NASDAQ: DNTH

Our Pipeline

Our Pipeline-in-a-Product Potential for Claseprubart, a Next-Generation Complement Therapeutic

Our most advanced product candidate, claseprubart, is a clinical-stage, highly potent, highly selective and fully human monoclonal immunoglobulin G4 with picomolar binding affinity that is designed to selectively bind only to the active form of C1s. The active form of C1s is generated during complement activation by cleavage of the inactive proC1s. As a validated complement target in the autoimmune and inflammatory field, C1s inhibition prevents further progression of the classical pathway cascade. Claseprubart is engineered with YTE half-life extension technology, a specific three amino acid change in the Fc domain, and has a pharmacokinetic (“PK”) profile designed to support less frequent, lower dose, self-administration as a convenient S.C. injection.

We are currently conducting three mid- to late-stage clinical trials with claseprubart in generalized Myasthenia Gravis (“gMG”), Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”), and Multifocal Motor Neuropathy (“MMN”).

Overview of Development Plans of Claseprubart in Target Indications

In September 2025, we reported positive top-line results from the Phase 2 MaGic trial of claseprubart in patients with gMG and subsequently held an end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first quarter of 2026. We expect to initiate a Phase 3 registrational trial in gMG in mid-2026 and report top-line results in the second half of 2028.

4

Table of Contents

In March 2026, we made an early GO announcement in the interim responder analysis for our Phase 3 CAPTIVATE trial of claseprubart in patients with CIDP due to achieving a target of 20 confirmed responders with less than the planned 40 participants completing Part A.

Claseprubart is also being evaluated in the Phase 2 MoMeNtum trial for patients with MMN, and we anticipate initial top-line results from this trial will be available in the second half of 2026.

MAGIC

The MaGic trial is a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial of claseprubart that enrolled 65 acetylcholine receptor positive (“AChR+”) participants with gMG. Following an initial loading dose, claseprubart was administered every two weeks (“Q2W”) via S.C. injection at a dose of 300mg/2mL or 600mg/4mL. The initial randomized treatment duration was 13 weeks, followed by a 52-week open-label extension (“OLE”). The primary endpoint of the study was safety and tolerability. Secondary and exploratory efficacy endpoints included Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Scale (“MG-ADL”) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (“QMG”) score assessments, as well as Minimal Symptom Expression (“MSE”), Myasthenia Gravis Composite (“MGC”) score, and the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life Scale (“MG-QOL-15r”).

In September 2025, we announced positive top-line data from the Phase 2 MaGic trial. Claseprubart 300mg and 600mg demonstrated rapid, statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements over placebo as measured by both MG-ADL and QMG, including at week 1 and at week 13. The claseprubart 300mg Q2W dose was also statistically significant and clinically meaningful across other key efficacy endpoints, including MSE, MGC, and MG-QoL-15r.

Claseprubart was generally well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (“SAE”) or discontinuations due to any related adverse event. Claseprubart had a favorable clinical safety profile comparable to placebo with no treatment-related serious bacterial infections and no clinical symptoms of emergent autoimmune disorders observed.

Efficacy Results

MG-ADL

•
Claseprubart dosed at 300mg S.C. Q2W achieved a statistically significant and clinically meaningful mean improvement from baseline of 4.6 points in MG-ADL score at Week 13 (placebo-adjusted improvement: 1.8 points; P=0.0113). A statistically significant improvement in the MG-ADL was also seen as early as Week 1 with 300mg.

•
Claseprubart dosed at 600mg S.C. Q2W achieved a statistically significant and clinically meaningful mean improvement from baseline of 5.4 points in MG-ADL score at Week 13 (placebo-adjusted improvement: 2.6 points; P=0.0006). A statistically significant improvement in the MG-ADL was also seen as early as Week 1 with 600mg.

5

Table of Contents

•
As expected, there was no statistically significant difference between the claseprubart 300mg and 600mg arms in MG-ADL score at any time point.

QMG

•
Claseprubart dosed at 300mg S.C. Q2W achieved a statistically significant and clinically meaningful mean improvement from baseline of 4.4 points in QMG score at Week 13 (placebo-adjusted improvement: 2.4; P=0.0144). A statistically significant improvement in QMG was also seen as early as Week 1 with 300mg.

•
Claseprubart dosed at 600mg S.C. Q2W achieved a statistically significant and clinically meaningful mean improvement from baseline of 4.5 points in QMG score at Week 13 (placebo-adjusted improvement: 2.5; P=0.0111). A statistically significant improvement in QMG was also seen as early as Week 1 with 600mg.

•
As expected, there was no statistically significant difference between the claseprubart 300mg and 600mg arms in QMG score at any time point.

Efficacy Summary at Week 13

Placebo

N=22

Claseprubart 300mg Q2W

N=21

Claseprubart 600mg Q2W

N=22

Absolute

Placebo-Adjusted

Absolute

Placebo-Adjusted

MG-ADL mean change from baseline

-2.8

-4.6

-1.8

(P=0.0113)*

-5.4

-2.6

(P=0.0006)*

QMG mean change from baseline

-2.0

-4.4

-2.4

(P=0.0144)*

-4.5

-2.5

(P=0.0111)*

MSE

14%

37%

23%

(P=0.0550)*

27%

13%

(P=0.1031)

MGC mean change from baseline

-3.1

-8.7

-5.6

(P=0.0008)*

-8.6

-5.5

(P=0.0008)*

MG-QoL-15r mean change from baseline

-3.9

-6.1

-2.2

(P=0.0414)*

-5.4

-1.5

(P=0.1122)

*One-sided p-values are presented for comparisons of claseprubart vs placebo, with any p-value below 0.1 considered nominally statistically significant.

Safety and Tolerability Results

•
Claseprubart was generally well tolerated and demonstrated a clinical safety profile in both treatment arms comparable to placebo.

•
No infection signal was observed, including no related serious bacterial infections in the treatment arms; the only related SAE of infection occurred in the placebo arm.

•
There were no symptoms indicative of autoimmune activation.

•
Injection site reactions (“ISRs”) were infrequent and generally mild, and there were no claseprubart discontinuations from randomized controlled trial (“RCT”) due to related adverse events.

In the OLE portion of the MaGic trial, patients who were on placebo during the randomized controlled portion of the trial received claseprubart 600mg Q2W without a loading dose. Data from the OLE demonstrate that after two doses of claseprubart 600mg Q2W, participants experienced robust reductions in MG-ADL and QMG at PK levels far below the steady state of the 300mg Q2W dose, supporting the potential for dosing of 300mg claseprubart every four weeks (“Q4W”).

Based on the outcome of our end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA held in the first quarter of 2026, we expect to initiate a registrational Phase 3 trial of claseprubart evaluating 300mg Q2W and 300mg Q4W in gMG patients in mid-2026 and report top-line results in the second half of 2028.

6

Table of Contents

CAPTIVATE

The CAPTIVATE trial is a single, two-part, randomized withdrawal global Phase 3 trial of claseprubart in patients with CIDP. In the open label Part A of this trial, participants will be administered claseprubart with a loading dose followed by 300mg/2mL administered Q2W via S.C. injection for up to 13 weeks. Only participants who respond to claseprubart in Part A, as measured as greater than or equal to one point decrease (improvement) in adjusted Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (“INCAT”) disability score compared to Part A baseline, are randomized into Part B, a double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period of up to 52 weeks, where they will be assessed for prevention of relapse, safety and tolerability, followed by an OLE period. Part A included an interim responder analysis of the first 40 participants to complete Part A. Our target for the Part A interim responder analysis was a response rate of 50% or greater (i.e., ≥20 confirmed responders out of first 40 participants to complete Part A) based on precedent set with aC1s inhibition. In March 2026, we announced that we achieved our target of 20 confirmed responders in Part A early, with less than 40 participants completing Part A. We believe that this single pivotal trial will support a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) filing in adult patients with CIDP.

Based on the interim responder analysis for Part A, we plan to seek regulatory approval to revise the study design for the CAPTIVATE trial, as shown below.

MOMENTUM

The MoMeNtum trial is a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of claseprubart in 36 patients with MMN. Following determination of immunoglobulin (“Ig”) dependency and responsiveness, patients will be randomized to receive placebo or claseprubart with a loading dose followed by 300mg/2mL or 600mg/4mL administered Q2W via S.C. injection. The initial S.C. treatment duration is 17 weeks followed by a 52-week OLE. The primary endpoint of this study is safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints include time to intravenous immunoglobulin (“IVIg”) retreatment, time to relapse, and assessments of muscle and grip strength. We anticipate initial top-line results from this trial will be available in the second half of 2026.

7

Table of Contents

Claseprubart Phase 1 Healthy Volunteer Data

Data from the Phase 1 clinical trial of claseprubart in 60 healthy volunteers across eight dose cohorts validates the extended half-life and potent classical pathway inhibition and supports a potentially differentiated safety profile of claseprubart. The top-line data confirmed its approximately 60-day half-life and highly potent classical pathway inhibition with Q2W S.C. dosing of 300mg/2mL surpassing the serum concentration required to surpass 90% classical pathway inhibition in a hemolytic assay estimated to be 87ug/mL, establishing claseprubart’s best-in-class potential to be the first self-administered S.C. injection dosed infrequently to treat a range of autoimmune disorders. Claseprubart was generally well tolerated with no SAEs or complement-related infections.

Our First and Potentially Best-In-Class Bifunctional BDCA2 and BAFF/APRIL Inhibitor (DNTH212)

On October 16, 2025, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Nanjing Leads Biolabs Co., Ltd. (“Leads”) for DNTH212, a first and potentially best-in-class bifunctional BDCA2 and BAFF/APRIL inhibitor.

