NASDAQ: ELTX

Our clinical pipeline includes the lymph node targeted cancer immunotherapy ELI-002 7P, currently being evaluated in a Phase 2 study, designed to stimulate an immune response against mKRAS pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (“PDAC”), the most common form of pancreatic cancer. The ELI-002 7P formulation is designed to provide broad immune responses targeting seven Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (“KRAS”) mutations that are observed in approximately 88% of PDAC patients and 25% of all solid tumors, thereby increasing the potential patient population for ELI-002 7P beyond PDAC alone. ELI-002 2P (2-peptide formulation) has been studied previously in the Phase 1 (AMPLIFY-201) trial in patients with high relapse risk mKRAS-driven solid tumors, following surgery and chemotherapy. ELI-002 2P and ELI-002 7P also have been studied in patients with mKRAS-positive CRC in Phase 1 studies. The AMPLIFY-201 Phase 1 data for PDAC and CRC was presented at the ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress 2024 and published in Nature Medicine (Wainberg et al, 2025) and included a 16.3-month median recurrence-free survival and 28.9-month median overall survival for the full study population. In the future, we plan to expand ELI-002 7P to other indications including mKRAS positive lung cancer and other mKRAS positive cancers.

Our preclinical pipeline includes the lymph node targeted immunotherapies ELI-007, currently being evaluated in preclinical studies for the treatment of mutant b-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1-(“BRAF”) driven cancers, and ELI-008, currently being evaluated in preclinical studies for use in the treatment of mutated tumor protein p53 (“TP53”)- expressing cancers. We believe that each of our immunotherapy product candidates, if approved, has the potential to reduce the risk of recurrence of tumors carrying specific oncogenic driver mutations.

Our Strategy

We are focused on mobilizing the immune response to treat cancer through the development and commercialization of lymph node targeted immunotherapies. Key elements of our strategy are to:

•Continue advancing ELI-002 7P in an ongoing randomized Phase 2 trial in PDAC. We are developing our first product candidate, ELI-002, for the treatment of patients with solid tumors expressing mKRAS. By targeting immunotherapy to the lymph nodes and generating a robust and differentiated T cell response, we believe ELI-002 could improve the long-term prognosis and quality of life for patients suffering from solid tumors. We are currently evaluating ELI-002 7P in AMPLIFY-7P, a randomized Phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety in patients with PDAC. In December 2024, we announced that we completed enrollment in our AMPLIFY-7P trial. We will continue to follow patients for up to 36 months. In August 2025, we announced that following the Independent Data Monitoring Committee’s (“IDMC”) pre-specified interim review of unblinded safety and efficacy data in our Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P study in mKRAS-driven PDAC, the IDMC recommended that the trial continue to the final event-driven disease-free survival (“DFS”) analysis without modifications. In addition, the IDMC confirmed the favorable safety profile of ELI-002 7P as of such date. We anticipate the final DFS analysis to occur in the first half of 2026, depending on the rate of event accrual. To determine how long patients live without their cancer returning, the study is comparing events (cancer detected on an imaging scan or death) in the AMPLIFY-7P versus observation groups once the pre-specified total number of events are observed.

•Expand ELI-002 7P clinical development for the treatment of other KRAS driven cancers. Our ongoing Phase 2 trial is in adjuvant stage PDAC, but our Phase 1 trials also included patients with CRC and the preliminary safety, immunogenicity and efficacy data were encouraging in both PDAC and CRC patients. In addition to CRC, our platform may be applicable to patients with lung cancer, bile duct and other gastrointestinal cancers driven by KRAS mutations, and there is also unmet need in neoadjuvant stage and metastatic pancreatic cancer. We are evaluating opportunities to advance ELI-002 in clinical trials for CRC and other indications including in collaboration with other organizations.

•Advance development of our internal pipeline, including ELI-007 and ELI-008, for additional oncology targets. We have two preclinical programs that employ our AMP technology targeting other key tumor driver mutations, BRAF and TP53. ELI-007, for mutant BRAF-driven cancers, and ELI-008, for mutant TP53-expressing cancers, are AMP immunotherapies targeting biologically validated neoantigens expressed in high proportions of solid tumors. We have received grants to fund the preclinical development of ELI-007 and ELI-008. We intend to continue to seek collaboration opportunities to advance the development of ELI-007 and ELI-008 into Phase 1 trials.

