors must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved PIP covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are provided in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, the so-called Paediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Paediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine for children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine for children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population. Before an MAA can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

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

Pediatric Exclusivity

If a sponsor obtains a marketing authorization in all EU member states, or a marketing authorization granted in the centralized procedure by the European Commission, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of the Supplementary Protection Certificate, or SPC.

Patent term extensions in the EU and other jurisdictions

The EU also provides for patent term extension through SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining an SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity for a drug. In certain circumstances, these periods may be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained, which is described in detail below. Although SPCs are available throughout the EU, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the EU.

Pricing Decisions for Approved Products

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

General data protection regulation

Similar to the laws in the United States, there are significant privacy and data security laws that apply in Europe and other countries. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the European Economic Area, or the EEA, and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is subject to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the U.S., and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

There are ongoing concerns about the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the EU to other countries. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, or Privacy Shield, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. While we were not self-certified under the Privacy Shield, this CJEU decision has lead to increased scrutiny on data transfers from the EU to the U.S. generally and increase our costs of compliance with data privacy legislation as well as our costs of negotiating appropriate privacy and security agreements with our vendors and business partners.

Following the CJEU decision, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The European Commission initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in December 2022, and has now adopted an adequacy decision to permit data transfers from the EU to the United States going forward. This development permits data transfers at this point under this framework and more broadly has made international data transfers more straightforward, but these provisions are being challenged in court. The continuing uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the EU.

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the U.K. voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. As with other issues related to Brexit, there are open questions about how personal data will be protected in the U.K. and whether personal information can transfer from the EU to the U.K. Following the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the U.K. and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. While the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the U.K. that “implements” and complements the GDPR has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the U.K., it is unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the U.K. will remain lawful under the GDPR. The U.K. government has already determined that it considers all European Union 27 and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the U.K. to the EU/EEA remain unaffected. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the U.K. as being “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the U.K., although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future. The U.K. and the United States also have agreed on a framework

for personal data to be transferred between the U.K. and the United States, called the U.K.-U.S. Data Bridge. The U.K.-U.S. Data Bridge may be challenged in the future. Continuing uncertainty about these data transfers, including the possibility of future changes, may impact our business operations.

Beyond the GDPR, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world. While many loosely follow the GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws will impact our ability to conduct our business activities, including both our clinical trials and any eventual sale and distribution of commercial products.

Brexit and the regulatory framework in the U.K.

The EU and the U.K. reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the EU and the U.K. will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the U.K. is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol.

On February 27, 2023, the U.K. government and the European Commission announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework”. This new framework fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the U.K. In particular, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the U.K. market, and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. A single U.K.-wide MA will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the U.K., enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the U.K. The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, so the U.K. government and the EU will enact legislative measures to bring it into law. On June 9, 2023, the MHRA announced that the medicines aspects of the Windsor Framework will apply from January 1, 2025. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or HMR is the primary legal instrument for the regulation of medicines in the U.K. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU.

EU laws, which have been transposed into U.K. law through secondary legislation, continue to be applicable as “retained EU laws”. However, new legislation such as the CTR will not be applicable in the U.K. Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the U.K. covering the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, MAs, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval, and commercialization of our product candidates in the U.K. For example, the U.K. is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide MAs from the EMA, and a separate MA will be required to market our product candidates in the U.K. A new international recognition framework has been in place since January 1, 2024, whereby the MHRA will have regard to decisions on the approval of MAs made by the EMA and certain other regulators when determining an application for a new U.K. MA.

Coverage, pricing, and reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may seek regulatory approval by the FDA or other government authorities. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use any product candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such product candidates. Sales of our products will depend, in significant part, on the availability of coverage and the adequacy of reimbursement from third-party payors.

Within the United States, third-party payors include government authorities or government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and private entities, such as managed care organizations, private health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the drug product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Some third-party payors may manage utilization of a particular product by requiring pre-approval (known as “prior authorization”) for coverage of particular prescriptions (to allow the payor to assess medical necessity). Moreover, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain net price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular drug product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the cost-effectiveness of new products and services in addition to their safety and efficacy. To obtain or maintain coverage and reimbursement for any current or future product, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our product. These studies will be in addition to the studies required to obtain regulatory approvals. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit. Thus, obtaining and maintaining reimbursement status is time-consuming and costly.

As noted above, the marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and other third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. There is an emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States and we expect the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing will increase. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval from one or more third party payors, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

If we obtain appropriate approval in the future to market any of our current product candidates in the United States, we may be required to provide discounts or rebates under government healthcare programs or to certain government and private purchasers in order to obtain coverage under federal healthcare programs such as Medicaid. Participation in such programs may require us to track and report certain drug prices. We may be subject to fines and other penalties if we fail to report such prices accurately.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for any product candidates we may develop will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of any product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.

In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country because this is not yet the subject of harmonized EU law. Many countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval and others with “peg” their pricing to a basket of other countries. EU member states may approve a specific price for a product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Some member states, in addition to controlling pricing will monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic, and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states, and parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states), can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries.

Healthcare law and regulation

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

Health care and other reform

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

In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the PPACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government healthcare programs. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031.

Under current legislation the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, or PAYGO, sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Consolidated Appropriations Act’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal 2030 and 2031.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Since enactment of the PPACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the PPACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the PPACA. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

In January 2021, a new executive order directed federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to healthcare and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID‑19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the PPACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and under the PPACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

Pharmaceutical Prices

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care.

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation.

Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, further delayed implementation of this rule to January 1, 2032.

In September 2021, acting pursuant to an executive order signed by President Biden, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.

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

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028 and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Novo Nordisk, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis AG, AstraZeneca plc and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

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

Human Capital Resources

Team members

As of December 31, 2023, we had 436 team members employed with us full-time, of which 116 had a M.D. or Ph.D. degree. Of these team members, 193 were engaged in research and development activities, 40 were engaged in clinical and regulatory activities, 65 were in technical operations, 48 were in quality roles and 90 were in general and administrative roles. None of our team members are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Human capital strategy

Our human capital strategy starts with our values:

These values have helped us build a team that is focused on achieving our vision of providing life-long cures for patients suffering from serious diseases.

We believe the following priorities are key to realizing this vision:

Engagement

We have a highly engaged team, and we regularly collect feedback to ensure their voices are heard. We do this through a combination of engagement surveys, weekly team meetings, one-on-one interactions, and open forums. In 2023, we conducted an internal engagement survey and 91% of our team members participated.

Total rewards (compensation and benefits)

We are committed to rewarding our team members in order to continue to attract and retain talent. We do this by regularly conducting market assessments to ensure our compensation program is competitively positioned. We also engage our team members on a regular basis to understand what benefits they value. This feedback has allowed us to evolve our total rewards to respond proactively to the needs of our team.

Wellness

In order to execute on our human capital strategy, the wellbeing of our team members comes first. To that end, we provide several benefits focused on the various physical, mental, and financial aspects of wellness. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented changes in our business to protect our team members and their families. These changes included flexible working schedules and technology support which we have continued to offer. We continue to review our wellness offerings and modify them to ensure alignment with the needs of our team members and our business.

Inclusion, diversity & belonging

We continue to build an inclusive and diverse culture that allows for unique perspectives, creates an opportunity for all to grow and develop, and reflects the needs of relevant patient communities. Our Inclusion, Diversity and Belonging team develops monthly programs for our team members to engage with, hosts external speakers and panels, supports diverse local businesses, and creates communications for events that we honor throughout the year. In addition to our monthly programming, we are undertaking initiatives to accomplish the following goals, which were established with direct input from a company-wide listening tour and are linked to our values:

Available Information

Our website address is www.beamtx.com, and our investor relations website is located at investors.beamtx.com. Information on our website is not incorporated by reference herein. We will make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an Internet site (http://www.sec.gov) containing reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

Investors and others should note that we announce material information to our investors using one or more of the following: SEC filings, press releases and our corporate website, including without limitation the “Investors & Media” section of our website. We use these channels, as well as social media channels such as X and LinkedIn, in order to achieve broad, non-exclusionary distribution of information to the public and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. It is possible that the information we post on our corporate website or other social media could be deemed to be material information. Therefore, we encourage investors, the media, and others interested in our company to review the information we post on the “Investor Center” section of our corporate website and on our social media channels. The contents of our corporate website and social media channels are not, however, a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing at the end of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in evaluating our company. If any of the events or developments described below were to occur, our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition could suffer materially, the trading price of our common stock could decline. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also adversely affect our business.

Risks related to our financial position and need for additional capital

We have incurred significant losses since inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was $132.5 million, $289.1 million and $370.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.2 billion. We have financed our operations primarily through private placements of our preferred stock, proceeds from sales of our common stock and collaboration revenue. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

We have not completed any clinical trials of any product candidates and expect that it will be many years, if ever, before we have a product candidate approved for commercialization. To become and remain profitable, we must develop and, either directly or through

collaborators, eventually commercialize a medicine or medicines with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including identifying product candidates, completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of product candidates, obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing, and selling those medicines for which we may obtain marketing approval, and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing base editing product candidates, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business, or continue our operations.

We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our research and product development programs or future commercialization efforts.

While we have recently taken steps to decrease our operating expenses, particularly with respect to research and development activities, these expenses have increased substantially in the past and may increase again as we expand clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any product candidates we may develop, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution are not the responsibility of a collaborator. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. We have recently delayed, reduced and eliminated certain research and product development programs to support potential near-term value drivers and long-term growth. If in the future we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we may again be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate programs or curtail commercialization efforts.

At December 31, 2023, our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities were $1.2 billion. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, our operating plan may change as a result of factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funding sooner than planned. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, even if we successfully identify and develop product candidates and those product candidates are approved, we may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of medicines that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if ever. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert the attention of our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and, if approved, commercialize our product candidates. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital and, if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us on a timely basis, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or, if approved, commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives. For example, in October 2023, we announced a portfolio reprioritization and strategic restructuring, including cost-reduction initiatives which resulted in the pausing or elimination of certain pipeline programs.

Our current and any future license agreements and collaboration agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment or other obligations under the agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for product candidates we may develop at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to product candidates we may develop in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may also be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations, or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates we may develop.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, and licensing arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of capital. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted. The terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends, and possibly other restrictions.

If we raise funds through additional collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs, or product candidates we may develop, or we may have to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. In addition, we have and may in the future enter collaboration and acquisition agreements, pursuant to which we are required to issue additional shares of our common stock in connection with future milestone payment obligations. These and other future issuances to our partners and collaborators may cause substantial dilution to our stockholders.

Our short operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We are an early-stage company. We were founded in January 2017 and began operations in July 2017. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and developing our platform and technology, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and initiating clinical trials. Many of our product development programs are still in the preclinical or research stage of development, and their risk of failure is high. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete any clinical trials, including large-scale, pivotal clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale medicine, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Typically, it takes about 10 to 15 years to develop a new medicine from the time it is discovered to when it is available for treating patients. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

Our limited operating history, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving base editing and gene editing field, may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and industry and predict our future performance. Our short history as an operating company makes any assessment of our future success or viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage companies in rapidly evolving fields. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer.