DNTH212 is an investigational, extended half-life bifunctional fusion protein targeting plasmacytoid dendritic cell BDCA2 to reduce Type 1 interferon production, while simultaneously inhibiting BAFF/APRIL to suppress B cell function. By targeting both the innate and adaptive immune systems via two clinically validated pathways that are known drivers of autoimmune disease pathogenesis, this complementary and differentiated approach has the potential to address multiple autoimmune indications with improved outcomes.

A two-part Phase 1 study in China in healthy volunteers (Part A) and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (Part B) was initiated in December 2025, with top-line results in healthy volunteers expected in the second half of 2026.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to continue to develop potentially best-in-class therapies for patients living with severe autoimmune diseases. The key components of our strategy are as follows:

•
Initiate a global Phase 3 clinical trial of claseprubart in gMG in mid-2026, and expect to report top-line results in the second half of 2028.

•
Continue enrollment of claseprubart in our global Phase 3 clinical trial in CIDP.

•
Continue enrollment of claseprubart in our global Phase 2 clinical trial in MMN to report top-line results in the second half of 2026.

•
Explore claseprubart in a broad range of diseases where the classical pathway plays a significant role in the disease pathology, beyond gMG, CIDP and MMN.

8

Table of Contents

•
Continue to advance our second clinical candidate, DNTH212, as a potentially best-in-class bifunctional BDCA2 and BAFF/APRIL inhibitor for severe autoimmune diseases.

•
Internally develop or in-license additional next-generation product candidates designed to have distinct advantages over existing therapies.

•
Collaborate strategically to maximize the value of our product candidates.

Overview of the Complement System

The Complement System—Three Main Pathways

The complement system plays a critical role in maintaining an active innate immune system, including as the first line of defense against microbial pathogens, eliminating apoptotic cells and tissue debris, and modulating the adaptive B and T cell response. However, uncontrolled complement activation can also be a key contributor to the pathophysiology of numerous inflammatory and autoimmune conditions.

The complement system includes more than 30 component proteins, regulators, and receptors. The figure below illustrates the three complement activation pathways, each of which has a unique trigger for initiating a cascade of events:

•
Classical Pathway: Activated primarily by immune complexes.

•
Lectin Pathway: Activated by mannose binding lectin interaction with sugars on the surface of pathogens or injured cells.

•
Alternative Pathway: Automatically activated in a conformational, non-enzymatic process that leads to amplification of the classical and lectin pathways.

Regardless of the activation event, all complement pathways converge at common pathway components, known as C3 and C5. When the C3 and C5 proteins are activated, they enable three principal immune responses: inflammation, opsonization and formation of the membrane attack complex (“MAC”), a pore forming structure that leads to the lysis of targeted cells. In a normal immune response, C3b fragments act to mark pathogens for removal from tissues or the bloodstream by phagocytes in a process known as opsonization. C3a or C5a cleaved fragments cause inflammation in the surrounding tissues, attracting phagocytes to ingest opsonized pathogens. Downstream, C5b fragments initiate the formation of the MAC on pathogens, causing cell death and elimination. However, under conditions of excessive or uncontrolled activation, the complement system is believed to play a key role in the incidence and progression of several autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Under these conditions, healthy cells may become part of a trigger for complement activation and/or become opsonized and destroyed.

Classical Pathway and the Role of C1s

The classical pathway of the complement system bridges innate and adaptive immunity. Classical pathway activation is initiated by the C1 complex. The C1 complex consists of a binding protein, C1q, and two inactive proenzymes, C1r (“proC1r”) and C1s (“proC1s”). Initiation of the classical pathway cascade occurs when C1q binds to the Fc portion of immunoglobulin G (“IgG”) or immunoglobulin M (“IgM”), as part of an immune complex as depicted in the image below. During an immune response, C1q binding to IgM or IgG antibodies that coat the surface of a cell triggers the autoactivation of proC1r, which in turn cleaves proC1s to generate

9

Table of Contents

the active form of C1s. In its active form, C1s is responsible for cleaving and activating C4 and C2, which leads to the downstream cascade that culminates in the terminal pathway and MAC formation.

C1s is unique to the classical pathway and thus provides a therapeutic opportunity to selectively target antibody-driven autoimmune and inflammatory disorders mediated by the classical pathway while leaving the lectin and alternative pathways intact. This may result in distinct safety advantages over current FDA-approved downstream complement inhibitors, such as those approved for the treatment of gMG, which inhibit MAC formation from all three complement pathways and currently have an FDA Boxed Warning for serious meningococcal infections and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) program.

Claseprubart for the Treatment of Generalized Myasthenia Gravis

Overview of Myasthenia Gravis

Myasthenia Gravis (“MG”) is a rare, chronic autoimmune disease characterized by muscle weakness due to inhibition of acetylcholine mediated muscle contraction. In MG, patients have autoantibodies directed against specific proteins of the neuromuscular endplate. MG is most commonly diagnosed in women between 20 and 39 years of age, and in men between 50 and 70 years of age. Clinically, MG can be classified as either ocular or generalized. In ocular MG, impairment is limited to the eye muscles, with symptoms such as diplopia and ptosis. Approximately 80% of ocular MG cases progress to gMG. Based on Komodo claims data, we believe there are more than 100,000 individuals in the United States with acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive gMG. Common symptoms of gMG include weakness of limb muscles and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) or slurred speech resulting from weakness of oropharyngeal muscles (those involved in jaw and throat movement). Weakness of respiratory muscles is of particular concern, as it may lead to myasthenic crisis, a life-threatening condition requiring ventilatory support that occurs in approximately 15-20% of gMG patients. Patients with gMG may experience impaired vision, speech, and mobility, shortness of breath, difficulty swallowing and eating, and fatigue, all of which can have a profound negative effect on activities of daily life. Measures of both mental and physical health indicate a substantially lower quality of life for patients with gMG compared with the general population. Quality of life can be further negatively impacted in patients with refractory MG in terms of disease exacerbations, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations.

Role of Classical Pathway and C1s in the Pathogenesis of Myasthenia Gravis

In approximately 85% of gMG cases, antibodies to the acetylcholine receptors are identified (AChR+ gMG patients). These autoantibodies bind to the acetylcholine receptor and activate C1q which activates C1r. C1r in turn activates C1s which undergoes a conformational change allowing it to cleave C4 and initiating the classical complement pathway. Classical pathway activation ultimately results in MAC associated destruction at the motor end plate. As illustrated in the figure below, antibody-mediated classical complement activation leads to significant damage at the neuromuscular junction in patients with gMG, with the loss of characteristic anatomical folds.

10

Table of Contents

Current gMG Treatments and their Limitations

The acetylcholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine has been used to treat neuromuscular symptoms of gMG since the 1950s. However, most patients require additional immunosuppressants such as steroids, azathioprine, mycophenolate, cyclosporine A, or rituximab. Although these therapies have shown some success, many patients continue to have unmet need and experience undesirable side effects, and none of these therapies have been approved for gMG. The treatment landscape for MG has continued to evolve. Plasmapheresis (“PLEX”) and IVIg therapy are therapeutic options, although these are more invasive treatments often reserved for MG crisis. FcRn targeted therapy is another treatment for gMG. FcRn promotes activity of pathogenic autoantibodies by protecting IgG from degradation. Efgartigimod, marketed as Vyvgart, is a humanized anti-FcRn-IgG1 Fc fragment that is designed to reduce the level of all serum IgG and AChR antibodies and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of gMG in adult patients who are AChR antibody positive in 2021. Vyvgart’s current dosing paradigm is 10 mg/kg administered as an I.V. infusion over one hour once weekly for four weeks. In patients weighing 120 kg or more, the recommended dose is 1200 mg per infusion. A S.C. formulation of Vyvgart, Vyvgart Hytrulo, was approved by the FDA in 2023. Vyvgart Hytrulo can either be administered as a single-dose vial of 1008 mg per injection once weekly for four weeks over approximately thirty to ninety seconds by a healthcare professional only or as a single-dose prefilled syringe of 1000 mg per injection once weekly for four weeks over approximately twenty to thirty seconds by patients and/or caregivers. For both formulations, subsequent treatment cycles are based on clinical evaluation.

Complement inhibitors for the treatment of AChR antibody-positive gMG emerged in 2017 with eculizumab, marketed as Soliris, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against complement protein C5. More recently, another C5 inhibitor, ravulizumab, marketed as Ultomiris, was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with gMG who are AChR antibody positive in 2022. These treatments require higher dose I.V. infusions and carry the risk of life-threatening infections such as meningococcal infections due to being terminal complement inhibitors, and, as a result, have an FDA Boxed Warning and an associated REMS program.

As such, we believe claseprubart has the potential to meaningfully transform the standard of care in gMG as a potent, lower dose, lower frequency, self-administered S.C. injection with no FDA Boxed Warning, REMS, or requirement for cycling of treatment such as with FcRn inhibitors. As it is designed to be a more patient-friendly, predictable, convenient and a less burdensome biologic, claseprubart has the potential to become a first-line biologic treatment option. Thus, claseprubart could compete for early treatment of AChR positive gMG patients versus IVIg, terminal complement inhibitors and FcRn inhibitors, as well as for use in patients that do not adequately respond to other biologics, such as IVIg or FcRn inhibitors.