•Realize the full value of the AMP technology through collaborations. We have published several preclinical proof-of-concept applications where our AMP technology has demonstrated meaningful improvements when applied to prophylactic vaccines, CAR-T and TCR-T cell therapies, and therapies for auto-immune disease. We will look to establish collaborations to capitalize on the potential of the technology in these applications including additional pipeline adjuvants such as ELI-004 (Amph-CpG-7909).

Overview of Immune System and Cancer Immunotherapy

The immune system is a large network of organs, tissues, white blood cells, proteins and chemicals working together to protect and repair the body from infections, injuries and cellular changes associated with disease. One component of the immune system is the adaptive immune response which is responsible for mounting highly specific responses to substances deemed to be foreign. The adaptive immune response is carried out by white blood cells including B lymphocytes (“B cells”) and T lymphocytes (“T cells”). B cells are involved in the humoral immune response, differentiating into antibody-secreting plasma cells upon activation and recognition of a foreign-specific molecular structure known as an antigen. T cells participate primarily in the cell-mediated immune response and are capable of specific antigen-directed recognition and elimination of aberrant cells arising from pathogenic infection or genetic transformation. T cells can be further segregated into distinct cell types, with the primary types being CD8+ T cells, which are also referred to as cytotoxic lymphocytes (“CTLs”), and CD4+ “helper” T cells. CD8+ T cells specifically recognize and eliminate cells infected with viruses, other pathogens, or cancer-associated mutations. In contrast, CD4+ T cells, which can also exhibit cytotoxic activity, primarily participate in the immune response by directing the activity of other cells, in particular B cells and CD8+ T cells.

The lymphatic system plays a major role in the production, differentiation, and proliferation of both B cells and T cells, and lymph nodes serve a critical role in lymphocytes’ activation and acquisition of essential functionality. The lymph nodes act as the “school house” of the adaptive immune response, playing an essential role in the generation of B cells and T cells possessing the specificity and functionality required for effective disease modification. Specifically, signaling delivered between immune cells residing in the lymph nodes is critical for the generation of a T cell response with the magnitude, potency, persistence, functionality, specificity, and memory capacity required for an effective cell-mediated immune response.

As cancer is the result of genetic transformation of normal cells resulting in uncontrolled growth, the immune system doesn’t always recognize cancer cells as foreign. In addition, cancer cells can adopt mechanisms to evade immune system recognition or defenses rendering the adaptive immune response ineffective. However, immune cells, referred to as tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (“TILs”), are sometimes found in and around tumors and patients with TILs often have a better prognosis than patients without TILs - supporting the rationale for development of drugs such as checkpoint antibodies that target immune cells found in and around tumors rather than directly targeting cancer cells.

In the last 15 years, immunotherapy has become a therapeutic mainstay for treating certain cancers. Several approaches to cancer immunotherapy have been attempted, all with the goal of eliciting or enhancing an immune response to identify and attack tumor cells. We believe that cancer immunotherapies hold the potential to eliminate cancer cells as cancer cells often contain tumor-specific antigens, or neoantigens, not present in normal cells; cancer immunotherapies could facilitate the immune system recognition and response to these neoantigens. In addition, because an adaptive immune response includes a mechanism to create life-long T cells, cancer immunotherapies may prevent relapse of cancer long after initial treatment.

While general neoantigen-specific immune activity has been demonstrated by previous antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy efforts, reduction in tumor loads has not been frequently observed resulting in only two FDA-approved antigen-specific cancer immunotherapies. Researchers investigating this lack of historical antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy efficacy have suggested a key reason is the limited generation of tumor-specific T cells as well as impaired

fitness of the elicited anti-tumor T cells. We believe our technology is differentiated from prior antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy approaches because it engages the lymph nodes and has been observed to produce higher levels of T cell response while engaging additional immunology mechanism.

We believe improved delivery of immunotherapies to the lymph nodes is required to generate the robust and multifunctional adaptive immune response, specifically T cell responses, needed for therapeutic efficacy. Our AMP technology is designed to deliver immunotherapeutic payloads of interest to lymph nodes.