In addition, as a new business, we may encounter other unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other known and unknown factors. We will eventually need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We have never generated revenue from product sales and may never become profitable.

Our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with collaborative partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, product candidates we may identify for development. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for the next several years, if ever. Our ability to generate future revenues from product sales depends heavily on our, or our collaborators’, ability to successfully:

Even if one or more of the product candidates we or our collaborators may develop are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations.

Our future ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history, and we may never achieve profitability. To the extent that we continue to generate taxable losses, any unused losses generated after 2017 will carry forward indefinitely to offset future taxable income; any taxable losses generated prior to 2018 will carry forward for 20 tax years from the year of generation. Additionally, we continue to generate business tax credits, including research and development tax credits, which generally may be carried forward 20 tax years from the year of generation to offset a portion of our future tax liability, if any. Additionally, Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, limit a corporation’s ability to utilize tax attributes to the extent the corporation experiences an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change in ownership, measured by value, among 5% or greater shareholders over a rolling three-year testing period. To the extent a corporation experiences an ownership change, utilization of pre-ownership change tax attributes (e.g., net operating losses and general business tax credits) to offset post-ownership change taxable income or taxes, is subject to an annual limitation, generally calculated as the pre-ownership change equity value of the corporation, subject to certain prescribed adjustments, multiplied by the long-term tax exempt rate published monthly by the Internal Revenue Service. We completed a Section 382 study as of December 31, 2023, and determined that we experienced historical ownership changes in June 2017, December 2018, and December 2021. In addition, we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-ownership change net operating losses or other tax attributes to offset U.S. federal taxable income or taxes may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us. Additional limitations on our ability to utilize our net operating losses and other tax attributes to offset future taxable income or taxes may arise as a result of our corporate structure, whereby net operating losses or other tax attributes generated by certain of our subsidiaries or controlled entities may not be available to offset taxable income or taxes of other subsidiaries or controlled entities.

There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes or other unforeseen reasons, our existing net operating losses or business tax credits could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. As described below in “Comprehensive tax reform legislation could adversely affect our business and financial condition,” the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, as amended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and the rules governing net operating losses that may significantly impact our ability to utilize our net operating losses to offset taxable income in the future. At the state level, there may also be periods during which the use of net operating losses or business tax credits is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. In addition, state net operating losses generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, we may not be able to realize a tax benefit from the use of our net operating losses or tax credits, even if we attain profitability.

If we fail to achieve the cost savings and benefits expected of our portfolio prioritization and strategic restructuring, our business prospects and our financial condition may be adversely affected. Further, the prioritization and restructuring could result in disruptions to our business.

In October 2023, we announced a portfolio prioritization and strategic restructuring intended to support potential near-term value drivers and long-term growth. The actual savings or benefits from the prioritization and restructuring may be less than expected or substantially less than expected. The restructuring activities may also result in a loss of continuity, accumulated knowledge and inefficiency. In addition, internal prioritization and restructuring can require a significant amount of time and focus from management and other employees, which may divert attention from operations. Further, the prioritization and restructuring may result in unexpected expenses or liabilities and/or write-offs. If the prioritization and restructuring fails to achieve some or all of the expected cost-savings and benefits, our cash resources may not last as long as estimated and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks related to discovery, development, and commercialization

Base editing is a novel technology that is not yet clinically validated for human therapeutic use. The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics are unproven and may never lead to marketable products.

We are focused on developing potentially curative medicines utilizing base editing technology. Although there have been significant advances in the field of gene therapy, which typically involves introducing a copy of a gene into a patient’s cell, and gene editing in recent years, base editing technologies are new and largely unproven. The technologies that we have licensed and are developing have not yet completed any clinical trials. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing product candidates based on these technologies is both preliminary and limited, and base editing and delivery modalities for it are novel. Successful development of product candidates by us will require solving a number of issues, including safely delivering a therapeutic into target cells within the human body or in an ex vivo setting, optimizing the efficiency and specificity of such product candidates, and ensuring the therapeutic selectivity of such product candidates. Several biological steps are required for delivery of base editing medicines to translate into therapeutically active medicines. These processing steps may differ between individuals and differ based on the targeted tissue. These differences could lead to variable levels of therapeutic protein, variable activity, immunogenicity, or variable distribution to tissues further increasing the risk inherent in the development of base editing medicines. There can be no assurance we will be successful in solving any or all of these issues, or that we will be able to progress our preclinical studies or clinical trials in accordance with anticipated timelines.

We have only recently brought therapeutics to the clinic, and our future success is highly dependent on the successful development of base editing technologies, cellular delivery methods and therapeutic applications of that technology. While other gene editing technologies have progressed through clinical trials, they continue to suffer from various limitations, and such limitations may affect our future success. We may decide to alter or abandon our initial programs as new data become available and we gain experience in developing base editing therapeutics. For example, in November 2022, we announced that we have decided to optimize our direct correction, “Makassar” approach, alongside our HPFH approach, for Wave 2 and Wave 3 of our sickle cell disease programs. We cannot be sure that our technologies will yield satisfactory products that are safe and effective, scalable or profitable in our initial indications or any other indication we pursue.

Development activities in the field of base editing are currently subject to a number of risks related to the ownership and use of certain intellectual property rights that are subject to patent interference proceedings in the United States and opposition proceedings in Europe. For additional information regarding the risks that may apply to our and our licensors’ intellectual property rights, see the section entitled “—Risks related to our intellectual property”.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify and develop potential product candidates. If these efforts are unsuccessful, we may never become a commercial stage company or generate any revenues.

The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop, and commercialize product candidates based on our gene editing platform. Some of our product development programs are still in the research or preclinical stage of development. Our research programs may fail to identify potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. Our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates, our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects in preclinical in vitro experiments or animal model studies, they may not show promising signals of therapeutic effect in such experiments or studies or they may have other characteristics that may make the product candidates impractical to manufacture, unmarketable, or unlikely to receive marketing approval.

In addition, although we believe base editing will position us to rapidly expand our portfolio of product candidates beyond our current product candidates we may develop after only minimal changes to the product candidate construct, we have not yet successfully developed any product candidate and our ability to expand our portfolio may never materialize.

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our research or development efforts for a program or programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial, and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful, which would be costly and time-consuming.

The gene editing field is relatively new and is evolving rapidly. We are focusing our research and development efforts primarily on gene editing using base editing technology, but other gene editing technologies may be discovered that provide significant advantages over base editing, which could materially harm our business.

We focus our research and development efforts primarily on gene editing technologies using base editing. Other companies are also engaged in the research and development of gene editing technologies using zinc finger nucleases, engineered meganucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, Cas9 nucleases, transposon editing, prime editing, “gene writing,” programmable addition via site-specific targeting elements, and others. There can be no certainty that base editing technology will lead to the development of genetic medicines or that other gene editing technologies will not be considered better or more attractive for the development of medicines. Moreover, if we decide to focus primarily on gene editing technologies other than those involving base editing, we cannot be certain we will be able to obtain rights to such technologies. Although all of our founders who currently provide consulting and advisory services to us in the area of base editing technologies have assignment of inventions obligations to us with respect to the services they perform for us, these assignment of inventions obligations are subject to limitations and do not extend to their work in other fields or to the intellectual property arising from their employment with their respective academic and research institutions. To obtain intellectual property rights assigned by these founders to such institutions, we would need to enter into license agreements with such institutions, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Further, while our three founders have non-competition clauses in their respective consulting agreements, the non-competition obligation is limited to the field of base editing for human therapeutics, and our founders have developed and may in the future develop new technologies that are outside of the field of their non-competition obligations but may be competitive to our business. For example, David Liu, Feng Zhang and their respective groups at MIT and the Broad Institute have developed novel gene editing technologies, including transposon editing, base editing and prime editing technologies, outside of the field of their non-competition obligations that may be used to develop products that compete with our business. Any of these factors could reduce or eliminate our commercial opportunity, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We are early in our development efforts. Our product candidates are still in preclinical development or early clinical development and it will be many years before we or our collaborators commercialize a product candidate, if ever. If we are unable to advance our product candidates to and through clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are early in our development efforts and our future success depends heavily on the successful development of our base editing product candidates and the results of our clinical trials, none of which have yet been completed. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and, if approved, eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Commencing clinical trials in the United States is subject to acceptance by the FDA of our investigational new drug applications, or INDs, and finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA has in the past and may again in the future require us to complete additional preclinical studies and satisfy other FDA requests for our clinical trials, causing the start or progress of such trials to be delayed. For example, in July 2022 the FDA informed us that the BEAM-201 IND was placed on clinical hold. We subsequently received a formal clinical hold letter from the FDA, in which the FDA requested additional control data for preclinical studies and further analyses of certain off-target editing experiments. We submitted our response to the FDA in November 2022 and in December 2022, we announced that the FDA had lifted the clinical hold.

Similarly, in the European Union, or EU, a CTA must be obtained from each member state’s national competent authority where the study is conducted, and a positive opinion of an independent ethics committee. Once the CTA has been granted and a positive ethics committee opinion obtained, the clinical trials may proceed in that specific member state. In the event that a European national competent authority, or other regulatory authority requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other requests from a European national competent authority or other regulatory authority prior to commencing clinical trials, the start of such clinical trials may be delayed a European national competent authority or other regulatory authority may not permit us to proceed into clinical development of for such product candidates.

Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from these regulatory authorities, the FDA, European national competent authority, or other regulatory authorities could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence our clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our data, trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or impose stricter requirements for approval than we currently expect.

In addition, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Further, in January 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. This regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one EU Member State will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a clinical trials portal overseen by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

Commercialization of our product candidates we may develop will require additional preclinical and clinical development; regulatory and marketing approval in any jurisdictions where our product candidates would be marketed, including by the FDA for the U.S. market and the European Commission upon a positive benefit/risk assessment provided by the EMA in the EEA; obtaining or creating manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise; building of a commercial organization; and significant marketing efforts. The success of product candidates we identify and develop will depend on many factors, including the following:

If we do not successfully achieve one or more of these activities in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

If any of the product candidates we may develop, or the delivery modalities we rely on to administer them, cause serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics, such events, side effects or characteristics could delay or prevent regulatory approval of the product candidates, limit the commercial potential, or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

We have not completed human clinical trials of any of our product candidates. Moreover, there have been only a limited number of clinical trials involving the use of base editing technology similar to our technology. It is impossible to predict when or if any product candidates we develop will prove safe in humans. In the genetic medicine field, there have been several significant adverse events from gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia, serious blood disorders and death. There can be no assurance that base editing technologies, or components of our product candidates or methods of delivery, will not cause undesirable side effects, as improper editing of a patient’s DNA and other effects could lead to lymphoma, leukemia, or other cancers, other serious conditions or syndromes or other aberrantly functioning cells.