11

Table of Contents

Claseprubart for the Treatment of Other Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases

The classical pathway is activated through interaction of the C1 complex with antibody-antigen complexes. We believe it is therefore rational to propose that compounds specifically targeting the classical pathway and specifically C1s, such as claseprubart, would be well-suited for the potential treatment of autoimmune or inflammatory disease conditions where autoantibodies are implicated, such as CIDP and MMN.

Overview of CIDP

CIDP is an autoimmune and inflammatory disorder affecting the myelin that insulates and protects peripheral nerves. CIDP is estimated to affect more than 40,000 people in the United States. Common symptoms of the disease include weakness, loss of balance, and sensation changes in the arms or legs. In the classic or typical CIDP, there is symmetric involvement of both upper and lower limbs, characterized by weakness in the proximal (for example, shoulder region or hip region) as well as distal (for example, wrist or ankle) muscle groups. In addition, there is sensory involvement. There are several atypical forms of CIDP, characterized by varying levels of motor and sensory involvement with overlap. CIDP follows a relapsing-remitting or a progressive clinical course, which can result in substantial disability, loss of motor and sensory function, and negative impact on quality of life.

Role of Classical Pathway and C1s in the Pathogenesis of CIDP

The pathogenesis of CIDP involves a complex interplay of multiple aberrant immune responses, inflicting damage on the myelin sheath. The complement system appears to play a role in promoting macrophage-mediated demyelination. Complement deposition in sural nerve biopsies, as well as signs of increased complement activation in serum and cerebrospinal fluid of patients with CIDP, suggest complement involvement in CIDP. A recently developed human-on-a-chip conduction model (with CIDP and MMN phenotype) suggests that complement activation by CIDP and MMN patient serum is sufficient to mimic neurophysiological features of each disease and that C1s inhibition is sufficient to rescue these pathological effects. Additionally, riliprubart, a C1s inhibitor in development by Sanofi, reported positive Phase 2 clinical data beginning in the fourth quarter of 2023 across three patient groups: (a) Standard of Care-Treated; (b) Standard of Care-Refractory; and (c) Standard of Care-Naïve. These data provide additional proof of concept and validation of the role of C1s for the treatment of CIDP and the potential use of a C1s inhibitor as a first-line targeted biologic.

Current CIDP Treatments and their Limitations

Over 70% of CIDP patients require ongoing treatment with immunosuppressants such as IVIg, S.C. immune globulin, PLEX or steroids. In June 2024, Vyvgart Hytrulo, marketed by argenx, was approved for the treatment of CIDP. Vyvgart Hytrulo can either be administered as a single-dose vial of 1008 mg per injection once weekly over approximately thirty to ninety seconds by a healthcare professional only or as a single-dose prefilled syringe of 1000 mg per injection once weekly over approximately twenty to thirty seconds by patients and/or caregivers. Despite treatment, a significant number of patients do not achieve clinical remission and there remains a significant unmet clinical need for this disease. Given the role of the complement system in the disease pathology, patients may benefit from a selective C1s inhibitor.

Overview of MMN

MMN is a pure motor neuropathy associated with asymmetric deficits with predilection for upper limb involvement. It is an underrecognized disease with U.S. prevalence estimates of approximately 10,000 individuals. MMN predominantly affects males as compared to females (3:1). Clinical symptoms consist of progressive or stepwise muscle weakness in the distribution of affected peripheral nerves, without loss of sensory modalities. The muscle weakness is asymmetric and causes predominantly upper limb weakness, such as weakness in hand grip, finger movements or wrist drop. The disease is progressive and can cause substantial disability and loss of function, due to the involvement of upper limbs.

Role of Classical Pathway and C1s in the Pathogenesis of MMN

Approximately 50% of patients have an IgM autoantibody against GM1, a genetic disorder that progressively destroys nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, that is found at nodes of Ranvier mainly in peripheral motor nerves, causing immune mediated motor neuropathy with variable conduction block. There is evidence to support the role of complement in the pathophysiology of MMN. Sera from MMN patients has been shown to activate complement in vitro. There is complement deposition in the affected nerves, and the degree of complement deposition correlates with the response to Ig therapy. As described above, inhibition of C1s reverses the pathological effects in a recently developed MMN model.

12

Table of Contents

Current MMN Treatments and their Limitations

Intravenous and S.C. Ig therapy is approved by the FDA for treatment of adult patients with MMN. Most patients require chronic long-term therapy with immunoglobulins with variable response in up to 80% of patients. Steroids and PLEX are generally ineffective and can worsen clinical symptoms. Other immunosuppressants, such as rituximab, have been used with variable efficacy. Treatment options are limited and there remains a significant unmet clinical need for this disease, such as a selective C1s inhibitor in patients with MMN.

Intellectual Property

As of February 10, 2026, we wholly own the patent portfolio covering our C1s selective antibodies, including two issued U.S. patents, three pending PCT applications, three pending non-provisional applications in the United States and pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and United Arab Emirates. Our rights under the patent applications in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are licensed to Tenacia Biotechnology (Hong Kong) Co., Limited, as further described below. The applications are directed to, among other things, antibodies that selectively bind to active C1s and methods of using these antibodies, including methods of treating C1s mediated disorders, and pharmaceutical formulations comprising these antibodies. Patents issuing from these applications covering claseprubart would be expected to expire no earlier than 2043, subject to any disclaimers or extensions. We continue to develop additional pharmaceutical formulations for claseprubart and will file patent applications to protect the same as appropriate.

Commercial

Should any of our product candidates be approved for commercialization, we intend to develop a plan to commercialize them in the United States and other key markets, through internal infrastructure and/or external partnerships in a manner that will enable us to realize the full commercial value of our programs. Given the company’s stage of development, we currently do not have a commercial organization for the marketing, sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products.

We are currently a party to a license agreement with Tenacia Biotechnology (Hong Kong) Co., Limited (“Tenacia”) for claseprubart, pursuant to which Tenacia has development and commercialization rights in the People’s Republic of China, including Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan (“Greater China”). Additionally, we are party to a license agreement with Leads for DNTH212, pursuant to which Leads has development and commercialization rights in Greater China. Outside of Greater China, we currently hold worldwide development and commercialization rights, including through exclusive licenses, to all of our product candidates.

Manufacturing

We do not currently own or operate facilities for product manufacturing, testing, storage, and distribution. We contract with third parties for the manufacture and distribution of our product candidates. Because we rely on contract manufacturers, we employ personnel with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical and quality experience. Our staff has strong knowledge and understanding of the extensive regulations that govern manufacturing, documentation, quality assurance, and quality control of drug supply that are required to support our regulatory filings.

In light of the recently enacted BIOSECURE Act, which prohibits federal agencies from entering into procurement contracts with an entity that uses biotechnology equipment or services from a biotechnology company of concern, we are strengthening our supply chain in the event that WuXi Biologics or one of our other manufacturers is impacted by the BIOSECURE Act or any similar legislation. We will closely monitor whether the BIOSECURE Act or new legislation may impact our future manufacturing strategy, and we will implement mitigations and supply chain redundancies, as needed. See the risk factor entitled “We currently rely and expect to rely in the future on the use of manufacturing suites in third-party facilities or on third parties to manufacture claseprubart, DNTH212 and any other product candidates, and we may rely on third parties to produce and process our products, if approved. Our business could be adversely affected if we are unable to use third-party manufacturing suites or if the third-party manufacturers encounter difficulties in production.”

13

Table of Contents

Competition

We expect to face intense competition from other biopharmaceutical companies that are developing agents for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

Generalized Myasthenia Gravis

There is significant competition in gMG. AstraZeneca’s Soliris® and Ultomiris®, both I.V. C5 inhibitors, argenx’s Vyvgart® (efgartigimod) and Vyvgart® Hytrulo, an I.V. and S.C. FcRn inhibitor, respectively, UCB S.A. Rystiggo® (rozanolixizumab), a weekly S.C. infusion FcRn inhibitor and Zilbrysq® (zilucoplan), a daily S.C. injection C5 inhibitor, Johnson and Johnson’s Imaavy, an I.V. FcRn inhibitor, and Amgen’s Uplizna, an I.V. CD19-directed cytolytic antibody, are approved by the FDA for the treatment of gMG in patients who are AChR positive. There are several other companies developing compounds in mid- to late-stage clinical development for the treatment of gMG using various approaches and modalities.

Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy

There is significant competition in CIDP, including, among others, Pfizer’s PANZYGA®, a 10% Immune Globulin Infusion (Human), CSL Behring’s Hizentra®, a 20% Immune Globulin S.C. (Human), and Grifols Therapeutics’ Gamunex-C®, a 10% Immune Globulin Injection (Human) and argenx’s Vyvgart® Hytrulo, an FcRn inhibitor, approved by the FDA for CIDP. Sanofi is conducting two Phase 3 clinical trials of riliprubart (SAR445088), a C1s inhibitor. argenx’s empasiprubart (ARGX-117), an I.V. C2 inhibitor that blocks both the classical and lectin pathways, is being evaluated in two Phase 3 clinical trials.

Multifocal Motor Neuropathy

Currently, Takeda’s Gammagard Liquid, a 10% Immune Globulin Infusion (Human), is the only therapy approved by the FDA for MMN. However, there are few agents in development for MMN. argenx’s empasiprubart (ARGX-117), an I.V. C2 inhibitor that blocks both the classical and lectin pathways, is in a Phase 3 clinical trial.

Drug development is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological advancements. Our ability to compete will significantly depend upon our ability to complete necessary clinical trials and regulatory approval processes, and effectively market any drug that we may successfully develop. Our current and potential future competitors include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic institutions and government agencies. The primary competitive factors that will affect the commercial success of any product candidate for which we may receive marketing approval include efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, dosing convenience, price, coverage, reimbursement and public opinion. Many of our existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, as well as in obtaining regulatory approvals of those product candidates in the United States and in foreign countries. Our current and potential future competitors also have significantly more experience commercializing drugs that have been approved for marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the biopharmaceutical industry could result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors.