Our Approach

The fundamental underpinning of our innovative approach is delivering immunotherapeutic payloads to lymph nodes. Our AMP technology is designed to rapidly deliver peptides, proteins, nucleic acids and small molecules to lymph nodes through reversible interactions with endogenous albumin. Our AMP technology has been flexibly designed to be manufactured with various peptide lengths and sequences optimizing the localization of the AMP-modified molecules to lymph nodes and the subsequent cellular processing required to generate robust T cell response.

AMP Technology: Lymph node targeting via albumin hitchhiking

Our proprietary AMP technology, and combined expertise in immunology and materials science, allows us to develop AMP immunotherapies capable of generating robust and differentiated immune responses. Our AMP immunotherapies utilize modular conjugation chemistry, potentially allowing for application to multiple therapeutic modalities, including peptides, proteins, nucleic acids, and small molecules as illustrated in the figure below:

AMP construction: A molecular conjugation approach for

delivery of immune therapeutics to lymph nodes

AMP molecules are multifunctional constructs with lipid tails linked to a therapeutic payload designed to accumulate in the lymph nodes through the body’s existing surveillance mechanisms. AMP molecules are designed to interact with endogenous albumin, an abundant protein that drains from the tissues through lymphatic capillaries and accumulates in lymph nodes where foreign substances are collected for risk-assessment by sentinel immune cells. AMP molecules use their lipid tails to target the lymph nodes by hitchhiking on endogenous albumin after subcutaneous injection resulting in precise delivery to immune cells responsible for coordinating protective immune responses. Albumin hitchhiking is a well-established method for targeting molecules to lymph nodes. Our AMP technology preferentially delivers immuno-modulatory cargo to lymph nodes - potentially enhancing the magnitude, functionality, and durability of the immune response. We believe this lymph node-targeting technology has the potential to be broadly applicable to address significant unmet medical needs.

AMP Facilitated Albumin Hitchhiking

Targeting Common Validated Tumor Neoantigens

We believe a critical strategic benefit of our approach is training the immune system to recognize common neoantigens to generate an effective T cell-mediated anti-tumor response. Common neoantigens represent an elite class of tumor-specific antigens derived from recurrently mutated driver genes shared across certain types of cancer. Neoantigens are newly formed antigens generated by tumor cells as a result of various tumor-specific alterations, such as genomic mutation or dysregulated protein synthesis. Neoantigens are recognized as non-self and can readily trigger an immune response.

Our most advanced clinical product candidate, ELI-002 7P, is a cancer immunotherapy that targets the tumor driver gene KRAS, which is mutated in more than 25% of all solid tumors. Our preclinical cancer immunotherapy candidates, ELI-007 and ELI-008, target two other key neoantigens TP53, the most commonly mutated cancer driver gene, and BRAF, a cancer driver gene found frequently in melanoma, thyroid, and colon cancers.

Utilizing robust adjuvants

In addition to utilizing well-known neoantigens, our product candidates incorporate robust adjuvants which utilize the AMP technology to promote localization to the lymph nodes and enhanced delivery to immune cells potentially resulting in higher, more robust immune responses with potentially fewer side effects. Adjuvants are any substance included in an immunotherapy intended to activate immune cells to elicit a stronger immune response. Our current product candidates utilize a modified form of the synthetic oligonucleotide adjuvant, soluble CpG 7909, intended to mimic bacterial DNA that has been extensively studied and incorporated into FDA-approved products.

In previous clinical studies conducted by third parties, CpG-containing oligonucleotides have been shown to be both well tolerated and to exert immune-stimulatory effects. Our AMP-modification is designed to concentrate and retain the CpG adjuvant in the lymphatic system potentially allowing more effective delivery to immune cells and/or reduced side effects.

The result of our approach is the development of cancer immunotherapies intended to target common tumor neoantigens found in a significant portion of patients with cancer. Our AMP immunotherapies are manufactured through traditional pharmaceutical methods resulting in an “off-the-shelf” drug product.  

Our Product Candidates

ELI-002: AMP Immunotherapy for mKRAS-driven Cancers

ELI-002 is a multivalent lymph node–targeted AMP peptide immunotherapy being developed to target seven KRAS driver mutations that are present in 25% of all solid tumor cancers including 88% of PDAC, 36% of CRC, and 25% of non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”). Other cancers with significant proportions of KRAS mutations include bile duct and ovarian cancers. The KRAS protein relays signals from outside of the cell membrane to the cell nucleus influencing expression of downstream genes involved in the regulation of cell growth, cell differentiation, and cell death (also referred to as apoptosis). Mutations to the KRAS gene result in expression of overactive KRAS protein, driving aberrant signaling and unregulated cell growth, which are hallmarks of cancer.