A significant risk in any base editing product candidate is that “off-target” edits may occur, which could cause serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics. For example, Erwei Zuo et al. reported that cytosine base editors generated substantial off-target edits, that is, edits in unintended locations on the DNA, when tested in mouse embryos. Such unintended edits are referred to as “spurious deamination.” We cannot be certain that off-target editing will not occur in any of our planned or future clinical studies, and the lack of observed side effects in preclinical studies does not guarantee that such side effects will not occur in human clinical studies. We have developed assays that can detect off-target edits, even when such edits occur at very low frequencies. Using these assays, we have observed off-target edits in our base editing product candidates. As the sensitivity of these assays increases, it is possible that we will continue to detect more such off-target edits. While we do not believe that the off-target edits we have observed to date have had a material adverse impact on the safety or benefit of our product candidates, if, in the future, we detect off-target edits for a product candidate that negatively impact safety or efficacy, our ability to develop the product candidate as a therapeutic could be adversely affected.

There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to base editing therapy due to the permanence of edits to DNA or due to other components of product candidates used to carry the genetic material. Further, because base editing makes a permanent change, the therapy cannot be withdrawn, even after a side effect is observed. In addition, Rees et al. and Grunewald et al. have reported that the deaminases we currently use in our C base editors and our A base editors for use in DNA base editing also cause unintended mutations in RNA for as long as the editor is present in the cell.

Although we and others have demonstrated the ability to engineer base editors to improve the specificity of their edits in a laboratory setting, we cannot be sure that our engineering efforts will be effective in any product candidates that we may develop. For example, we might not be able to engineer an editor to make the desired change or a by-stander edit could diminish the effectiveness of an edit that we make.

In certain of our programs, we plan to use LNPs to deliver our base editors. LNPs have been shown to induce oxidative stress in the liver at certain doses, as well as initiate systemic inflammatory responses that can be fatal in some cases. While we aim to continue to optimize our LNPs, there can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions; infusion reactions; complement reactions; opsonization reactions; antibody reactions including IgA, IgM, IgE or IgG or some combination thereof; or reactions to the polyethylene glycol from some lipids or polyethylene glycol otherwise associated with the LNP. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our current or future clinical trials. Many of these types of side effects have been seen for legacy LNPs. There may be uncertainty as to the underlying cause of any such adverse event, which would make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials and would result in significant delays in our programs.

Certain viral vectors that we may use in certain of our base editing programs, including AAV or lentiviruses, which are relatively new approaches used for disease treatment, also have known side effects, and for which additional risks could develop in the future. In past clinical trials that were conducted by others with non-AAV viral vectors, several significant side effects were caused by gene therapy treatments, including reported cases of leukemia and death. For example, in February 2021, bluebird bio reported a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction, or SUSAR, of acute myeloid leukemia, and a SUSAR of myelodysplastic syndrome in its Phase 1/2 clinical trial of LentiGlobin, a gene therapy using a lentiviral vector for the treatment of sickle cell disease, which resulted in the FDA placing a temporary clinical hold on the trial and the temporary suspension of the conditional marketing authorization by the EMA of ZYNTEGLO (beti-cel), which also uses a lentiviral vector, for patients 12 years and older with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia who do not have a β0/β0 genotype, for whom HSC transplantation is appropriate, but HLA related HSC donor is not available. Other potential side effects of viral vectors could include an immunologic reaction and insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth or division results in uncontrolled cell division, which could potentially enhance the risk of malignant transformation. If the vectors we use demonstrate a similar side effect, or other adverse events, we may be required to halt or delay further clinical development of any potential product candidates using such technology. Furthermore, the FDA has stated that lentiviral vectors possess characteristics that may pose high risks of delayed adverse events. Such delayed adverse events may occur in other viral vectors, including AAV vectors, at a lower rate.

In addition to side effects and adverse events caused by our product candidates, the conditioning administration process or related procedures used in BEAM-101 and potentially other ex vivo product candidates also can cause adverse side effects and adverse events. Additionally, we are developing alternative conditioning regimes and we cannot predict if such regimes will be compatible with our product candidates. If in the future we are unable to demonstrate that such adverse events were not caused by the conditioning regimens used, or administration process or related procedure, the FDA, the European Commission, EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny or limit approval of, our product candidates using such regimens, processes or procedures for any or all target indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that adverse events are not related to the product candidate or the administration of such product candidate, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment, the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trial, or the commercial viability of any product candidates that obtain regulatory approval.

If any product candidates we develop are associated with serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe, or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Many product candidates that initially showed promise in early stage testing for treating cancer or other diseases have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further clinical development of the product candidates.

If in the future we are unable to demonstrate that any of the above adverse events were caused by factors other than our product candidate, the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, any product candidates we are able to develop for any or all targeted indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that all future serious adverse events are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any product candidate we may develop, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to identify and develop product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition, result of operations, and prospects significantly.

If we successfully develop a product candidate and it receives marketing approval, we are required to present a comprehensive, concise, and critical analysis of new or emerging information on the risks of the approved product and on its benefit in approved indications, to enable an appraisal of benefit-risk profile in a Periodic Benefit Risk Evaluation Report, or PBRER, according to an internationally harmonized standard. Additionally, the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority such as the EMA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or similar requirement such as Risk Management Plan, or RMP, to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients, a communication plan to health care practitioners, extensive patient monitoring, or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive, and more costly than what is typical for the industry. FDA, EMA, or other comparable regulatory authorities may require specific post-approval trials to be carried out to further characterize the clinical efficacy and/or safety of the product candidate. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product candidate that we develop, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of any product candidates we may identify and develop and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We have not tested many of our proposed delivery modalities and product candidates in clinical trials and any favorable preclinical results are not predictive of results that may be observed in clinical trials.

We have not tested many of our proposed delivery modalities in clinical trials. For example, in certain of our base editing programs we intend to use LNPs to deliver some of our base editors. While LNPs have been used in certain approved therapeutics, they have not been used in any approved gene editing therapy, such as base editors. Furthermore, as with many viral-mediated gene therapy approaches, certain clinical trial patients’ immune systems might prohibit the successful delivery, thereby potentially limiting treatment outcomes of these patients. Even if initial clinical trials in any of our product candidates are successful, these product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in later stages of clinical development despite having successfully advanced through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials.

There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologics proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in later stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in earlier stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, and the FDA, EMA, or other regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretations, which may delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory delays or rejections may be encountered as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development.

Any such adverse events may cause us to delay, limit, or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, the results of preclinical studies or clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later preclinical studies or clinical trials. Such results will not ensure that later preclinical studies or clinical trials will demonstrate similar results. Similarly, even if initial clinical trials in any of our current and future product candidates are successful, they may fail to generate the desired safety, purity, and efficacy data in later stages of clinical development despite having successfully advanced through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment or treatment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We or our collaborators may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for any product candidates we identify or develop if we are unable to locate, enroll, and treat a sufficient number of eligible patients in these trials as required by the FDA, the EMA or other analogous regulatory authorities outside the United States, or as needed to provide appropriate statistical power for a given trial. Enrollment may be particularly challenging for some of the rare genetically defined diseases we are targeting in our most advanced programs, as well as for some of our product candidates for pediatric populations, due to a number of factors, including small patient populations as well as screening and testing requirements that limit patient eligibility. In addition, if patients are unwilling to participate in our base editing trials because of negative publicity from adverse events related to the biotechnology, gene therapy, or gene editing fields, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, clinical trials in competing products, or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of any product candidates we may develop may be delayed. Moreover, some of our competitors currently and may in the future have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as product candidates we are developing and may develop in the future, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. Treatment of enrolled patients may also be delayed or prevented due to a number of factors, including the complexity of our trials. For example, our BEACON clinical trial requires patients to undergo mobilization procedures to harvest stem cells for editing and transplant. Patients have in the past and may in the future require multiple rounds of mobilization, which would delay treatment. Furthermore, due to the requirement to include sentinel cohorts and staggered treatment protocols in certain of our trials, such as our BEACON trial, any delay in treating one patient may cause delays in treating others.

Clinical trial patient enrollment is also affected by other factors, including:

Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll, and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

Enrollment or treatment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for any product candidates we may develop, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. If we or our collaborators have difficulty enrolling or treating a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit, or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If clinical trials of any product candidates we identify and develop fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce positive results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of such product candidates.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidates we identify and develop, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate their safety and efficacy in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete, and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results.

Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates.

We and our collaborators may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize any product candidates we identify and develop, including:

If we or our collaborators are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of any product candidates we develop beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we or our collaborators are unable to successfully complete clinical trials or other testing of any product candidates we develop, or if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we or our collaborators may:

Product development costs will also increase if we or our collaborators experience delays in clinical trials or other testing or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured, or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize any product candidates we may develop, could allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop, any of which may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial, scientific and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications among many potential options. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable medicines. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing, or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. For example, in October 2023, we implemented a strategic restructuring to prioritize development of our ex vivo and in vivo sickle cell disease programs, including BEAM-101, our ESCAPE conditioning strategy, and in vivo delivery to hematopoietic stem cells program, as well as our in vivo base editor BEAM-302 in development for the treatment of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. We also announced plans to explore partnership opportunities for continued development of select programs, including BEAM-201 and other potential ex vivo CAR-T therapies. While we may identify new collaboration partners who can progress some of these programs, we may not be successful in doing so in a timely manner, on acceptable terms or at all. We may otherwise fail to raise sufficient additional capital in order to progress these programs ourselves or we may determine, for internal resource allocation purposes or for other reasons, to abandon development of these programs. As a result, we could miss valuable opportunities to capitalize on the potential of the programs. We may also allocate internal resources to a product candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a collaboration or that does not prove to have viable commercial opportunities. Any failure to use our financial and human resources efficiently could harm our business and operations.

We plan to conduct clinical trials at sites outside the United States. The FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations, and the conduct of trials outside the United States could subject us to additional delays and expense.

We plan to conduct one or more clinical trials with one or more trial sites that are located outside the United States. The acceptance by the FDA or other regulatory authorities of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside their jurisdiction may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

In addition, even where the foreign trial data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the trial is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in current or future product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Conducting clinical trials outside the U.S. also exposes us to additional risks, including risks associated with:

Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate we develop in the United States or any other jurisdiction, and any such approval may be for a narrower indication than we seek.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if any product candidates we may develop meet their safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee, EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials, and the review process.

Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a REMS or an RMP. These regulatory authorities may require labeling that includes precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use, or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any product candidates we may develop. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for any product candidates we may develop and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Marketing approval by the FDA in the United States, or by the EMA in the EEA, if obtained, does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product candidate testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates we may develop in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process involves all of the risks associated with FDA approval. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be unrealized.

Even if any product candidates we may develop receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any of our product candidates we may develop will depend upon its degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. Ethical, social, and legal concerns about genetic medicines generally and base editing technologies specifically could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the marketing of our product candidates we may develop. Even if any product candidates we may develop receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Even if any of our product candidates we may develop are approved, such products may not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues, and we may not become profitable.

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market any product candidates we may develop, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and do not have experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved medicine for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, some of our product candidates we develop if and when they are approved.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our commercialization personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our product candidates we may develop on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues to us may be lower than if we were to market and sell any medicines we may develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates we may develop or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our medicines effectively. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates we may develop.

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer or more advanced or effective than ours, which may harm our financial condition and our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. Moreover, the base editing and delivery technology fields are characterized by rapidly changing technologies, significant competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we have research programs. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches.