Accordingly, competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining regulatory approval for therapies and in achieving widespread market acceptance of their drugs. It is also possible that the development of a cure or more effective treatment method for any of our targeted indications by a competitor could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete, or reduce the demand for our product candidates before we can recover our development and commercialization expenses.

Collaboration, License and Services Agreements

Zenas BioPharma, Inc.

In September 2020, we entered into an option agreement (the “Zenas Option”) with Zenas BioPharma, Inc. (formerly Zenas BioPharma Limited) (“Zenas”), under which we agreed to grant Zenas an exclusive option for an exclusive license under certain patents and know-how with respect to antibody sequences generated in a research program directed towards the research of monoclonal antibody antagonists targeting the human Complement C1s and C2 proteins, or another human protein (each, a “Research Program”). In consideration for the option grant, we were issued Zenas common stock equivalent to one percent of its shares outstanding prior to their Series A financing. On a Research Program-by-Research Program basis, Zenas also agreed to pay us a one-time payment of $1 million upon exercising the option to enter into a license agreement with respect to such Research Program. The option may only be exercised for up to two Research Programs.

14

Table of Contents

On June 10, 2022, in connection with Zenas’s exercise of the option, we entered into a license agreement with Zenas (the “Zenas License Agreement” and together with the Zenas Option, the “Zenas Agreements”), under which we granted Zenas an exclusive, sublicensable license under certain patents and know-how to research, develop, manufacture, and commercialize monoclonal antibody antagonists targeting the human Complement C1s protein (including the antibody sequence of claseprubart) and, if and when the option is exercised, the human Complement C2 protein, in Greater China (the “Territory”). As consideration for the license, we were eligible to receive: (i) development milestone payments of up to $11.0 million; (ii) an approximate $1.1 million payment for reimbursement of a portion of development costs we previously incurred; (iii) reimbursement of a portion of costs related to chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (“CMC”) and expenses for the first antibody sequence through the manufacture of the first two batches of drug product; and (iv) reimbursement of a portion of certain non-CMC-related costs and expenses. Additionally, we were eligible to receive royalty payments based on a percentage of the annual net sales of the licensed products sold on a region-by-region basis in the Territory. The royalty rate varied from the mid-single digits to the low teens based on different tiers of annual net sales of the licensed products. Zenas was obligated to make royalty payments to us for the royalty term of the Zenas License Agreement.

Tenacia Biotechnology (Hong Kong) Co., Limited

On October 21, 2024, Zenas assigned the Zenas License Agreement to its affiliated entity, Zenas BioPharma (HK) Limited (“Zenas HK”). After the assignment, we entered into a novation agreement (the “Novation Agreement”) with Zenas HK and Tenacia, and an amendment to the Zenas License Agreement, now with Tenacia (as amended, the “Tenacia License Agreement”), pursuant to which Tenacia replaced Zenas HK as a party to the Zenas Agreements, and certain economic terms under the Zenas License Agreement with respect to cost sharing and development milestones were amended.

Except as noted below, the economic terms of the Zenas License Agreement were unchanged when novated by the Novation Agreement and amended by the Tenacia License Agreement. The Tenacia Option (as described below) and Tenacia License Agreement are collectively referred to as the “Tenacia Agreements.”

Under the Zenas License Agreement, Zenas also had the right to exercise an option with respect to a second antibody sequence, which is now held by Tenacia (the “Tenacia Option”). Pursuant to the Tenacia Option, if Tenacia exercises the option and pays us the option exercise fee related to the second antibody sequence, we will grant Tenacia an exclusive license to the sequences and licensed products under this second antibody sequence. The economic terms with respect to this second antibody sequence were unchanged by the amendment to the Zenas License Agreement.

As consideration for the license, which replaced the consideration of the Zenas License Agreement with respect to the first antibody sequence, we are eligible to receive (i) a $2.5 million upfront payment, which was paid to us by Tenacia in October 2024 upon execution of the Tenacia License Agreement; (ii) reimbursement of a portion of certain clinical costs; (iii) development milestones totaling up to $15.0 million; and (iv) royalties on net sales ranging from the mid-single digits to the low teen percentages. Tenacia is also responsible for paying local development costs in Greater China and a portion of central development costs based on the number of patients enrolled from China in our global Phase 3 studies. Tenacia is obligated to make royalty payments to us for the royalty term of the Tenacia License Agreement.

Biologics Master Services Agreement — WuXi Biologics (Hong Kong) Limited

On March 22, 2021, we entered into a biologics master services agreement (the “WuXi Biologics MSA”) with WuXi Biologics (Hong Kong) Limited (“WuXi Biologics”). The WuXi Biologics MSA governs development activities and good manufacturing practices (“GMP”) manufacturing and testing for claseprubart, as well as potential future candidates, on a work order basis. Under the WuXi Biologics MSA, we are obligated to pay WuXi Biologics a service fee and all non-cancellable obligations, including potential milestone payments, in the amount specified in each work order associated with the agreement for the provision of services.

The WuXi Biologics MSA terminates on the later of (i) March 22, 2028 or (ii) the completion of services under all work orders executed by the parties prior to March 22, 2026, unless terminated earlier. The term of each work order terminates upon completion of the services under such work order, unless terminated earlier. We can terminate the WuXi Biologics MSA or any work order at any time upon 30 days’ prior written notice and immediately upon written notice if WuXi Biologics fails to obtain or maintain required material governmental licenses or approvals. Either party may terminate a work order (i) at any time upon six months’ prior notice with reasonable cause, provided however that if WuXi Biologics terminates a work order in such manner, no termination or cancellation fees shall be paid by us and (ii) immediately for cause upon (a) the other party’s material breach that remains uncured for 30 days after notice of such breach, (b) the other party’s bankruptcy or (c) a force majeure event that prevents performance for a period of at least 90 days.

15

Table of Contents

Cell Line License Agreement — WuXi Biologics (Hong Kong) Limited

On March 22, 2021, we entered into a cell line license agreement (the “Cell Line License Agreement”) with WuXi Biologics. Under the Cell Line License Agreement, we received a non-exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to certain of WuXi Biologics’ know-how, cell line, biological materials and media and feeds to make, have made, use, sell and import certain drug products produced through the use of the cell line licensed by WuXi Biologics under the Cell Line License Agreement (the “WuXi Biologics Licensed Products”).

In consideration for the license, we agreed to pay WuXi Biologics a non-refundable license fee of $150,000. Additionally, if we manufacture all of our commercial supplies of bulk drug product with a manufacturer other than WuXi Biologics or its affiliates, we are required to make royalty payments to WuXi Biologics in an amount equal to a fraction of a single digit percentage of global net sales of WuXi Biologics Licensed Products manufactured by a third-party manufacturer (the “Royalty”). If we manufacture part of our commercial supplies of the WuXi Biologics Licensed Products with WuXi Biologics or its affiliates, then the Royalty will be reduced accordingly on a pro rata basis.

The Cell Line License Agreement will continue indefinitely unless terminated (i) by us upon six months’ prior written notice and our payment of all undisputed amounts due to WuXi Biologics through the effective date of termination, (ii) by WuXi Biologics for a material breach by us that remains uncured for 60 days after written notice, (iii) by WuXi Biologics if we fail to make a payment and such failure continues for 30 days after receiving notice of such failure, or (iv) by either party upon the other party’s bankruptcy.

License Agreement with Nanjing Leads Biolabs Co. Ltd.

On October 16, 2025, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement (the “Leads License Agreement”) with Leads, pursuant to which we received a royalty-bearing, exclusive license outside of Greater China from Leads to develop, manufacture, commercialize, or otherwise exploit DNTH212, a bifunctional fusion protein being developed in China by Leads as LBL-047. We also obtained certain non-exclusive rights to perform development and manufacturing activities in Greater China to support DNTH212 outside of Greater China. DNTH212 is an investigational, extended half-life bifunctional fusion protein targeting plasmacytoid dendritic cell BDCA2 to reduce Type 1 interferon production, while simultaneously inhibiting BAFF/APRIL to suppress B cell function. On December 23, 2025, we and Leads jointly announced the initiation of a Phase 1 clinical trial for LBL-047 (DNTH212).

Under the terms of the Leads License Agreement, we will pay Leads up to $38.0 million, comprised of $30.0 million in upfront and near-term milestone payments, plus an additional $8.0 million milestone, payable in cash or shares of our common stock at our election, upon the initiation of a Dianthus-led Phase 1 study, for exclusive rights to develop and commercialize DNTH212 globally outside of Greater China. Leads will also be eligible to receive up to $962.0 million in development and regulatory approval milestones across three key geographies and sales-based milestones across five indications, as well as tiered royalties from mid-single digits up to a low double-digit on ex-Greater China net sales. During the three months ended December 31, 2025, we paid Leads $25.0 million in upfront and near-term milestone payments. In addition, we recorded $5.0 million of milestone payments within the accounts payable line item on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2025.

The Leads License Agreement will remain in effect on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis until expiration of the applicable royalty term, unless earlier terminated. Each party has customary termination rights, including for uncured material breach, insolvency, patent challenge, or, in our case, for convenience.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post- approval reporting of biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates. Generally, before a new therapeutic product can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating a biological product candidate’s quality, safety, purity and potency, or a small molecule drug candidate’s quality, safety and efficacy, must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. For biological product candidates, potency is similar to efficacy and is interpreted to mean the specific ability or capacity of the product, as indicated by appropriate laboratory tests or by adequately controlled clinical data obtained through the administration of the product in the manner intended, to effect a given result.