Targeting mKRAS using immunotherapy presents several potential advantages. KRAS mutations are categorized as truncal mutations serving as a genetic driver of malignant changes where each tumor cell must maintain the expression of the mKRAS protein to remain viable. Such uniform expression across every transformed cell in a particular tumor holds the promise that immunological approaches may enable complete tumor eradication. mKRAS proteins are neoantigens, found exclusively in tumor cells, potentially limiting immunotherapy activity to the targeted tumor cells limiting side effects. ELI-002 is chemically synthesized with traditional manufacturing methods that allow the drug product to be readily available as an “off-

the-shelf” treatment providing potential cost and time-to-treatment advantages compared to personalized vaccine or cell-therapy treatments.

 AMPLIFY-201: Our First-in-human Phase 1 trial (NCT04853017)

In October 2021, we initiated dosing of the 2-peptide version of ELI-002 (“ELI-002 2P”), covering KRAS G12D and G12R mutations, in a Phase 1 dose escalation study intended to evaluate safety and tolerability, as well as provide immunologic and anti-tumor proof of concept in patients with high relapse risk mKRAS-driven solid tumors, following surgery and chemotherapy. In April 2023, we completed enrollment of 25 patients with PDAC or CRC. In August 2024, we ended the disease-free survival follow-up for this study. Results published in Nature Medicine in January 2024 from a September 6, 2023 data cutoff, and long term follow up results presented at the ESMO Immuno-Oncology meeting in December 2024 from a September 24, 2024 data cutoff and published in Nature Medicine in August 2025 demonstrated (results from both timepoints presented below unless otherwise indicated):

•ELI-002 2P was generally well-tolerated with no dose limiting toxicities or serious adverse events

•Selection of a recommended Phase 2 dose of 10.0 mg Amph-CpG-7909

•84% of patients generated mKRAS-specific T cell responses with a 58x average fold-change compared to baseline (September 6, 2023 data cutoff)

•59% of patient responses included both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (September 6, 2023 data cutoff)

•84% of patients had a decline in their tumor biomarker from baseline (September 6, 2023 data cutoff)

•100% of the above-median T cell response group (12.75X) achieved tumor biomarker responses to ELI-002; in the below-median group 67% (8/12) responded to ELI-002 (September 6, 2023 data cutoff)

•At a median follow-up of 19.7 months (September 24, 2024 data cutoff)

◦The median relapse-free survival was 16.3 months for the full 25 patient cohort; the median relapse-free survival for the 20 PDAC subgroup was 15.31 months (September 24, 2024 data cutoff)

◦The median RFS was not reached for the above median T cell responders compared to 4.01 months among the below median T cell responders (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.022-0.615, P=0.0002); 10 of the 17 of the above median T cell group were free from relapse or death; 88% reduction in risk of progression or death in the above median T cell responders to ELI-002 (September 24, 2024 data cutoff)

◦The median overall survival was 28.9 months for the full 25 patient cohort; the median overall survival for the 20 PDAC subgroup was also 28.9 months (September 24, 2024 data cutoff)

◦The median OS was not reached for the above median T cell responders compared to 15.98 months among the below median T cell responders (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.063-0.854, P=0.00099): 10 of the 13 of the above median T cell group were free from relapse or death; 77% reduction in risk of death in the above median T cell responders to ELI-002 (September 24, 2024 data cutoff)

In August 2025, we announced the publication of ELI-002 updated AMPLIFY-201 Phase 1 follow-up data in Nature Medicine for minimal residual disease (“MRD”) positive, adjuvant-stage patients. The extended median follow-up of 19.7 months showed median overall survival (“OS”) increased from 16.33 to 28.94 months. In addition, the data demonstrated 77% reduction in the risk of death and 88% reduction in the risk of relapse, associated with T cell responses above the threshold for anti-tumor efficacy.