There are several other companies utilizing CRISPR/Cas9 nuclease technology, including Caribou Biosciences, Editas Medicine, CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Arbor Biotechnologies and Metagenomi. Several additional companies utilize other nuclease-based gene editing technologies, including Zinc Fingers, Arcuses, and TAL Nucleases, including Sangamo Biosciences, Precision BioSciences, bluebird bio, Allogene Therapeutics, Mammoth Biosciences and Cellectis. Additionally, newer gene editing modalities are emerging, including from Prime Medicine, Tessera Therapeutics, Scribe Therapeutics, Tome Biosciences, Life Edit (an ElevateBio company), PerkinElmer (formerly Horizon Discovery) and Intellia Therapeutics. PerkinElmer, Metagenomi, Revvity, and Intellia Therapeutics are developing base editing technology and Tessera Therapeutics is utilizing mobile genetic elements for gene editing. In addition, we face competition from companies utilizing various gene therapy, epigenetic modulation, oligonucleotide, and CAR-T therapeutic approaches.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future that are approved to treat the same diseases for which we may obtain approval for our product candidates we may develop. This may include other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, and/or protein therapies.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize product candidates that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any product candidates that we may develop or that would render any product candidates that we may develop obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA, or other regulatory approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors.

In addition, as a result of the expiration or successful challenge of our patent rights, we could face more litigation with respect to the validity and/or scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any product candidates that we may develop and commercialize.

Adverse public perception of genetic medicines, and gene editing and base editing in particular, may negatively impact regulatory approval of, and/or demand for, our potential products.

Our potential therapeutic products involve editing the human genome. The clinical and commercial success of our potential products will depend in part on public understanding and acceptance of the use of gene editing therapy for the prevention or treatment of human diseases. Public attitudes may be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, unethical, or immoral, and, consequently, our product candidates may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, a public backlash developed against gene therapy following the death of a patient in 1999 during a gene therapy clinical trial. The death of the clinical trial subject was due to complications related to AAV vector administration. In addition, in 2020, three patients in Audentes Therapeutics’ clinical trial investigating AT132 (a gene therapy product candidate which was being delivered via AAV administration) for X-linked myotubular myopathy (XLMTM) died. The immediate cause of death in two cases was sepsis and in a third case was gastrointestinal bleeding, each of which followed progressive liver dysfunction that occurred within the first 4-6 weeks following AT132 dosing, and which did not respond to standard treatment. Adverse public attitudes may adversely impact our ability to enroll clinical trials. Moreover, our success will depend upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, treatments that involve the use of product candidates we may develop in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available.

In addition, gene editing technology is subject to public debate and heightened regulatory scrutiny due to ethical concerns relating to the application of gene editing technology to human embryos or the human germline. For example, academic scientists in several countries, including the United States, have reported on their attempts to edit the gene of human embryos as part of basic research. In addition, in November 2018, Dr. Jiankui He, a Chinese biophysics researcher who was an associate professor in the Department of Biology of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, reportedly claimed he had created the first human genetically edited babies, twin girls. This claim, and another that Dr. He had helped create a second gene-edited pregnancy, was subsequently confirmed by Chinese authorities and was negatively received by the public, in particular those in the scientific community. In the wake of the claim, the World Health Organization established a new advisory committee to create global governance and oversight standards for human gene editing and announced plans for a new global registry to track research on human gene editing. The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine also released principles for the use of gene editing in therapeutic applications endorsed by a number of companies that use gene editing technologies.

Regulation of gene editing technology varies across jurisdictions. In the United States, germline editing for clinical application has been expressly prohibited since enactment of a December 2015 FDA ban on such activity. Prohibitions are also in place in the U.K., across most of Europe, in China, and many other countries around the world. In the United States, the NIH has announced that the agency would not fund any use of gene editing technologies in human embryos, noting that there are multiple existing legislative and regulatory prohibitions against such work, including the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. Laws in the U.K. prohibit genetically modified embryos from being implanted into women, except that mitochondrial replacement therapy has been permitted in the U.K. since 2016. Separately, embryos can be altered in the U.K. in research labs under license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Research on embryos is more tightly controlled in some other European countries.

Moreover, in an annual worldwide threat assessment report delivered to the U.S. Congress in February 2016, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence stated that research into gene editing that is conducted under different regulatory standards than those of Western countries probably increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products, including weapons of mass destruction. He noted that given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of gene editing technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse could have far-reaching economic and national security implications.

Although we do not use our technologies to edit human embryos or the human germline, such public debate about the use of gene editing technologies in human embryos and heightened regulatory scrutiny could prevent or delay our development of product candidates. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair our development and commercialization of product candidates or demand for any product candidates we may develop. Adverse events in our preclinical studies or clinical trials or those of our competitors or of academic researchers utilizing gene editing technologies, even if not ultimately attributable to product candidates we may identify and develop, and the gene publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of potential product candidates we may identify and develop, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved, and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates. Use of gene editing technology by a third party or government to develop biological agents or products that threaten U.S. national security could similarly result in such negative impacts to us.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, such products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, and reimbursement for new medicines vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a medicine before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a medicine in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay or might even prevent our commercial launch of the medicine, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the medicine in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates we may develop, even if any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval.

Our ability to commercialize any medicines successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these medicines and related treatments will be available from government authorities or healthcare program, private health plans, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health plans, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, includes several provisions that may impact our business, including provisions that impose new manufacturer financial liability on all drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would require pass through of pharmacy benefit manager rebates to beneficiaries. We cannot yet predict the effect the IRA will have on our business and the healthcare industry in general.

Increasingly, third-party payors are also challenging the prices charged for medical products and requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices. Novel medical products, if covered at all, may be subject to enhanced utilization management controls designed to ensure that the products are used only when medically necessary. Such utilization management controls may discourage the prescription or use of a medical product by increasing the administrative burden associated with its prescription or creating coverage uncertainties for prescribers and patients. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any medicine that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be adequate. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved medicines, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any medicine will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new medicines, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the medicine and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost medicines and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for medicines may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of medicines from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved medicines we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize medicines, and our overall financial condition.

Due to the novel nature of our technology and the potential for any product candidates we may develop to offer therapeutic benefit in a single administration or limited number of administrations, we face uncertainty related to pricing and reimbursement for these product candidates.

Our initial target patient populations are relatively small, as a result of which the pricing and reimbursement of any product candidates we may develop, if approved, must be adequate to support the necessary commercial infrastructure. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell any such product candidates will be adversely affected. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to any product candidates we may develop (e.g., for administration of our product candidate to patients) is also important. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician and payor resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our product candidates we may develop. In addition, we may need to develop new reimbursement models in order to realize adequate value. Payors may not be able or willing to adopt such new models, and patients may be unable to afford that portion of the cost that such models may require them to bear. If we determine such new models are necessary but we are unsuccessful in developing them, or if such models are not adopted by payors, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be adversely affected.

We expect the cost of a single administration of genetic medicines, such as those we are seeking to develop, to be substantial, when and if they achieve regulatory approval. We expect that coverage and reimbursement by government and private payors will be essential for most patients to be able to afford these treatments. Accordingly, sales of any such product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of any product candidates we may develop will be paid by government authorities, private health plans, and other third-party payors. Payors may not be willing to pay high prices for a single administration. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon several factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement for a product from third-party payors is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical, and cost-effectiveness data. There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be adequate to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

Moreover, the downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new product candidates such as ours. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell any product candidates we may develop will be harmed.

If the market opportunities for any product candidates we may develop are smaller than we believe they are, our potential revenues may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Because the target patient populations for many of the product candidates we may develop are small, we must be able to successfully identify patients and achieve a significant market share to maintain profitability and growth.

We focus a substantial portion of our research and product development on treatments for rare genetically defined diseases. Many of our product candidates we may develop are expected to target a single mutation; as a result, the relevant patient population may therefore be small. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with product candidates we may develop, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, and patients may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates we may develop, or may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Additionally, because of the potential that any product candidates we develop could cure a target disease, we may not receive recurring revenues from patients and may deplete the patient population prevalence through curative therapy.

If we are unable to successfully identify patients who are likely to benefit from therapy with any product candidates we develop, or experience significant delays in doing so, we may not realize the full commercial potential of any medicines we may develop.

Our success may depend, in part, on our ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from therapy with any medicines we may develop, which requires those potential patients to have their DNA analyzed for the presence or absence of a particular sequence. If we, or any third parties that we engage to assist us, are unable to successfully identify such patients, or experience delays in doing so, then:

Any product candidates we develop may require use of a companion diagnostic to identify patients who are likely to benefit from therapy. If safe and effective use of any of our product candidates we may develop depends on a companion diagnostic, we may not receive marketing approval, or marketing approval may be delayed, if we are unable to or are delayed in developing, identifying, or obtaining regulatory approval or clearance for the companion diagnostic product for use with our product candidate. Identifying a manufacturer of the companion diagnostic and entering into an agreement with the manufacturer could also delay the development of our product candidates.

As a result of these factors, we may be unable to successfully develop and realize the commercial potential of any product candidates we may identify and develop, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any medicines that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing in human clinical trials of any product candidates we may develop and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any medicines that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or medicines caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage when we begin clinical trials and if we successfully commercialize any medicine. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

If we or any CMOs and suppliers we engage fail to comply with environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We and any CMOs and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air, and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research and product development efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses, we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Further, while we carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, such insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover losses, and our property, casualty, and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements. These current or future laws, regulations, and permitting requirements may impair our research, development, or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations, and permitting requirements also may result in substantial fines, penalties, or other sanctions or business disruption, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any third-party contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage will also be subject to these and other environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws and regulations could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Genetic medicines are novel, and any product candidates we develop may be complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience delays in satisfying regulatory authorities or production problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs, limit the supply of our product candidates we may develop, or otherwise harm our business.

Any product candidates we may develop will likely require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a biologic such as the product candidates we intend to develop generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product candidate may not be sufficient to ensure that the product candidate will perform in the intended manner. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims, insufficient inventory, or potentially delay progression of our potential IND filings. If we successfully develop product candidates, we may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet FDA, EMA or other comparable applicable foreign standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs. In addition, our product candidates we may develop will require complicated delivery modalities, such as electroporation, LNPs, or viral vectors, each of which will introduce additional complexities in the manufacturing process.

In addition, the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay clinical trials or product launches, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Furthermore, we intend to use novel viral technologies to deliver the base editor and guide RNA constructs of product candidates, however scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing product candidates based on these technologies is both preliminary and limited.

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality control, and manufacturing personnel needed to manage our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination during manufacturing. Any contamination could materially harm our ability to produce product candidates on schedule and could harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage. Some of the raw materials that we anticipate will be required in our manufacturing process are derived from biologic sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall, or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of any product candidates we may develop could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could materially harm our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or the facilities with which we contract could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in third-party manufacturing process or facilities also could restrict our ability to ensure sufficient clinical material for any clinical trials we may be conducting or are planning to conduct and meet market demand for any product candidates we develop and commercialize.

Risks related to our relationships with third parties

We rely on and expect to continue to rely on third parties to manufacture components of our product candidates we may develop, conduct our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research, or testing.

We rely on and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CMOs, CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions, and clinical investigators, to conduct some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, to manufacture components of our product candidates and to conduct our clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time under certain criteria. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it may delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities require us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. In the United States, we also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity, and civil and criminal sanctions.