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-market may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications from the sponsor, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions,

16

Table of Contents

fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

U.S. Biologics Regulation

In the United States, biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and other federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or following approval may subject an applicant to administrative action and judicial sanctions. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•
completion of preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies performed in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) regulation;

•
submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made;

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

•
manufacture of the proposed biologic candidate in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”);

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations and current Good Clinical Practices (“cGCP”) requirements to establish the safety, purity and potency of the proposed biologic product candidate for its intended purpose;

•
preparation of and submission to the FDA of a BLA after completion of all pivotal clinical trials;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;

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

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s continued safety, purity and potency, and of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with cGCPs; and

•
FDA review and approval of a BLA to permit commercial marketing of the product for a particular indication(s) for use in the United States.

Preclinical and Clinical Development

Prior to beginning any clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol or protocols for preclinical studies and clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product, chemistry, manufacturing and controls information, and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. In April 2025, the FDA published a roadmap to reduce animal testing in preclinical safety studies, including those required in INDs, with scientifically validated new approach methodologies. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

In addition to the IND submission process, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or

17

Table of Contents

synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed.

Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials and clinical study results to public registries.

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

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

•
Phase 2. The investigational product is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.

•
Phase 3. The investigational product is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate, and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensure, including that the study was conducted in accordance with cGCP requirements, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and use of proper procedures for obtaining informed consent from subjects, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the FDA deems such inspection necessary. The cGCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies.

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the

18

Table of Contents

product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated and sponsored by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate 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. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial pediatric study plan within sixty days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, except that the PREA will apply to an original BLA for a new active ingredient that is orphan-designated if the biologic is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and is directed at a molecular target that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after the filing date, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process may also be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the Complete Response letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the Complete Response letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a REMS to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

19

Table of Contents

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. The fast track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once a BLA is submitted, the product may be eligible for priority review. A fast track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

Additionally, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, the FDA may require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

A product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product, including involvement of senior managers.

Any marketing application for a biologic submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation and/or breakthrough therapy designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if there is evidence it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. For original BLAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (as compared to ten months under standard review).

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a product candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or 200,000 or more individuals in the United States for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that product candidate. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process.

20

Table of Contents

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusive approval (or exclusivity), which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same product for the same approved use or indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or if the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the same use or indication for which the already-approved or licensed product was approved or licensed. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan drug designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

There is some uncertainty with respect to the FDA’s interpretation of the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. Historically, exclusivity was specific to the orphan indication for which the drug was approved. As a result, the scope of exclusivity was interpreted as preventing approval of a competing product. However, in 2021, the federal court in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra suggested that orphan drug exclusivity covers the full scope of the orphan-designated “disease or condition” regardless of whether a drug obtained approval for a narrower use.

Regulation of Combination Products

Certain therapeutic products are comprised of multiple components, such as drug components, biologic components, and device components, that would normally be subject to different regulatory frameworks by the FDA and frequently regulated by different centers at the FDA. These products are known as combination products. Under the FDCA, the FDA is charged with assigning a center with primary jurisdiction, or a lead center, for review of a combination product. The determination of which center will be the lead center is based on the “primary mode of action” of the combination product. Thus, if the primary mode of action of a drug/biologic-device combination product is attributable to the drug or biological product, the FDA center responsible for premarket review of the drug or biological product would have primary jurisdiction for the combination product. The FDA has also established the Office of Combination Products to address issues surrounding combination products and provide more certainty to the regulatory review process. That office serves as a focal point for combination product issues for agency reviewers and industry. It is also responsible for developing guidance and regulations to clarify the regulation of combination products, and for assignment of the FDA center that has primary jurisdiction for review of combination products where the jurisdiction is unclear or in dispute. A combination product with a primary mode of action attributable to the drug or biologic component generally would be reviewed and approved pursuant to the drug or biologic approval processes set forth in the FDCA. In reviewing the new drug application or BLA for such a product, however, FDA reviewers would consult with their counterparts in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health to ensure that the device component of the combination product met applicable requirements regarding safety, effectiveness, durability and performance. In addition, under FDA regulations, combination products with both device and drug/biologic components are subject to cGMP requirements applicable to both drugs and devices, including the Quality Management System Regulation applicable to medical devices.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. After a BLA is approved for a biological product, the product also may be subject to official lot release. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of the product to the FDA 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. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, and potency or effectiveness of biologics.

After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved BLA. Biologic manufacturers and 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

21

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

•
refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of existing product approvals;

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

•
consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs;

•
mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;

•
the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and

22

Table of Contents

time required to obtain approval to market the product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA. The FDA has issued guidance documents intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe the FDA’s interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCIA.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval 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 market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

A reference biologic is granted twelve years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of (i) one year after the first commercial marketing, (ii) 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, (iii) 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologics’ patents if an application has been submitted, or (iv) 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. On December 20, 2020, Congress amended the PHSA as part of the COVID-19 relief bill to further simplify the biosimilar review process by making it optional to show that conditions of use proposed in labeling have been previously approved for the reference product, which used to be a requirement of the application. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and impact of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

As discussed below, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) is a significant new law that intends to foster generic and biosimilar competition and to lower drug and biologic costs.

Patent Term Extension

In the United States, after a BLA is approved, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory process. The allowable patent term extension is typically calculated as one-half the time between, the latter of the effective date of an IND and issue date of the patent for which extension is sought, and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between BLA submission date and the BLA approval date up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue licensure with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of product licensure. Only one patent applicable to a licensed biological product is eligible for extension and only those claims covering the product, 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. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Some, but not all, foreign jurisdictions possess patent term extension or other additional patent exclusivity mechanisms that may be more or less stringent and comprehensive than those of the U.S.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”); the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”); the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and similar foreign, federal and state fraud, abuse and transparency laws.

23

Table of Contents

The AKS prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase or recommendation of an item or service for which payment may be made under any federal healthcare program. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand, and prescribers and purchasers on the other. The government often takes the position that to violate the AKS, only one purpose of the remuneration need be to induce referrals, even if there are other legitimate purposes for the remuneration. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common commercial activities from AKS prosecution, but they are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration, such as consulting agreements, for persons in a position to refer or recommend federally reimbursable healthcare business that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending, and may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or regulatory safe harbor. Qualifying for a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor requires satisfying all of the criteria for the exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS, but it does increase the risk of regulatory scrutiny. Ultimately, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The FCA, and civil monetary penalty laws, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibits, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment of federal government funds, including in federal healthcare programs, that are false or fraudulent. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for engaging in a variety of different types of conduct that “caused” the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs. Under the AKS, for example, a claim resulting from a violation of the AKS is deemed to be a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and making false statements relating to healthcare matters. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the healthcare fraud statute implemented under HIPAA or specific intent to violate the statute in order to have committed a violation.

The FDCA addresses, among other things, the design, production, labeling, promotion, manufacturing, and testing of drugs, biologics and medical devices, and prohibits such acts as the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded drugs or devices. The PHSA also prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of unlicensed or mislabeled biological products.

The U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value to various healthcare professionals including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, certified nurse-midwives, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning on January 1, 2023, California Assembly Bill 1278 requires California physicians and surgeons to notify patients of the Open Payments database established under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act.

We are also subject to federal price reporting laws and federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Federal price reporting laws require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products. Federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

We are also subject to additional similar U.S. state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, which, in some cases, differ from each other in significant ways, and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal, and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality, and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and

24

Table of Contents

regulations, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information and could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. For example, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations impose data privacy, security, and breach notification obligations on certain health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates and their covered subcontractors that perform certain services that involve using, disclosing, creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting individually identifiable protected health information (“PHI”) for or on behalf of such covered entities. These requirements imposed by HIPAA and HITECH on covered entities and business associates include entering into agreements that require business associates protect PHI provided by the covered entity against improper use or disclosure, among other things; following certain standards for the privacy of PHI, which limit the disclosure of a patient’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition or information about a patient’s receipt of health care if the information identifies, or could reasonably be used to identify, the individual; ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all PHI created, received, maintained, or transmitted in electronic form, to identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats or impermissible uses or disclosures to the security and integrity of such PHI; and reporting of breaches of PHI to individuals and regulators.

Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. A covered entity or business associate is also liable for civil money penalties for a violation that is based on an act or omission of any of its agents, which may include a downstream business associate, as determined according to the federal common law of agency. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties applicable to covered entities and business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. To the extent that we submit electronic healthcare claims and payment transactions that do not comply with the electronic data transmission standards established under HIPAA and HITECH, payments to us may be delayed or denied.

In addition, state health information privacy laws, such as California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Washington’s My Health My Data Act, that govern the privacy and security of health-related information, specifically, may apply even when HIPAA does not and impose additional requirements.

Even when HIPAA and state health information privacy laws do not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, violating consumers’ privacy rights or failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and state consumer protection laws.

In addition, certain state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”), govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information, in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA in various ways. Numerous other states have passed similar laws, but many differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. The CCPA/CPRA applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees, and imposes obligations on certain businesses that do business in California, including to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices, rights to California residents in relation to their personal information. Health information falls under the CCPA’s definition of personal information where it identifies, relates to, describes, or is reasonably capable of being associated with or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household and is included under a new category of personal information, “sensitive personal information,” which is offered greater protection. The CCPA and numerous other comprehensive privacy laws that have passed or are being considered in other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, exempt PHI that is subject to HIPAA; and others exempt covered entities and business associates subject to HIPAA altogether, further complicating compliance efforts, and increasing legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties upon whom we rely.

Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. Additionally, our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be subject to laws and evolving regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence/machine learning, controlling for data bias, and anti-discrimination.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as

25

Table of Contents

Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological product for which we obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any product, if approved, depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement, if any, for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding whether to cover any of our product candidates, if approved, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is: a covered benefit under its health plan; safe, effective and medically necessary; cost-effective; and neither experimental nor investigational.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical or biological products, medical devices and medical services, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product that receives approval. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. The IRA provides CMS with significant new authorities intended to curb drug costs and to encourage market competition. For the first time, CMS will be able to directly negotiate prescription drug prices and to cap out-of-pocket costs. Each year, CMS will select and negotiate a preset number of high-spend drugs and biologics that are covered under Medicare Part B and Part D that do not have generic or biosimilar competition. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs subject to price negotiations. These price negotiations occurred in 2024. In January 2025, CMS announced a list of 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. The IRA also provides a new “inflation rebate” covering Medicare patients that took effect in 2023 and is intended to counter certain price increases in prescriptions drugs. The inflation rebate provision requires drug manufacturers to pay a rebate to the federal government if the price for a drug or biologic under Medicare Part B and Part D increases faster than the rate of inflation. To support biosimilar competition, beginning in October 2022, qualifying biosimilars may receive a Medicare Part B payment increase for a period of five years. Separately, if a biologic drug for which no biosimilar exists delays a biosimilar’s market entry beyond two years, CMS will be authorized to subject the biologics manufacturer to price negotiations intended to ensure fair competition. Notwithstanding these provisions, the IRA’s impact on commercialization and competition remains largely uncertain.

In addition, net prices for drugs 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 drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we may commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.

26

Table of Contents

Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union (“EU”) provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of reform proposals to change the healthcare system. There is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by federal and state initiatives, including those designed to limit the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government-funded health care programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

The ACA, which was enacted in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions of particular import to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including, but not limited to, those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, the IRA, among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including automatic aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of on average 2% per fiscal year as part of the federal budget sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional action is taken by Congress.

In addition, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Medicare Act (as amended by the ACA) to increase the point-of-sale discounts that manufacturers must agree to offer under the Medicare Part D coverage discount program from 50% to 70% off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state measures designed to, among other things, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, in May 2019, CMS adopted a final rule allowing Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs, permitting Medicare Part D plans to apply certain utilization controls to new starts of five of the six protected class drugs, and requiring the Explanation of Benefits for Part D beneficiaries to disclose drug price increases and lower cost therapeutic alternatives, which went into effect on January 1, 2021. In May 2025, the Trump Administration renewed the idea of international reference pricing through an executive order entitled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients,” which, among other things, directs the HHS and other agencies to communicate most-favored-nation (“MFN”) price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for U.S. patients in line with comparably developed nations and to facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs. The HHS subsequently issued guidance indicating the MFN target price will be the lowest price paid in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country with a gross domestic product (“GDP”) per capita of at least 60% of the U.S. GDP per capital. In addition, in December 2025, CMS proposed new drug payment models to lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries; under the models, CMS would explore potential adjustments to Medicare drug inflation rebate calculations by comparison to international drug pricing information. It is currently unclear whether and to what extent these measures will be implemented and what impact any such implementation would have on our business.

27

Table of Contents

Notwithstanding the IRA, continued legislative and enforcement interest exists in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, we expect government authorities to continue pushing for transparency to drug pricing, reducing the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, reviewing the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reforming government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities 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. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other Government Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, export and import, advertising, marketing and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization, approval as well as post-approval monitoring and reporting of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, including requirements to conduct additional clinical trials, product licensing, safety reporting, post-authorization requirements, marketing and promotion, interactions with healthcare professionals, pricing and reimbursement may vary widely from country to country. No action can be taken to market any product in a country until an appropriate approval application has been approved by the regulatory authorities in that country. The current approval process varies from country to country, and the time spent in gaining approval varies from that required for FDA approval. In certain countries, the sales price of a product must also be approved. The pricing review period often begins after market approval is granted. Even if a product is approved by a regulatory authority, satisfactory prices may not be approved for such product, which would make launch of such products commercially unfeasible in such countries.

Regulation in the European Union

European Data Laws

The processing of personal data, including health-related personal data in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) is governed by the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”) and related data protection laws in individual EEA countries. In the United Kingdom (“UK”), the processing of personal data is mainly governed by the GDPR as incorporated into UK law pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “UK GDPR”). The GDPR and UK GDPR impose a number of strict obligations and requirements for the processing, including collecting, analyzing and transferring, of personal data of individuals in the EEA or in the UK, in particular with respect to health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR and the UK GDPR include requirements relating to the legal basis of the processing (such as consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates), the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data, the personal data breaches which may have to be notified to the national data protection authorities and data subjects, the measures to be taken when engaging processors, and obligations relating to the security and confidentiality of the personal data. EEA countries may also impose additional requirements in relation to the processing of health, genetic and biometric data through their national legislation.

In addition, the GDPR imposes specific restrictions on the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EEA that are not considered by the European Commission (“EC”) to provide an adequate level of data protection. Appropriate safeguards are required to enable such transfers. Among the appropriate safeguards that can be used, the data exporter may use the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”). When relying on the appropriate safeguards, data exporters, with the assistance of the date importers, are also required to conduct a transfer risk assessment to verify if anything in the law and/or practices of the third country may impinge on the effectiveness of the safeguards in the context of the transfer at stake and, if so, to identify and adopt supplementary measures that are necessary to bring the level of protection of the data transferred to the EU standard of essential equivalence. Where no supplementary

28

Table of Contents

measure is suitable, the data exporter should avoid, suspend or terminate the transfer. With regard to the transfer of data from the EEA to the United States, on July 10, 2023, the EC adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. On the basis of the new adequacy decision, personal data can flow from the EEA to U.S. companies participating in the framework. With regard to the transfer of data from the EEA to the UK, based on the EC’s adequacy decision of June 28, 2021 and subsequent renewals, personal data may continue to flow freely from the EEA to the UK on the basis that the UK is deemed to provide an adequate level of data protection until December 27, 2031. The adequacy decisions will automatically expire unless renewed.

With respect to transfers from the UK to other countries, these transfers are also subject to specific transfer rules under the UK regime. These UK international transfer rules broadly mirror the EU GDPR rules.

On February 2, 2022, the UK Secretary of State laid before the UK Parliament the international data transfer agreement (“IDTA”) and the international data transfer addendum to the EC’s standard contractual clauses for international data transfers (“UK Addendum”) and a document setting out transitional provisions. The IDTA and UK Addendum came into force on March 21, 2022 and are the primary UK-approved mechanisms for putting in place appropriate safeguards for UK restricted transfers, subject to transitional arrangements for legacy SCCs. Regarding transfers from the UK to the EEA, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) guidance indicates that organizations do not need new arrangements. With regard to the transfer of personal data from the UK to the United States, the UK government has adopted an adequacy decision for the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, the UK-US Data Bridge, which came into force on October 12, 2023. The UK-US Data Bridge recognizes the United States as offering an adequate level of data protection where the recipient is a United States organization certified to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and participating in the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR or UK GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA countries may result in significant monetary fines for noncompliance of up to €20.0 million or £17.5 million (as applicable), 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover (for higher-tier infringements). This is enforced by ICO and is entirely separate from fines under EU GDPR. In addition, violations of national laws can trigger additional administrative penalties, investigations, corrective orders, temporary or definitive bans, and, in some jurisdictions, and a number of criminal offenses for organizations and, in certain cases, their directors and officers, as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose personal data was processed.

Data protection authorities from the different EEA countries may still implement certain variations, enforce the GDPR and national data protection laws differently, and introduce additional national regulations and guidelines, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data in the EEA.

Furthermore, there are specific requirements relating to processing health data from clinical trials, including public disclosure obligations provided in the EU Clinical Trials Regulation No. 536/2014 (“CTR”), European Medical Agency (“EMA”) disclosure initiatives and voluntary commitments by industry. Failure to comply with these obligations could lead to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, harm to our reputation, and adversely impact our business and operating results.

Drug and Biologic Development Process

Regardless of where they are conducted, all clinical trials included in applications for marketing authorization (“MA”) for human medicines in the EU/EEA must have been carried out in accordance with EU regulations. This means that clinical trials conducted in the EEA have to comply with EU clinical trial legislation but also that clinical trials conducted outside the EU/EEA have to comply with ethical principles equivalent to those set out in the EU/EEA, including adhering to international good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The conduct of clinical trials in the EU is governed by the CTR, which entered into force on January 31, 2022. The CTR replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, (“Clinical Trials Directive”) and introduced a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU.

Under the CTR, a sponsor is able to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial through a centralized EU clinical trials portal (the “Clinical Trials Information System” or “CTIS”). One national regulatory authority (the reporting EU member state proposed by the applicant) will take the lead in validating and evaluating the application, consult and coordinate with the other concerned EU Member States. If an application is rejected, it may be amended and resubmitted through the EU clinical trials portal. If an approval is issued, the sponsor may start the clinical trial in all concerned EU Member States. However, a concerned EU member state may in limited circumstances declare an “opt-out” from an approval and prevent the clinical trial from being conducted in such member state. The CTR also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting, and introduces enhanced transparency requirements such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial results to the EU database, including a layperson’s summary. Since January 31, 2023, submission of initial clinical trial applications via CTIS is mandatory and CTIS serves as the single entry point for submission of clinical trial-related information and data. As of January 31, 2025, all ongoing trials approved under the former Clinical Trials Directive were required to comply with the CTR and have to be transitioned to CTIS.