In addition to ELI-002 2P, we evaluated a 7-peptide version of ELI-002 (“ELI-002 7P”), covering seven of the most common KRAS mutations (G12D, G12R, G12V, G12C, G12A, G12S, and G13D), thereby increasing the eligible patient population for ELI-002 and potentially reducing the chance of tumor bypass resistance mechanisms.

AMPLIFY-7P Phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT05726864)

This trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of ELI-002 7P as adjuvant monotherapy treatment in patients with solid tumors carrying mKRAS. In April 2023, we initiated dosing of the Phase 1A portion of the trial enrolling 14 patients through October 2023 who were evaluated for safety and efficacy of two ELI-002 AMP-peptide total dose levels (1.4mg and 4.9mg) in combination with the 10.0 mg Phase 2 dose of Amph-CpG-7909. In September 2023, the IDMC reviewed the available Phase 1A data and determined enrollment for the Phase 2 portion of the study could be opened. Preliminary results from the Phase 1A trial were presented at the SITC Annual Meeting in November 2024 from a September 24, 2024 data cutoff, which demonstrated:

•ELI-002 7P administered as a monotherapy was well tolerated and generated a ~100x mKRAS-specific expanded T cell response relative to baseline levels at the 4.9 mg Phase 2 dose level

•ELI-002 7P generated a mKRAS-specific T cell response in 100% of patients including responses targeting all mKRAS mutations enrolled (G12D, V, R and G13D) at the 4.9 mg Phase 2 dose level

•mKRAS-specific T cells were polyfunctional with 85.7% (6/7) of evaluable patients having both CD8+ and CD4+ responses at the 4.9 mg Phase 2 dose level

•Tumor biomarker reductions were observed in 71% (5/7) of evaluable patients at the 4.9 mg Phase 2 dose level

•ELI-002 7P was shown to induce antigen-spreading with increased T cell responses targeting non-immunizing, personalized tumor neoantigens in 100% (6/6) of evaluable patients at the 4.9 mg Phase 2 dose level

•Recommend Phase 2 dose was selected as 4.9 mg of AMP-peptides and 10.0 mg Amph-CpG-7909 adjuvant

In January 2024, we announced the first patient had been dosed in the randomized Phase 2 portion of the AMPLIFY-7P trial of ELI-002 7P as an adjuvant monotherapy treatment for patients with KRAS-mutated PDAC. The Phase 2 portion of the trial utilized DFS as the primary endpoint. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive ELI-002 7P (10.0 mg AMP-CpG and 4.9 mg AMP-peptides 7P) or the current standard of care (observation), respectively. Crossover was permitted for patients randomized to the observation arm upon confirmed radiographic relapse via iRECIST. In December 2024, we announced completed enrollment and will continue to follow patients for up to 36 months.

In August 2025, we announced that following the IDMC pre-specified interim review of unblinded safety and efficacy data in our Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P study in mKRAS-driven PDAC, the IDMC recommended that the trial continue to the final analysis without modifications. In addition, the IDMC confirmed the favorable safety profile of ELI-002 7P as of that date. To determine how long patients live without their cancer returning, the study will compare events (cancer detected on an imaging scan or death) in the AMPLIFY-7P versus observation groups once the pre-specified total number of events are observed.

In September 2025, we announced ELI-002 7P achieved robust mKRAS-specific T cell responses in 99% of evaluable patients in the ongoing Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P trial. Specifically, robust mKRAS-specific T cell responses were observed with an average of 145.3x increase over baseline (median 44.3x; range 2.13-1310x), consistent with prior ELI-002 Phase 1 trial results. In addition, T cell responses included both mKRAS-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in 85% of patients.

Phase 2 Amplify-7P Immunogenicity Data

ELI-002 7P (1.4mg & 4.9mg) ELI-002 7P (4.9 mg)

Phase 1 (n=12) Phase 2 (N=90)

Patients MRD+ only MRD+ & MRD-

mKRAS T Cell Response

T cell Response Rate (%, n) 100% (12/12) 99% (89/90)

Average Fold Changeª
71.1x 145.3x

Median Fold Changeª (range)
18.5x 44.3x

(4.2x to 351x) (2.13x to 1310x)

Threshold Above Which Clinical Activity was Correlated
9.5xc
TBD

(% of Patients Above Threshold) (75% above 9.5x) (80% above 9.5xc)