Although we design the clinical trials for our product candidates, we rely on and expect to continue to rely on CROs to conduct some or all of the clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials also results in less direct control over the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If the CROs and other third parties do not perform preclinical studies and future clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates, or our development programs may be materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on preclinical and clinical data collected by our CROs and other third parties, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, or increase the size of any preclinical studies or clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require greater expenditures.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture and supply of materials for our research programs, preclinical studies and clinical trial and expect to continue to do so for at least a portion of our future research programs, preclinical studies and clinical trials and for commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of such materials, product candidates, or any medicines that we may develop and commercialize, or that such supply will not be available to us at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent, or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We currently rely on third-parties for the manufacture and supply of materials for a portion of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and may continue to do so for future research programs, preclinical studies, clinical testing and for commercial supply of any product candidates that we may develop and for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. We do not have a long-term supply agreement with any of the third-party suppliers, and we purchase our required supply on an order-by-order basis.

While we have built a manufacturing facility designed to support manufacturing for our ex vivo cell therapy programs in hematology and oncology and in vivo non-viral delivery programs for liver diseases in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, we cannot be certain that we will be able to maintain cGMP compliance, expand our internal manufacturing capacity, or meet the planned manufacturing needs of our programs.

We may be unable to establish long-term supply agreements with third-party suppliers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish long-term supply agreements with third-parties, reliance on third-parties entails additional risks, including:

Third-party suppliers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or other regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of third-party suppliers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocations, seizures or recalls of product candidates or medicines, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our medicines and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

For example, we rely on various CROs to obtain non-human primates, or NHPs, for use in preclinical development work. In February 2023, Charles River Laboratories, or Charles River, one of our primary suppliers of NHPs, announced it received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice with respect to its importation of NHPs from Cambodia. Charles River further announced that it has voluntarily suspended NHP shipments from Cambodia at this time. While we believe we currently have access to a supply of NHPs adequate to meet our near-term needs, such supply may nevertheless be adversely affected by supply chain limitations. If we are unable to secure adequate supply of NHPs from Charles River or other CROs, or the shortage of NHPs causes the price of NHPs to rise substantially, certain of our preclinical development efforts will be delayed, and the cost of conducting discovery projects and preclinical development activities may substantially increase. Such delays or cost increases could materially adversely affect our discovery and preclinical development activities and our business.

Any medicines that we develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities or supplies. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing drug components and drug product necessary for gene editing. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future suppliers could delay preclinical or clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply of all drug components and drug products necessary for our gene editing product candidates. If any one of our current contract manufacturers or suppliers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace that manufacturer or supplier. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative suppliers to support any product candidates we may develop, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of any product candidates we may develop may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any medicines that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

As our drug development pipeline increases and matures, the increased demand for clinical supplies from our facilities and third parties may impact our ability to operate. We will require increased capacity across our entire supply chain. Furthermore, we rely on many service providers, including those that provide manufacturing or testing services, all of whom have inherent risks in their operations that may adversely impact our operations.

Completion of our clinical trials and commercialization of our product candidates require access to, or development of, facilities to manufacture our product candidates at sufficient yields and, if approved, at commercial-scale. We have limited experience manufacturing any of our product candidates in the volumes that are necessary to support clinical trials and no experience manufacturing at volumes that are necessary to support commercial sales. Efforts to establish these capabilities may not meet initial expectations as to scheduling, scale-up, reproducibility, yield, purity, cost, potency or quality. In addition, other companies, many with substantial resources, compete with us for access to the materials needed to manufacture our product candidates.

We currently utilize, and expect to continue to utilize, third parties to, among other things, manufacture raw materials, components, parts, and consumables, and to perform quality testing. If the field of base editing and other genetic medicines continues to expand, we may encounter increasing competition for these materials and services. Demand for third-party manufacturing or testing facilities may grow at a faster rate than their existing capacity, which could disrupt our ability to find and retain third-party manufacturers capable of producing sufficient quantities of such raw materials, components, parts, and consumables required to manufacture our product candidates. The use of service providers and suppliers could expose us to risks, including, but not limited to:

Our reliance on third-party manufacturers may adversely affect our operations or result in unforeseen delays or other problems beyond our control. Because of contractual restraints and the limited number of third-party manufacturers with the expertise, required regulatory approvals and facilities to manufacture our product candidates on a clinical and, if approved, a commercial scale, replacement of a manufacturer may be expensive and time-consuming and may cause interruptions in the production of our product candidates. A third-party manufacturer may also encounter difficulties in production. These problems may include:

As a result, any delay or interruption could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

We have and may in the future enter into collaborations with third parties for the research, development, and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we develop. If any such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of those product candidates.

We have and may in the future seek third-party collaborators for the research, development, and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we develop. Under the agreements we have entered into and any agreements we may enter into in the future with any third parties, we have and will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of any product candidates we seek to develop with them. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into.

Collaborations involving our research programs or any product candidates we may develop pose numerous risks to us, including the following:

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. Furthermore, even if we receive such payments, they will likely result in payment obligations under license agreements with our licensors, which could be substantial. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these collaboration agreements, or if the funding is substantially offset by payment obligations to our licensors, our development of product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to find a suitable replacement collaborator or attract new collaborators, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval, and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K apply to the activities of our collaborators.

These relationships, or those like them, may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we could face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration agreement will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration, and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of several factors. If we license rights to any product candidates, we may develop we or our collaborators may develop, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture.

If conflicts arise between us and our collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.

If conflicts arise between our corporate or academic collaborators or strategic partners and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Some of our collaborators and strategic partners are conducting multiple product development efforts within each area that is the subject of the collaboration with us. Our collaborators or strategic partners, however, may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the product candidates we may develop that are the subject of these collaborations with us. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or strategic partners or to which the collaborators or strategic partners have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for our product candidates we may develop.

Some of our collaborators or strategic partners could also become our competitors in the future. Our collaborators or strategic partners could develop competing products, preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely, or fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts.

If we are not able to establish collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our product development and research programs and the potential commercialization of any product candidates we may develop will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of the product candidates we may develop, we may decide to collaborate with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration, and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, the EMA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us.

We may also be restricted under existing collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, if approved, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or, if approved, commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or, if approved, commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to develop product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

We helped launch a new company, Orbital Therapeutics, Inc., and are exposed to risks associated with the launch of the new company, including that we may not realize the advantages we expect from it.

In September 2022, we helped launch Orbital Therapeutics Inc., or Orbital, in collaboration with ARCH Venture Partners, with a goal of advancing ribonucleic acid, or RNA, medicines. In connection with the Orbital launch, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement, or the Orbital Agreement, with Orbital pursuant to which we and Orbital each granted the other licenses to certain technology controlled by it necessary or reasonably useful for the non-viral delivery or the design or manufacture of RNA for the prevention, treatment or diagnosis of human disease. In addition, concurrently with our entry into the Orbital Agreement, Orbital issued us 75 million shares of its common stock. ARCH Venture Partners is also a stockholder of Orbital, two of our directors affiliated with ARCH Venture Partners, Kristina Burow and John Maraganore, as well as John Evans, our Chief Executive Officer, are members of the board of directors of Orbital, and our President, Dr. Giuseppe Ciaramella, is the interim chief executive officer of Orbital and is a member of its board of directors.

Because of our minority ownership in Orbital, we have a lesser degree of control over its business operations, thereby potentially subjecting us to additional financial, legal, operational and compliance risks. In addition, the controlling shareholders or management of Orbital may have business interests, strategies or goals that are inconsistent with ours. These risks include the possibility that Orbital or such other stockholders have economic or business interests or goals that are or become inconsistent with our economic or business interests or goals; are in a position to take action contrary to our instructions, requests, policies or objectives; subject us to unexpected liabilities or risks; take actions that reduce our return on investment; act in a manner that compromises our key licensed rights, or important intellectual or other rights that we own or license; or take actions that harm our reputation or restrict our ability to run our business. Furthermore, as a result of our ownership in Orbital, we may in the future be required to include Orbital’s financial information in our consolidated financial results. We have not previously included a minority-owned subsidiary in our financial statements and we would therefore be subject to increased risk in accurately representing and incorporating Orbital financial statements into our own, which could result in delayed filings with the SEC and the finding of a material or significant weakness, among others. This could result in harmful consequences to our business, including an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our consolidated financial statements.

Risks related to our intellectual property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection for any product candidates we develop and for our platform technologies, or if the scope of the patent and other intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop, and our platform technologies may be adversely affected.

Our commercial success will depend in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property protection of our base editing platform technology, product candidates and other technology, including delivery platform technology methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending our patent and other intellectual property rights against third-party challenges. It is difficult and costly to protect our base editing platform technology and protect candidates, and we may not be able to ensure their protection. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing our product candidates we may develop is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing intellectual property relating to our platform technology and filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates that are important to our business. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates we may develop, or if the scope of the patent protection secured is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours and our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop may be adversely affected.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or any licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. The field of gene editing, especially in the area of base editing technology, has been the subject of extensive patenting activity and litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain, and we may become involved in complex and costly litigation. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates we may develop, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates.

No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in the field of gene editing, including base editing technology, has emerged in the United States. The scope of patent protection outside of the United States is also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, enforce and defend our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patent rights. With respect to both in-licensed and owned intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will be valid and enforceable and provide sufficient protection from competitors.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license or own currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we own, or in-license, may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our platform advances and product candidates we may develop will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, some of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications are, and may in the future be, co-owned by us with third parties. For example, a patent application directed to our potential HBG1 and HBG2 product candidates is co-owned by us, the President and Fellows of Harvard College, or Harvard, and Broad Institute. At present, we do not have a license to the ownership interest of Harvard or Broad Institute. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our base editing platform technology and product candidates are subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.

We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties, and our licensors may not always act in our best interest. If we fail to comply with our obligations under our intellectual property licenses, if the licenses are terminated, or if disputes regarding these licenses arise, we could lose significant rights that are important to our business.

We have licensed and are dependent on certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our base editing technology and product candidates. For example, we are a party to license agreements with Broad Institute, Editas, Harvard, and Bio Palette, and others, pursuant to which we in-license key patents and patent applications for our base editing platform technology and product candidates (the Broad License Agreement, the Editas License Agreement, the Harvard License Agreement and the Bio Palette License Agreement, respectively). These license agreements impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance, and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensors may have the right to terminate our license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market our base editing platform or any other technology or product candidates covered by the intellectual property licensed under these agreements. For example, under the Harvard License Agreement, we are required to meet certain development milestones for the development of a licensed product covered by certain sub-categories of licensed patents. If we fail to meet such milestones, our rights with respect to the sub-category of licensed patents will terminate.

These and other licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our base editing platform technology and product candidates in the future. Some licenses granted to us are expressly subject to certain preexisting rights held by the licensor or certain third parties. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in certain territories or fields. For example, certain licensed patents developed by employees of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, or HHMI, and subsequently assigned to Harvard and licensed to us under the Harvard License Agreement remain subject to a non-exclusive license between Harvard and HHMI. The Editas License Agreement provides that our field of use excludes the use of certain gene editing technologies for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of human cancers through certain engineered T-cells, which are licensed to Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company). If we determine that rights to such excluded field are necessary to commercialize any of our product candidates or maintain our competitive advantage, we may need to obtain a license from such third party in order to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain such a license on an exclusive basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or allow our competitors or others the chance to access technology that is important to our business.