29

Table of Contents

Under the CTR, national laws, regulations, and the applicable cGCP and GLP standards must also be respected during the conduct of the trials, including the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the National Competent Authority and to the Ethics Committees of the EU member state where they occur.

During the development of a medicinal product, the EMA and national regulators within the EU provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) on the recommendation of the Scientific Advice Working Party. A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure but is significantly reduced for designated orphan medicines. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical studies, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. Advice is not legally binding with regard to any future Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”) of the product concerned.

Drug Marketing Authorization

In the EEA, after completion of all required clinical testing, pharmaceutical products may only be placed on the market after obtaining an MA. To obtain an MA of a drug under EU regulatory systems, an applicant can submit an MAA through, amongst others, a centralized or decentralized procedure. To be used or sold in the UK, a drug must have an effective MA granted by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916), as amended. MA applications are submitted electronically via the MHRA Submissions Portal. Under the MHRA’s national assessment procedure, the MHRA generally aims to reach a decision within 210 “clock-on” days, excluding any “clock-stops” while the applicant prepares responses to the MHRA questions.

On August 30, 2023, the MHRA published detailed guidance on its recently announced new International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”) for MAAs. The IRP applies since January 1, 2024 and replaces existing EU reliance procedures to apply for authorizations from seven international regulators (e.g. Health Canada, Swiss Medic, FDA, EMA, among others). The IRP allows medicinal products approved in other jurisdictions that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update a MA in the UK.

Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA that is issued by the EC following the scientific assessment of the application by the EMA that is valid for all EU Member States as well as in the three additional EEA Member States (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific medicinal products, including for medicines developed by means of certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue engineered medicines) and medicinal products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases (AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases). For medicinal products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in EEA before May 20, 2004 and indicated for the treatment of other diseases, medicinal products that constitute significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovations or for which the grant of a MA through the centralized procedure would be in the interest of public health at EU level, an applicant may voluntarily submit an application for a MA through the centralized procedure.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a drug. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure, the timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA’s CHMP is, in principle, 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA. However, this timeline excludes clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP, so the overall process typically takes a year or more, unless the application is eligible for an accelerated assessment. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. Upon request, the CHMP can reduce the time frame to 150 days if the applicant provides sufficient justification for an accelerated assessment. The CHMP will provide a positive opinion regarding the application only if it meets certain quality, safety and efficacy requirements. This opinion is then transmitted to the EC, which has the ultimate authority for granting MA within 67 days after receipt of the CHMP opinion.

30

Table of Contents

Decentralized Authorization Procedure

Medicines that fall outside the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure have three routes to authorization: (i) they can be authorized under the centralized procedure if they concern a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if their authorization would be in the interest of public health; (ii) they can be authorized under a decentralized procedure where an applicant applies for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU member state; or (iii) they can be authorized in an EU member state in accordance with that state’s national procedures and then be authorized in other EU countries by a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national MA (mutual recognition procedure).

The decentralized procedure permits companies to file identical MA applications for a medicinal product to the competent authorities in various EU Member States simultaneously if such medicinal product has not received marketing approval in any EU Member State before. This procedure is available for pharmaceutical products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. The competent authority of a single EU Member State, the reference member state, is appointed to review the application and provide an assessment report. The competent authorities of the other EU Member States, the concerned member states, are subsequently required to grant a MA for their territories on the basis of this assessment. The only exception to this is where the competent authority of an EU Member State considers that there are concerns of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the EC, whose decision is binding for all EU Member States.

Risk Management Plan

All new MAAs must include a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. RMPs are continually modified and updated throughout the lifetime of the medicine as new information becomes available. An updated RMP must be submitted: (i) at the request of EMA or a national competent authority, or (ii) whenever the risk-management system is modified, especially as the result of new information being received that may lead to a significant change to the benefit-risk profile or as a result of an important pharmacovigilance or risk-minimization milestone being reached. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Since October 20, 2023, all RMPs for centrally authorized products are published by EMA, subject only to limited redactions.

MA Validity Period

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may subsequently be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the EC or the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with only one additional five-year renewal. Applications for renewal must be made to the EMA at least nine months before the five-year period expires.

Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

For the UK, the period of three years during which the drug has not been marketed in Great Britain will be restarted from the date of conversion to a Great Britain MA. Following Windsor Framework changes, which became effective January 1, 2025, EU authorizations are no longer valid in Northern Ireland and centrally authorized products are instead authorized by the MHRA under UK-wide marketing authorizations; existing licenses for product licensed by the MHRA that covers Great Britain only become geographically valid UK-wide while retaining their license number/prefix.

On the other hand, for the EU, in the case the drug has been marketed in the UK, the placing on the UK market before the end of the period starting when the UK left the EU on January 31, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020 (the Brexit Transition Period) will be taken into account. If, after the end of the Brexit Transition Period, the drug is not placed on any other market of the remaining member states of the EU, the three year period will start running from the last date the drug was placed on the UK market before the end of the Brexit Transition Period.

31

Table of Contents

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

In the EU, medicinal products, including advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EU and national levels. ATMPs comprise gene therapy products, somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products, which are genes, cells or tissues that have undergone substantial manipulation and that are administered to human beings in order to cure, diagnose or prevent diseases or regenerate, repair or replace a human tissue. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, the Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”) is responsible in conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation of ATMPs. The CHMP and CAT are also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs. These guidelines provide additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs. Although such guidelines are not legally binding, compliance with them is often necessary to gain and maintain approval for product candidates.

In addition to the mandatory RMP, the holder of a MA for an ATMP must put in place and maintain a system to ensure that each individual product and its starting and raw materials, including all substances coming into contact with the cells or tissues it may contain, can be traced through the sourcing, manufacturing, packaging, storage, transport and delivery to the relevant healthcare institution where the product is used.

Exceptional Circumstances/Conditional Approval

Similar to accelerated approval regulations in the United States, conditional MAs can be granted in the EU in exceptional circumstances. A conditional MA can be granted for medicinal products where, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, a number of criteria are fulfilled: (i) the benefit/risk balance of the product is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data, (iii) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled by the grant of the MA and (iv) the benefit to public health 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. Once a conditional MA has been granted, the MA holder must fulfil specific obligations within defined timelines. A conditional MA is valid for one year and must be renewed annually, but it can be converted into a standard MA once the MA holder fulfils the obligations imposed and the complete data confirm that the medicine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

Data and Market Exclusivity

As in the United States, it may be possible to obtain a period of market and/or data exclusivity in the EU that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic, hybrid or biosimilar product (even if the pharmaceutical product has already received a MA) and prohibiting another applicant from relying on the MA holder’s pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data in support of another MA for the purposes of submitting an application, obtaining an MA or placing the product on the market. New Chemical Entities (“NCE”) approved in the EU qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of marketing exclusivity.

An additional non-cumulative one-year period of marketing exclusivity is possible if during the data exclusivity period (the first eight years of the 10-year marketing exclusivity period), the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications that are deemed to bring a significant clinical benefit compared to existing therapies.

The data exclusivity period begins on the date of the product’s first MA in the EU. After eight years, a generic product application may be submitted and generic companies may rely on the MA holder’s data. However, a generic product cannot launch until two years later (or a total of 10 years after the first MA in the EU of the innovator product), or three years later (or a total of 11 years after the first MA in the EU of the innovator product) if the MA holder obtains MA for a new indication with significant clinical benefit within the eight-year data exclusivity period. Additionally, another noncumulative one-year period of data exclusivity can be added to the eight years of data exclusivity where an application is made for a new indication for a well-established substance, provided that significant pre-clinical or clinical studies were carried out in relation to the new indication. Another year of data exclusivity may be added to the eight years, where a change of classification of a pharmaceutical product has been authorized on the basis of significant pre-trial tests or clinical trials (when examining an application by another applicant for or holder of market authorization for a change of classification of the same substance the competent authority will not refer to the results of those tests or trials for one year after the initial change was authorized).

Products may not be granted data exclusivity since there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to include a NCE. Even if a compound is considered to be a NCE and the MA applicant is able to gain the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the medicinal product if such company can complete a full MAA with their own complete database of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical studies and clinical trials and obtain MA of its product.

32

Table of Contents

On April 26, 2023, the EC submitted a proposal for the reform of the European pharmaceutical legislation and negotiations are still ongoing. The timing for finalization of these negotiations and entry into force are unclear.

The current drafts envisage a shortening of the periods of data exclusivity from eight to six years (with transferrable vouchers for an additional year of market protection as an incentive for the development of new antibiotics), earlier regulatory guidance and extension of market exclusivity for orphan medicines (depending on certain conditions), four-year data exclusivity for additional indications of existing products, and rules governing the availability of products (including shortage prevention plans and some supply obligations for manufacturers).

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

The criteria for designating an orphan medicinal product in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. The EMA grants orphan drug designation if the medicinal product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU (prevalence criterion). In addition, Orphan Drug Designation can be granted if, for economic reasons, the medicinal product would be unlikely to be developed without incentives and if there is no other satisfactory method approved in the EU of diagnosing, preventing, or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed medicinal product is a significant benefit to patients affected by the condition. An application for orphan drug designation (which is not a MA, as not all orphan-designated medicines reach the authorization application stage) must be submitted first before an application for MA of the medicinal product is submitted. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the MA is submitted, and sponsors must submit an annual report to EMA summarizing the status of development of the medicine. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Designated orphan medicines are eligible for conditional MA.

The EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products reassesses the orphan drug designation of a product in parallel with the review for a MA; for a product to benefit from market exclusivity it must maintain its orphan drug designation at the time of MA review by the EMA and approval by the EC. Additionally, any MA granted for an orphan medicinal product must only cover the therapeutic indication(s) that are covered by the orphan drug designation. Upon the grant of an MA, orphan drug designation provides up to ten years of market exclusivity in the orphan indication.

During the 10-year period of market exclusivity, with a limited number of exceptions, the regulatory authorities of the EU Member States and the EMA may not accept applications for MA, accept an application to extend an existing MA or grant MA for other similar medicinal products for the same therapeutic indication. A similar medicinal product is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in a currently authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan medicinal product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity for an orphan-designated condition when the results of specific studies are reflected in the Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”) addressing the pediatric population and completed in accordance with a fully compliant Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation (i.e., the condition prevalence or financial returns criteria under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products). When the period of orphan market exclusivity for an indication ends, the orphan drug designation for that indication expires as well. Orphan exclusivity runs in parallel with normal rules on data exclusivity and market protection. Additionally, a MA may be granted to a “similar medicinal product” (orphan or not) for the same or overlapping indication subject to certain requirements.

In the UK, following the post-Brexit transition period, a system for incentivizing the development of orphan medicines was introduced. Overall, the requirements for orphan designation largely replicate the requirements in the EU and the benefit of market exclusivity has been retained. Products with an orphan designation in the EU can be considered for an orphan MA in Great Britain and, marketing authorizations granted for products that fulfill UK orphan criteria are valid UK-wide regardless of whether there is an EU orphan designation. The MHRA will review applications for orphan designation at the time of an MA, and will offer incentives, such as market exclusivity and full or partial refunds for MA fees to encourage the development of medicines in rare diseases. Separately, the MHRA has stated that it is considering updating its licensing framework for orphan medicines, with a draft framework expected by spring 2026.

Pediatric Development

In the EU, companies developing a new medicinal product are obligated to study their product in children and must therefore submit a PIP together with a request for agreement to the EMA. The EMA issues a decision on the PIP based on an opinion of the

33

Table of Contents

EMA’s Pediatric Committee. Companies must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with the PIP approved by the EMA, unless a deferral (e.g. until enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults is available) or waiver (e.g. because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults) has been granted by the EMA. The MAA for the medicinal product must include the results of all pediatric clinical trials performed and details of all information collected in compliance with the approved PIP, unless a waiver or a deferral has been granted, in which case the pediatric clinical trials may be completed at a later date. Medicinal products that are granted a MA on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the approved PIP are eligible for a six month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval), or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the approved PIP are developed and submitted. An approved PIP is also required when a MA holder wants to add a new indication, medicinal form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized and covered by intellectual property rights.

In the UK, the MHRA has published guidance on the procedures for UK PIPs which, where possible, mirror the submission format and requirements of the EU system. From January 1, 2025, EU pediatric requirements are addressed via Windsor Framework categorization: for Category 2 products, both UK and EU pediatric requirements apply, and an EU-agreed PIP must also be in place (unless waived).

PRIME Designation

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies on the basis of compelling non-clinical data and tolerability data from initial clinical trials. 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 potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, once a candidate medicine has been selected for the PRIME scheme, a dedicated contact point and rapporteur from the CHMP or from CAT are appointed facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting with the CHMP/CAT rapporteur initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts to provide guidance on the overall development plan and regulatory strategy. PRIME eligibility does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that any such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval.

Post-Approval Regulation

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the EC and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the EU Member States. This oversight applies both before and after grant of manufacturing licenses and MAs. It includes control of compliance with EU good manufacturing practices rules, manufacturing authorizations, pharmacovigilance rules and requirements governing advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, recordkeeping, importing and exporting of medicinal products.

Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to comply with EU laws and the related national laws of individual EU Member States governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of MA, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The holder of an MA for a medicinal product must also comply with EU pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines, which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products.

These pharmacovigilance rules can impose on holders of MAs the obligation to conduct a labor intensive collection of data regarding the risks and benefits of marketed medicinal products and to engage in ongoing assessments of those risks and benefits, including the possible requirement to conduct additional clinical studies or post-authorization safety studies to obtain further information on a medicine’s safety, or to measure the effectiveness of risk-management measures, which may be time consuming and expensive and could impact our profitability. MA holders must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”) in relation to medicinal

34

Table of Contents

products for which they hold MAs. The EMA reviews PSURs for medicinal products authorized through the centralized procedure. If the EMA has concerns that the risk benefit profile of a product has varied, it can adopt an opinion advising that the existing MA for the product be suspended, withdrawn or varied. The agency can advise that the MA holder be obliged to conduct post-authorization Phase IV safety studies. If the EC agrees with the opinion, it can adopt a decision varying the existing MA. Failure by the MA holder to fulfill the obligations for which the EC’s decision provides can undermine the ongoing validity of the MA.

More generally, non-compliance with pharmacovigilance obligations can lead to the variation, suspension or withdrawal of the MA for the product or imposition of financial penalties or other enforcement measures.

The manufacturing process for pharmaceutical products in the EU is highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC (repealed by Directive 2017/1572 on January 31, 2022), Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice (“EU GMP”). These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU. Amendments or replacements of at least Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 are part of the reform proposal for European pharmaceutical legislation. Similarly, the distribution of pharmaceutical products into and within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU Member States. The manufacturer or importer must have a qualified person who is responsible for certifying that each batch of product has been manufactured in accordance with EU GMP, before releasing the product for commercial distribution in the EU or for use in a clinical trial. Manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic inspections by the competent authorities for compliance with EU GMP.

On October 27, 2025, the Council of the EU approved a framework for compulsory licensing of crisis-relevant products (including medicinal products) in crisis situations. While the proposal focuses on voluntary agreements with intellectual property rights holders, it includes rules on compulsory licensing as a measure of last resort upon activation/declaration of a crisis or emergency mode. The European Parliament has not yet voted on the proposal.

Sales and Marketing Regulations

The advertising and promotion of our products is also subject to EU laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other national legislation of individual EU Member States may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products and may differ from one country to another. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s SmPC as approved by the competent regulatory authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the MA granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved SmPC and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on its promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

EU regulation with regards to dispensing, sale and purchase of medicines has generally been preserved in the UK following Brexit, through the Human Medicines Regulations. However, organizations wishing to sell medicines online need to register with the MHRA. Following Brexit, the requirements to display the common logo no longer apply to UK-based online sellers, except for those established in Northern Ireland.

Anti-Corruption Legislation

In the EU, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct both at EU level and in the individual EU Member States. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of the EU Member States. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States also must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians must often be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his/her regulatory professional

35

Table of Contents

organization, and/or the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the individual EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

In the UK, the pharmaceutical sector is recognized as being particularly vulnerable to corrupt practices, some of which fall within the scope of the Bribery Act 2010. Due to the Bribery Act 2010’s far-reaching territorial application, the potential penalized act does not have to occur in the UK to become within its scope. If the act or omission does not take place in the UK, but the person’s act or omission would constitute an offense if carried out there and the person has a close connection with the UK, an offense will still have been committed. The Bribery Act 2010 is comprised of four offenses that cover (i) individuals, companies and partnerships that give, promise or offer bribes, (ii) individuals, companies and partnerships that request, agree to receive or accept bribes, (iii) individuals, companies and partnerships that bribe foreign public officials and (iv) companies and partnerships that fail to prevent persons acting on their behalf from paying bribes. The penalties imposed under the Bribery Act 2010 depend on the offence committed, harm and culpability and penalties range from unlimited fines to imprisonment for a maximum term of ten years and in some cases both.

Regulations in the UK and Other Markets

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and EU laws now only apply to the UK in respect of Northern Ireland as laid out in the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland and as amended by the Windsor Framework sets out a long-term set of arrangements for the supply of medicines into Northern Ireland. The EU and the UK agreed on a trade and cooperation agreement (“TCA”), which includes provisions affecting the life sciences sector (including on customs and tariffs). There are some specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, including the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP issued documents. The TCA does not, however, contain wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations and product standards.

The UK government has adopted the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (the “MMDA”) to enable the UK’s regulatory frameworks to be updated following the UK’s departure from the EU. The MMDA introduces regulation-making, delegated powers covering the fields of human medicines, clinical trials of human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. The MHRA has since been consulting on future regulations for medicines and medical devices in the UK.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with cGCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, local, state and federal laws regarding such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and waste generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous or biohazardous substances, we could be liable for damages, environmental remediation, and/or governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and occupational health and safety laws that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future.

36

Table of Contents

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of March 4, 2026, we had 92 employees, all of whom were employed full time and 66 of whom were engaged in research and development activities. 25 of our employees hold Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Available Information

Our corporate website is www.dianthustx.com, and our investor relations website is investor.dianthustx.com. Copies of our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports are available free of charge on our investor relations website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file or furnish such material electronically with the SEC. The SEC also maintains a website that contains our SEC filings at www.sec.gov. We do not intend for the information contained in, or available through, our website to be part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Similarly, please note that any Internet addresses provided in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are for informational purposes only and are not intended to be hyperlinks. Accordingly, no information found and/or provided at such Internet addresses is intended or deemed to be incorporated by reference herein.

37

Table of Contents