Under the Broad License Agreement, rights granted to us include certain patent applications directed to Cas12b or Cas13 that are limited to the United States. The co-owners of these patent applications include Broad Institute, Harvard, MIT, the State University of New Jersey, or Rutgers, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, or Skoltech, and the NIH. At present, we do not have a license to the ownership interest of Rutgers, Skoltech, or the NIH. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to Rutgers, Skoltech, and the NIH’s interest in such patent applications, Rutgers, Skoltech, and the NIH may be able to license its rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and such third parties could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of Rutgers, Skoltech, or the NIH in order to enforce patents issuing from these patent applications against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, pursuant to our license agreement with Broad Institute and our license agreement with Harvard, under certain specific circumstances (in each case), Broad Institute or Harvard (as applicable) may grant a license to the patents that are the subject of such license agreement to a third party in the same field as such patents are licensed to us. Such third party may then have full rights that are the subject of the Broad License Agreement or the Harvard License Agreement (as applicable), which could impact our competitive position and enable a third party to commercialize products similar to our potential future product candidates and technology. Any grant of rights to a third party in this scenario would narrow the scope of our exclusive rights to the patents and patent applications we have in-licensed from Broad Institute and/or Harvard, as applicable.

We do not have complete control in the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement, and defense of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from third parties. For example, pursuant to each of our intellectual property licenses with Broad Institute, Harvard, Editas and Bio Palette, our licensors retain control of preparation, filing, prosecution, and maintenance, and, in certain circumstances, enforcement and defense of their patents and patent applications. It is possible that our licensors’ enforcement of patents against infringers or defense of such patents against challenges of validity or claims of enforceability may be less vigorous than if we had conducted them ourselves, or may not be conducted in accordance with our best interests. We cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce, and defend such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates we may develop that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using, and selling competing products.

Our licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights to our in-licensed patents, the license granted to us in jurisdictions where the consent of a co-owner is necessary to grant such a license may not be valid and such co-owners may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, our rights to our in-licensed patents and patent applications are dependent, in part, on inter-institutional or other operating agreements between the joint owners of such in-licensed patents and patent applications. If one or more of such joint owners breaches such inter-institutional or operating agreements, our rights to such in-licensed patents and patent applications may be adversely affected. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Furthermore, inventions contained within some of our in-licensed patents and patent applications were made using U.S. government funding. We rely on our licensors to ensure compliance with applicable obligations arising from such funding, such as timely reporting, an obligation associated with our in-licensed patents and patent applications. The failure of our licensors to meet their obligations may lead to a loss of rights or the unenforceability of relevant patents. For example, the U.S. government could have certain rights in such in-licensed patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the U.S. government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. If the U.S. government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. The U.S. government’s rights may also permit it to disclose the funded inventions and technology to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use the technology we have licensed that was developed using U.S. government funding. The U.S. government may also exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we or our licensors failed to achieve practical application of the U.S. government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such in-licensed U.S. government-funded inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture product candidates embodying such inventions in the United States. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly.

In the event any of our third-party licensors determine that, in spite of our efforts, we have materially breached a license agreement or have failed to meet certain obligations thereunder, it may elect to terminate the applicable license agreement or, in some cases, one or more licenses under the applicable license agreement and such termination would result in us no longer having the ability to develop and commercialize product candidates and technology covered by that license agreement or license. In the event of such termination of a third-party in-license, or if the underlying patents under a third-party in-license fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications may not provide sufficient protection of our platform technologies, our product candidates and our future product candidates or result in any competitive advantage.

We have in-licensed a number of issued U.S. patents and patent applications that cover base editing and gene targeting technologies, as well as our delivery platform technology. We have applied for provisional patent applications or Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications intended to specifically cover our base editing platform technology and uses with respect to treatment of particular diseases and conditions, and currently own three issued U.S. patents. We have applied for provisional patent applications or PCT applications intended to specifically cover our delivery platform technology but do not currently own any issued U.S. patents. Each U.S. provisional patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the filing date of the applicable provisional patent application. Any failure to file a non-provisional patent application within this timeline could cause us to lose the ability to obtain patent protection for the intentions disclosed in the associated provisional patent applications. We cannot be certain that any of these patent applications will issue as patents, and if they do, that such patents will cover or adequately protect our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or our product candidates, or that such patents will not be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, invalidated or held unenforceable. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our owned patents and patent applications and our in-licensed patents and patent applications contain claims directed to compositions of matter on our base editing product candidates, as well as methods directed to the use of such product candidates for gene therapy treatment. Method-of-use patents do not prevent a competitor or other third party from developing or marketing an identical product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, with respect to method-of-use patents, even if competitors or other third parties do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications or uses for which we may obtain patents, providers may recommend that patients use these products off-label, or patients may do so themselves.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own, or in-license, may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. For example, while our patent applications are pending, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in interference or derivation proceedings, or equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Even if patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge their inventorship, validity, enforceability or scope, including through opposition, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review proceedings. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our owned or in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our or our licensor’s priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we own or the patents and patent applications we in-license with respect to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

Given that patent applications in the United States and other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, at any moment in time, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were in the past or will be in the future the first to file any patent application related to our base editing technology, delivery platform technology or product candidates. In addition, some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued. As a result, there may be prior art of which we or our licensors are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim, and we or our licensors may be subject to priority disputes. For our in-licensed patent portfolios, we rely on our licensors to determine inventorship, and obtain and file inventor assignments of priority applications before their conversion as PCT applications. A failure to do so in a timely fashion may give rise to a challenge to entitlement of priority for foreign applications nationalized from such PCT applications. For example, the European Patent Office, or the EPO, Opposition Division, or the EPO Opposition Division, has revoked our optioned Broad Institute patent European Patent No. EP2771468 following a third-party challenge to its priority rights. The patent was revoked due to loss of priority. We or our licensors are subject to and may in the future become a party to proceedings or priority disputes in Europe or other foreign jurisdictions. The loss of priority for, or the loss of, these European patents could have a material adverse effect on the conduct of our business.

We may be required to disclaim part or all of the term of certain patents or patent applications. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. There also may be prior art of which we or our licensors are aware, but which we or our licensors do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. No assurance can be given that, if challenged, our patents would be declared by a court, patent office or other governmental authority to be valid or enforceable or that even if found valid and enforceable, a competitor’s technology or product would be found by a court to infringe our patents. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities, and consider that we are free to operate in relation to our product candidates, but our competitors may achieve issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, that block our efforts or potentially result in our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. It is possible that our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products or technology similar to ours. Those patent applications may have priority over our owned patent applications and in-licensed patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. The possibility also exists that others will develop products that have the same effect as our product candidates on an independent basis that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights, or will design around the claims of our patent applications or our in-licensed patents or patent applications that cover our product candidates.

Likewise, our currently owned patents and patent applications, if issued as patents, and in-licensed patents and patent applications, if issued as patents, directed to our proprietary base editing technologies and our product candidates are expected to expire from 2034 through 2044, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. Our owned or in-licensed patents may expire before, or soon after, our first product candidate achieves marketing approval in the United States or foreign jurisdictions. Additionally, no assurance can be given that the USPTO or relevant foreign patent offices will grant any of the pending patent applications we own or in-license currently or in the future. Upon the expiration of our current in-licensed patents, we may lose the right to exclude others from practicing these inventions. The expiration of these patents could also have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our owned patents and patent applications and in-licensed patents and patent applications and other intellectual property may be subject to priority disputes or to inventorship disputes and similar proceedings. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Although we have an option to exclusively license certain patents and patent applications directed to Cas9 and Cas12a from Editas, who in turn has licensed such patents from various academic institutions including Broad Institute, we do not currently have a license to such patents and patent applications. Certain of the U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application to which we hold an option are co-owned by Broad Institute and MIT, and in some cases co-owned by Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard, which we refer to together as the Boston Licensing Parties, and were involved in U.S. interference No. 106,048 with one U.S. patent application co-owned by the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, which we refer to together as the University of California. On September 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the CAFC, affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO’s, or PTAB’s, holding that there was no interference-in-fact. An interference is a proceeding within the USPTO to determine priority of invention of the subject matter of patent claims filed by different parties.

On June 24, 2019, the PTAB declared an interference (U.S. Interference No. 106,115) between ten U.S. patent applications ((U.S. Serial Nos. 15/947,680; 15/947,700; 15/947,718; 15/981,807; 15/981,808; 15/981,809; 16/136,159; 16/136,165; 16/136,168; and 16/136,175) that are co-owned by the University of California, and 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and 9,840,713, and U.S. Serial No. 14/704,551)) that are co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties, which we have an option to under the Editas License Agreement. In the declared interference, the University of California has been designated as the junior party and the Boston Licensing Parties have been designated as the senior party.

As a result of the declaration of interference, an adversarial proceeding in the USPTO before the PTAB has been initiated, which is declared to ultimately determine priority, specifically and which party was first to invent the claimed subject matter. An interference is typically divided into two phases. The first phase is referred to as the motions or preliminary motions phase while the second is referred to as the priority phase. In the first phase, each party may raise issues including but not limited to those relating to the patentability of a party’s claims based on prior art, written description, and enablement. A party also may seek an earlier priority benefit or may challenge whether the declaration of interference was proper in the first place. Priority, or a determination of who first invented the commonly claimed invention, is determined in the second phase of an interference. The ten University of California patent applications and the 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties involved in U.S. Interference No. 106,115 generally relate to CRISPR/Cas9 systems or eukaryotic cells comprising CRISPR/Cas9 systems having fused or covalently linked RNA and the use thereof in eukaryotic cells. On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a decision that the Boston Licensing Parties have priority of invention over University of California with respect to a single RNA CRISPR-Cas9 system that functions in eukaryotic cells. This decision is being appealed. There can be no assurance that the U.S. interference will be resolved in favor of the Boston Licensing Parties on appeal. If the U.S. interference resolves in favor of University of California, or if the Boston Licensing Parties’ patents and patent application are narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, we may lose the ability to license the optioned patents and patent application and our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license to relevant third party patents that cover our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

We or our licensors may be subject to similar interferences in the future with the same risks as described above. For example, on December 14, 2020, the PTAB declared an interference (U.S. Interference No. 106,126) between 14 U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,889,418; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and 9,840,713, and U.S. Serial Nos. 14/704,551 and 15/330,876) that are co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties, which we have an option to under the Editas License Agreement, and one U.S. patent application (U.S. Serial Nos. 14/685,510) that is owned by Toolgen, Inc, or Toolgen. In the declared interference, the Boston Licensing Parties have been designated as the junior party and Toolgen has been designated as the senior party. In March 2021, the PTAB issued an order on preliminary motions, granting, in part, and denying, in part, certain motions proposed by the Boston Licensing Parties and Toolgen. An oral hearing in the priority phase of U.S. Interference No. 106,126 was held on September 12, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the PTAB issued a decision on preliminary motions denying or dismissing certain motions proposed by the Boston Licensing Parties and Toolgen and issued an order suspending proceedings in the priority phase of the interference. We cannot predict with any certainty when a decision will be made. The 14 U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties involved in U.S. Interference No. 106,126 generally relate to CRISPR/Cas9 systems or eukaryotic cells comprising CRISPR/Cas9 systems having fused or covalently linked RNA and the use thereof in eukaryotic cells.

On June 21, 2021, the PTAB declared an interference (U.S. Interference No. 106,133) between the same 14 U.S. patents and two U.S. patent applications (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,889,418; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and 9,840,713, and U.S. Serial Nos. 14/704,551 and 15/330,876, co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties) as named in the interference with Toolgen, and one U.S. patent application (U.S. Serial Nos. 15/456,204) that is owned by Sigma-Aldrich Co., LLC, or Sigma-Aldrich. In the declared interference, the Boston Licensing Parties have been designated as the junior party and Sigma-Aldrich has been designated as the senior party. In September 2021, the PTAB issued an order on preliminary motions, granting, deferring, dismissing, or denying, certain motions proposed by the Boston Licensing Parties and Sigma-Aldrich. An oral hearing in the priority phase of U.S. Interference No. 106,133 was held on November 21, 2022. On December 14, 2022, the PTAB issued a decision on preliminary motions denying or dismissing certain motions proposed by the Boston Licensing Parties and Sigma-Aldrich and issued an order suspending proceedings in the priority phase of the interference. We cannot predict with any certainty when a decision will be made.

We or our licensors may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our owned patents or patent applications or in-licensed patents or patent applications or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners to enforce any patents that issue from such patent applications against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any interference proceedings or other priority, validity (including any patent oppositions), or inventorship disputes to which we or they are subject, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights through the loss of one or more of our owned, licensed, or optioned patents, or such patent claims may be narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, or through loss of exclusive ownership of or the exclusive right to use our owned or in-licensed patents. In the event of loss of patent rights as a result of any of these disputes, we may be required to obtain and maintain licenses from third parties, including parties involved in any such interference proceedings or other priority or inventorship disputes. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our patent claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates. Even if we or our licensors are successful in an interference proceeding or other similar priority or inventorship disputes, it could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.

We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights throughout the world.

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws of the United States. In addition, our intellectual property license agreements may not always include worldwide rights. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patents and intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Moreover, the initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We have entered into license agreements with third parties and may need to obtain additional licenses from our existing licensors and others to advance our research or allow commercialization of product candidates we may develop. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain any additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In either event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, including base editing technology, delivery platform technology, manufacturing methods, product candidates, or future methods or products resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant.

In each of our license agreements, we are generally responsible for bringing any actions against any third party for infringing on the patents we have licensed. Certain of our license agreements also require us to meet development thresholds to maintain the license, including establishing a set timeline for developing and commercializing products. In spite of our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of or base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and growth prospects. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or broaden what we believe to be the scope of the licensor’s rights to our intellectual property and technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. As a result, any termination of or disputes over our intellectual property licenses could result in the loss of our ability to develop and commercialize our base editing platform, delivery platform, or other product candidates or we could lose other significant rights, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. It is also possible that a third party could be granted limited licenses to some of the same technology, in certain circumstances.

We may not be successful in acquiring or in-licensing necessary rights to key technologies or any product candidates we may develop.

We currently have rights to intellectual property, through licenses from third parties, to identify and develop product candidates, and we expect to seek to expand our product candidate pipeline in part by in-licensing the rights to key technologies. The future growth of our business will depend in part on our ability to in-license or otherwise acquire the rights to additional product candidates and technologies. Although we have succeeded in licensing technologies from third party licensors, including Harvard, Broad Institute, Editas, and Bio Palette in the past, we cannot assure you that we will be able to in-license or acquire the rights to any product candidates or technologies from third parties on acceptable terms or at all.

For example, our agreements with certain of our third-party licensors provide that our field of use excludes particular fields, for example, the use of certain gene editing technologies for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of human cancers through certain engineered T-cells, which are licensed exclusively or non-exclusively to a third-party licensee. If we determine that rights to such fields are necessary to commercialize our drug candidates or maintain our competitive advantage, we may need to obtain a license from such third party in order to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing our drug candidates. We may not be able to obtain such a license on an exclusive basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates or allow our competitors or others the chance to access technology that is important to our business.

Furthermore, there has been extensive patenting activity in the fields of gene editing and delivery technologies, and pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and academic institutions are competing with us or are expected to compete with us in the fields of gene editing and delivery technologies and filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business and we are aware of certain third-party patents, as well as patent applications that, if issued, may allow the third party to circumvent our patent rights. For example, we are aware of several third-party patents, and patent applications that, if issued, may be construed to cover our base editing technology, delivery technology and product candidates. In order to market our product candidates, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses from such third-party intellectual property holders. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or otherwise acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for product candidates we may develop and base editing and delivery technologies. We may also require licenses from third parties for additional non-base editing technologies, including additional delivery methods that we are evaluating for use with product candidates we are developing and may develop in the future. In addition, some of our owned patents and patent applications and in-licensed patents and patent applications are co-owned with third parties. With respect to any patents co-owned with third parties, we may require licenses to such co-owners’ interest to such patents. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

Additionally, we may collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Even if we hold such an option, we may be unable to negotiate a

license from the institution within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, the licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a highly competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The intellectual property landscape around gene editing technology, including base editing and delivery technology, is highly dynamic, and third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and may prevent, delay or otherwise interfere with our product discovery and development efforts.

The field of gene editing, especially in the area of base editing technology, is still in its infancy, and no base editing product candidates have reached the market. Due to the intense research and development that is taking place by several companies, including us and our competitors, in this field and in the field of delivery technology, the intellectual property landscape is evolving and in flux, and it may remain uncertain for the coming years. There may be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators and licensors to develop, manufacture, market, and sell any product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be subject to and may in the future become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and any product candidates we may develop, including interference proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions such as oppositions before the EPO. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications that are owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates and they may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit.

As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology and product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of therapies, products or their methods of use or manufacture. We are aware of certain third-party patents and patent applications that, if issued, may be construed to cover our base editing technology, delivery technology and product candidates. There may also be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to technologies, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents.

Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. Our product candidates make use of CRISPR-based technology, which is a field that is highly active for patent filings. The extensive patent filings related to CRISPR and Cas make it difficult for us to assess the full extent of relevant patents and pending applications that may cover our base editing platform technology and product candidates and their use or manufacture. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our base editing platform technology and product candidates. For example, we are aware of a patent portfolio that is co-owned by the University of California, University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, or the University of California Portfolio, which contains multiple patents and pending applications directed to gene editing. The University of California portfolio includes, for example, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,266,850; 10,227,611; 10,000,772; 10,113,167; 10,301,651; 10,308,961; 10,337,029; 10,351,878; 10,407,697; 10,358,659; 10,358,658; 10,385,360; 10,400,253; 10,421,980; 10,415,061; 10,428,352; 10,443,076; 10,487,341; 10,513,712; 10,519,467; 10,526,619; 10,533,190; 10,550,407; 10,563,227; 10,570,419; 10,577,631; 10,597,680; 10,612,045; 10,626,419; 10,640,791; 10,669,560; 10,676,759; 10,752,920; 10,774,344; 10,793,878; 10,900,054; 10,982,230; 10,982,231; 10,988,780; 10,988,782; 11,001,863; 11,008,589; 11,008,590; 11,028,412; 11,186,849; 11,242,543; 11,274,318; 11,293,034; 11,332,761; 11,401,532; 11,473,108; 11,479,794; 11,549,127; 11,634,730; 11,674,159; 11,814,645, which are expected to expire around March 2033, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustment, or PTA, or patent term extension, or PTE, and any disclaimed term for terminal disclaimers. The University of California portfolio also includes numerous additional pending patent applications. If these patent applications issue as patents, they are expected to expire around March 2033, excluding any PTA, PTE, and any disclaimed term for terminal disclaimers. As discussed above, certain applications in the University of California Portfolio are currently subject to U.S. Interference No. 106,115 with certain U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application that are co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties to which we have an option under the Editas License Agreement. Although we have an option to exclusively license certain patents and patent applications directed to Cas9 and Cas12a from Editas, who in turn has licensed such patents from various academic institutions including Broad Institute, we do not currently have a license to such patents and patent applications. Certain members of the University of California Portfolio are being opposed in Europe by multiple parties. For example, the EPO Opposition Division has initiated opposition proceedings against European Patent Nos. EP2,800,811 B1, and EP3,241,902 B1and EP3,401,400 B1, which are estimated to expire in March 2033 (excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions).

The opposition procedure before the EPO allows one or more third parties to challenge the validity of a granted European patent within nine months after grant date of the European patent. Opposition proceedings may involve issues including, but not limited to, priority, patentability of the claims involved, and procedural formalities related to the filing of the patent application. As a result of the opposition proceedings, the Opposition Division can revoke a patent, maintain the patent as granted, or maintain the patent in an amended form. Most of the claims of European patent EP2,800,811 B1 were maintained without amendment by the Opposition Division, but this decision is being appealed. In April 2021, the claims of European patent EP3,241,902 B1 were revoked in their entirety, and that decision is not being appealed. In February 2022, the claims of European patent EP3,401,400 B1 were maintained in amended form by the Opposition Division, and this decision is being appealed. If these patents are maintained by the Opposition Division with claims similar to those that are currently opposed, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we do not obtain a license to these patents. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Numerous other patents and patent applications have been filed by other third parties directed to gene editing, guide nucleic acids, PAM sequence variants, split inteins, Cas12b or gene editing in the context of immune therapy or chimeric antigen receptors.

Because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our field, third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may file patent infringement claims or lawsuit against us, and if we are found to infringe such third-party patents, we may be required to pay damages, cease commercialization of the infringing technology, or obtain a license from such third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Our ability to commercialize our product candidates in the United States and abroad may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms to relevant third-party patents that cover our product candidates, delivery platform technology or base editing platform technology. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable, and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing, and marketing any product candidates we may develop and our technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. We also could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Defense of third-party claims of infringement of misappropriation, or violation of intellectual property rights involves substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee time and resources from our business. Some third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any of the foregoing events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, future patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming, and unsuccessful and could result in a finding that such patents are unenforceable or invalid.

Competitors may infringe our patents, future patents or the patents of our licensing partners, or we may be required to defend against claims of infringement. In addition, our patents, future patents or the patents of our licensing partners also are, and may in the future become, involved in inventorship, priority, validity or enforceability disputes. Countering or defending against such claims can be expensive and time consuming. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned or in-licensed by us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our owned and in-licensed patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our owned or in-licensed patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly.

In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. These types of mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). These types of proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents such that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome for any particular patent following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our licensors, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology and/or product candidates. Defense of these types of claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business.

Conversely, we may choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). We are currently challenging, and in the future may choose to challenge, third party patents in patent opposition proceedings in the EPO or another foreign patent office. Even if

successful, the costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates, base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or other or proprietary technologies.

For example, as discussed above, elements of the University of California patent portfolio are being opposed in Europe by multiple parties and we are participating in the opposition proceedings. The EPO Opposition Division, or the Opposition Division, has initiated opposition proceedings against European patents estimated to expire in March 2033 (excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions) and co-owned by the University of California. The opposition procedure before the EPO allows one or more third parties to challenge the validity of a granted European patent within nine months after grant date of the European patent. Opposition proceedings may involve issues including, but not limited to, priority, patentability of the claims involved, and procedural formalities related to the filing of the patent application. As a result of the opposition proceedings, the Opposition Division can revoke a patent, maintain the patent as granted, or maintain the patent in an amended form. It is uncertain when or in what manner the Opposition Division will act on the opposition proceedings of these European patents. If these patents are maintained by the Opposition Division with claims similar to those that are currently opposed, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we do not obtain a license to these patents. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology, delivery platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment, and other requirements imposed by government patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other government fees on patents and applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our owned or licensed patents and applications. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensing partners to pay these fees due to U.S. and non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and foreign patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We are also dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. While an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result a partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Were a noncompliance event to occur, our competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Changes in patent law in the United States and in non-U.S. jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our platform technologies and product candidates.

As is the case with other biotech and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. For example, in March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, the United States transitioned from a “first to invent” to a “first-to-file” patent system. Under a “first-to-file” system, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either file any patent application related to our technology or product candidates or invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. The America Invents Act also includes a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, allowing third party submission of prior art and establish a new post-grant review system including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The effects of some of these changes are currently unclear as the USPTO continues to promulgate new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act. In addition, the courts have yet to address many of these provisions and the applicability of the act and new regulations on the specific patents discussed in this filing have not been determined and would need to be reviewed. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

In addition, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the case, Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. We cannot predict how this and future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. Any similar adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. The terms of individual patents depend upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest non-provisional filing date in the applicable country. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies 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. Various extensions including PTE and PTA, may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including generics. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting our product candidates might expire before or shortly after we or our partners commercialize those candidates. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we do not obtain PTE and data exclusivity for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited PTE under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments PTE term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent per product may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, even if we were to seek a PTE, it may not be granted because of, for example, the failure to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, the failure to apply within applicable deadlines, the failure to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or any other failure to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain PTE or term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for our technology and product candidates, we also rely on know-how and trade secret protection, as well as confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and third parties, to protect our confidential and proprietary information, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable.

It is our policy to require our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors, and other third parties to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed by or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties, except in certain specified circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and that are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In the case of consultants and other third parties, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived in connection with the services provided are our exclusive property. However, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Additionally, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable.

In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information through other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. These measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and any recourse we might take against this type of misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent us from receiving legal recourse. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any of that information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are sometimes less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If we choose to go to court to stop a third party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. Even if we are successful, these types of lawsuits may consume our time and other resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Third parties have asserted and may in the future assert that we, our employees, consultants, or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or misappropriated trade secrets.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals that are currently or were previously employed at universities, research institutions or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. In addition, we regularly enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements to protect the proprietary positions of third parties, such as research institutions, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors, potential partners and other third parties in order to evaluate technology for potential development. Although we try to ensure that we and our employees, consultants, and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others, we have received and may in the future be subject to claims that we or these individuals have inadvertently or otherwise wrongfully used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of third parties, including any such individual’s current or former employer. Also, we have in the past and may in the future be subject to claims that these individuals are violating non-compete agreements with their former employers. We may then have to pursue litigation to defend against any of these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and, if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, that perception could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. This type of litigation or proceeding could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities, and we may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct this type of litigation or proceedings. For example, some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of this type of litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. In any case, uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of intellectual property litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

For example, we received correspondence from a research institution regarding a confidentiality agreement between such institution and us. The confidentiality agreement related to certain technology that we evaluated for development in connection with certain of our programs. The correspondence alleges that we breached the terms of the confidentiality agreement, misappropriated trade secret and other confidential information of such institution, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, and were unjustly enriched in connection with developing our therapeutics, including BEAM-302. The research institution claims that it is entitled to monetary damages (including damages for the apportioned value of our company and enhanced damages for an alleged willful violation) and certain ongoing royalty and/or milestone payments related to the technology that is the subject of the alleged breaches of contract, among other possible remedies. We have engaged in, and expect to continue to engage in, settlement negotiations with the research institution. We cannot predict whether we will be able to reach a settlement relating to such claims or whether we would prevail in any litigation or action related to them. Moreover, any litigation may result in negative publicity, regardless of its outcome, and may subject us to significant liability for monetary damages and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, and results of operations. For further information, see Note 6 of the notes to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If approved, our product candidates that are licensed and regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, 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. In addition, the licensure of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still develop and receive approval of a competing biologic, so long as its BLA does not reply on the reference product, sponsor’s data or submit the application as a biosimilar application.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. Nonetheless, the approval of a biosimilar to our product candidates may have a material adverse impact on our business due to increased competition and pricing pressure.

Risks related to regulatory and other legal compliance matters

Regulatory requirements governing genetic medicines, and in particular any novel genetic medicines we may develop, have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future.

Regulatory requirements governing genetic and cellular medicines, and in particular any novel genetic medicine products we may develop, have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. We are aware of a limited number of genetic medicines that have received marketing authorization from the FDA and EMA. Even with respect to more established products in the genetic medicine field, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (formerly the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies) within CBER to consolidate the review of genetic medicines and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Genetic medicine clinical trials conducted at institutions that receive funding for recombinant DNA research from the NIH also are potentially subject to review by the Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or the RAC; however, the NIH announced that the RAC will only publicly review clinical trials if the trials cannot be evaluated by standard oversight bodies and pose unusual risks.

The same applies in the European Union, or EU. The EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT, is responsible for assessing the quality, safety and efficacy of advanced-therapy medicinal products. The role of the CAT is to prepare a draft opinion on an application for marketing authorization for a genetic medicinal candidate that is submitted to the CHMP before CHMP adopts its final opinion. In the EU, the development and evaluation of a genetic medicinal product must be considered in the context of the relevant EU guidelines. The EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for genetic medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. As a result, the procedures and standards applied to genetic medicines and cell therapy products may be applied to any product candidates we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of any product candidates we may develop or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance any product candidates we may develop, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of these product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

Although the FDA decides whether individual genetic medicine protocols may proceed, the RAC public review process, if undertaken, can delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial design and details and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can put an IND on a clinical hold even if the RAC has provided a favorable review or an exemption from in-depth, public review. If we were to engage an NIH-funded institution to conduct a clinical trial, that institution’s IBC as well as its IRB would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of genetic medicine products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any product candidates we may develop. Similarly, the EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for genetic medicine products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.

As we are initially seeking to identify and develop product candidates to treat diseases using novel technologies, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authority may not consider the clinical trial endpoints that we propose to provide clinically meaningful results. Even if the endpoints are deemed clinically meaningful, we may not achieve these endpoints to a degree of statistical significance, particularly because many of the diseases we are targeting with our platform, including T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, glycogen storage disorder and Stargardt disease, have small patient populations, making development of large and rigorous clinical trials more difficult. Further, even if we do achieve the pre-specified criteria, we may produce results that are unpredictable or inconsistent with the results of the non-primary endpoints or other relevant data. The FDA also weighs the benefits of a product against its risks, and the FDA may view the efficacy results in the context of safety as not being supportive of regulatory approval. Other regulatory authorities in the EU and other countries may make similar comments with respect to these endpoints and data. Any product candidates we may develop will be based on a novel technology that makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. No gene editing therapeutic product has been approved in the United States or in Europe, and only a limited number of gene therapy products have received marketing authorization or marketing approval from the European Commission or the FDA. Some of these products have taken years to register and have had to address significant issues in their post-marketing experience.

Adverse developments in post-marketing experience or in clinical trials conducted by others of genetic medicines or cell therapy products may cause the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for development or approval of any product candidates we may develop or limit the use of products utilizing non-viral genetic medicinal technologies, either of which could materially harm our business. In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as the product candidates we may develop can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Regulatory agencies administering existing or future regulations or legislation may not allow production and marketing of products utilizing non-viral genetic medicine technology in a timely manner or under technically or commercially feasible conditions. In addition, regulatory action or private litigation could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our research programs or the commercialization of resulting products.

In addition, ethical, social and legal concerns about genetic medicine, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional regulations or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed their intentions to further regulate biotechnology. More restrictive regulations or claims that any product candidates we may develop are unsafe or pose a hazard could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of any product candidates we may develop under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

As we advance any product candidates we develop through clinical development, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of any product candidates we may develop or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of any product candidates we may develop. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, product candidates we may develop, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Any product candidates we may develop and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, import, export, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third parties to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the biological product candidate’s safety, purity, and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of extensive information about the product manufacturing process, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any product candidates we develop may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical, or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved medicine not commercially viable.

Further, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for certain biological products must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by this Pediatric Committee. For any of our product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the U.S. or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of any product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for those product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent any product candidates we may develop from being marketed in such jurisdictions, which, in turn, would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

In order to market and sell any product candidates we may develop in the EU and other foreign jurisdictions, we or our third-party collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals (a single one for the EU) and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product candidate be approved for reimbursement before the product candidate can be approved for sale in that country. We or these third parties may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our medicines in any jurisdiction, which would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the U.K. as a result of the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The U.K. is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, or GB, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland is currently subject to EU rules. The U.K. and EU have however agreed to the Windsor Framework which fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the U.K. Once implemented, the changes introduced by the Windsor Framework will see the MHRA be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the U.K. market (i.e., GB and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing authorizations, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the U.K. for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may, however, have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term.

Any regulatory approval to market our products will be limited by indication. If we fail to comply or are found to be in violation of FDA regulations restricting the promotion of our products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to criminal penalties, substantial fines or other sanctions and damage awards.

The regulations relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA, EMA, MHRA and other government agencies. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe our products off-label to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. We intend to implement compliance and training programs designed to ensure that any of our sales and marketing practices comply with applicable regulations. Notwithstanding these programs, the FDA or other government agencies may allege or find that our practices constitute prohibited promotion of our products for unapproved uses. We also cannot be sure that our employees will comply with company policies and applicable regulations regarding the promotion of products for unapproved uses.

Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use. In addition, under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA and the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, companies may also promote information that is consistent with the prescribing information and proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug. We may engage in these discussions and communicate with healthcare providers, payors and other constituencies in compliance with all applicable laws, regulatory guidance and industry best practices. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products.

In recent years, a significant number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been the target of inquiries and investigations by various federal and state regulatory, investigative, prosecutorial and administrative entities in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales practices, including the Department of Justice and various U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, and various state Attorneys General offices. These investigations have alleged violations of various federal and state laws and regulations, including claims asserting antitrust violations, violations of the FDCA, the False Claims Act, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and anti-kickback laws and other alleged violations in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses, pricing and Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement. Many of these investigations originate as “qui tam” actions under the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, any individual can bring a claim on behalf of the government alleging that a person or entity has presented a false claim or caused a false claim to be submitted to the government for payment. The person bringing a qui tam suit is entitled to a share of any recovery or settlement. Qui tam suits, also commonly referred to as “whistleblower suits,” are often brought by current or former employees. In a qui tam suit, the government must decide whether to intervene and prosecute the case. If it declines, the individual may pursue the case alone.