Including CD4 + CD8 T cellsb
75.0% 85.0%

Including Response to 7 mKRAS Antigensª
50.0% 67.4%

Including Response to Patient Tumor Antigenª
83.3% 87.6%

Overall Antigen Response Rated
66.7% (56/84) 85.7% (540/630)

ELI-002 2P: Data cutoff 24-Sept-24; ELI-002 7P Phase 1: Data cutoff 24-Sept-24; ELI-002 7P Phase 2: 22-Aug-25

a Responses shown are best overall responses vs baseline for assessable patients at any timepoint during the assessment period, measured among T cell Responders; TBD = To be Determined; MRD = Minimal Residual Disease

b Measured among evaluable patients with samples assessable by Ex Vivo Intracellular Cytokine Staining assay

c McNeil L.K., et al. 1473 AMPLIFY-7P phase 1a: lymph node-targeted amphiphile therapeutic cancer vaccine in patients with high relapse risk KRAS mutated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and colorectal cancer. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer. 2024;12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2024-SITC2024.1473

d Overall Antigen Response Rate calculated as the percentage of positive mKRAS-specific T cell responses among all evaluated patients against all vaccine antigens

In October 2025, we announced robust T cell responses across diverse HLA backgrounds in the ongoing Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P trial. Specifically, ELI-002 7P demonstrated robust mKRAS-specific T cell responses across a broad range of HLA types, highlighting its potential for use among a diverse patient population. Patients treated with ELI-002 7P presented a diverse HLA repertoire including 1,132 unique types identified among 1,398 total HLA backgrounds in assessed patients. Induction of mKRAS-specific T cell responses suggest that ELI-002 7P may address a broad patient population with high unmet need for PDAC.

Diverse HLA Representation Present in ELI-002 7P Treated Patients in AMPLIFY-7P Phase 2

Number of Unique HLA Types

HLA Class I HLA-A 116

HLA-B 158

HLA-C 118

HLA-Class II HLA-DR 292

HLA-DP 180

HLA-DQ 268

Total Unique HLA Types 1132

Total HLA Types 1398

In November 2025, we presented additional data on T cell responses and HLA backgrounds from the ongoing Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P trial at Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (“SITC”) 2025 Annual Meeting.

In November 2025, we announced that in the ongoing Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P study evaluating ELI-002 7P in patients with PDAC, fewer disease progressions and deaths than projected were observed as of November 6, 2025. Based on the protocol specified 2:1 randomization, with twice as many patients in the ELI-002 7P treatment arm compared to the observation arm, Elicio believes the lower-than-projected number of disease progressions and deaths may reflect a favorable impact on DFS. The event-driven primary DFS analysis is anticipated to occur in the first half of 2026, depending on event accrual.

In December 2025, we announced antigen spreading data to patient-specific neoantigens beyond mKRAS from our ongoing Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P trial. A subset of Phase 2 patients were evaluated to assess the ability of ELI-002 7P to broaden immune responses to personalized tumor neoantigens not present in the targeted immunotherapy. Antigen spreading (also known as epitope spreading) refers to the expansion of the immune response from the initial target antigen(s) to new secondary tumor-specific antigens. This process can occur during treatment with immunotherapy as tumor cells are killed, releasing tumor antigens which can subsequently be targeted by the immune response. The broader multi-targeted immunity which results from antigen spreading may limit the potential for tumors to evade immune responses, leading to more durable responses. 87% (13/15) of evaluated patients demonstrated induction of T cell responses to tumor neoantigens beyond mKRAS following ELI-002 7P therapy. The induction of non-mKRAS antigen-specific T cell responses supports the potential for ELI-002 7P to generate a broader, more adaptable, and personalized anti-tumor response.

Phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P Antigen Spreading Data

ELI-002 2P ELI-002 7P (1.4 & 4.9 mg) ELI-002 7P (4.9 mg)

Phase 1 (n=25) Phase 1 (n=12) Phase 2 (n=90)

Patients MRD+ only MRD+ only MRD- & MRD+

mKRAS T cell Response

T cell response rate (%, n) 84% (21/25) 100% (7/7) 99% (89/90)

Antigen spreading T cell Response

Patients tested for antigen spreading (n) 9 10 15

Median number of non-mKRAS antigens tested per patient (range) 8 (6 to 10) 6 (1 to 10) 10 (5 to 12)

T cell response rate (%, n) 67% (6/9) 70% (7/10) 87% (13/15)

Median fold change over baseline 3.4x 2.7x 10.6x

Responses to both CD4 + CD8 T cells 33.30% 50% 90%

Phase 1 ELI-002 7P in combination with chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor (“CPI”) in the neoadjuvant setting

In September 2025, we announced an Investigator-Initiated Phase 1 Trial (“IIT”) to be conducted by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and funded by The Lustgarten Foundation for Neoadjuvant ELI-002 7P in PDAC. The multi-center IIT will evaluate mFOLFIRINOX in combination with ELI-002 7P, with or without anti–PD-1 antibody. The study is designed to enroll 20 patients across two cohorts (10 per arm). Due to low immune infiltration, PDAC is often refractory to standard immunotherapy. ELI-002 7P has shown to generate robust T-cell responses in our prior Phase 1 trials and our ongoing Phase 2 trial. ELI-002 7P may be able to change "cold" PDAC tumors into "hot" tumors, making them susceptible to checkpoint inhibitors. The trial intends to examine the combination of mFOLFIRINOX and ELI-002 7P (with/without anti-PD-1) to measure safety, efficacy, and immune response mechanism. The trial is expected to commence in the first half of 2026.

ELI-007: AMP Immunotherapy for mutant BRAF-driven Cancers

ELI-007 is a multivalent lymph node–targeted AMP peptide immunotherapy developed to target 95% of the BRAF gene mutations found in solid tumors. The BRAF gene is part of an intracellular signaling pathway that drives cell growth and division. BRAF mutations can lead to uncontrolled cell growth and are present in multiple types of cancer, including 40% in melanoma, 9% in CRC, and 2% in lung cancer. High levels of BRAF protein expression in these tumors suggest susceptibility to T cells targeting the mutated protein. We received funding for the initial development of ELI-007 through three grants from the Gastro-Intestinal (“GI”) Research Foundation.

At the November 2023 SITC annual meeting, we presented preclinical data demonstrating ELI-007’s generation of robust mutant BRAF-specific polyfunctional T cell responses in a murine model. We are currently evaluating opportunities to advance ELI-007 through partnerships, collaborations or additional grants.

ELI-008: AMP Immunotherapy for mutant TP53-expressing Cancers

ELI-008 is a multivalent lymph node–targeted AMP peptide immunotherapy developed to target TP53 hotspot mutations. TP53 is a tumor-suppressing protein that controls DNA replication processes where mutated TP53 protein contributes to uncontrolled cell growth and tumor progression. We designed ELI-008 to target ~30% of the TP53 hotspot mutations found in solid tumor cancers including melanoma, CRC, and NSCLC. We received funding for the initial development of ELI-008 through three grants from the GI Research Foundation.

At the November 2023 SITC annual meeting, we presented preclinical data demonstrating ELI-008’s generation of robust mutant TP53-specific polyfunctional T cell responses in a murine model. We are currently evaluating opportunities to advance ELI-008 through partnerships, collaborations or additional grants.

AMP Platform Potential Expansion

Our AMP platform has broad potential applications for the treatment or prevention of cancer and other diseases. These other applications include immune cell therapy AMP-lifiers for CAR T cell therapeutics and TCR T cell therapeutics. We intend to advance additional applications of the AMP platform via out-licensing, co-development, or other partnership arrangements.

TCR T Cell Therapy Preclinical Data

In January 2024, data from preclinical studies was published in Cancer Immunology Research demonstrating our AMP immunotherapy in combination with TCR-T cell therapy led to complete eradication and durable responses against established murine solid tumors refractory to TCR-T cell monotherapy. Our AMP immunotherapy led to enhanced lymph node delivery and correlated with pro-inflammatory lymph node transcriptional reprogramming and increased antigen-presenting cell maturation, resulting in TCR-T cell expansion and functional enhancement. Addition of AMP immunotherapy enhanced the infiltration and function of TCR-T cells in the tumor microenvironment and led to antigen spreading against diverse tumor targets. We are currently evaluating opportunities to advance our AMP immunotherapy application to TCR-T cell therapy through partnerships or collaborations.

CAR T Cell Targeting Preclinical Data

Our AMP platform has the potential to be utilized as a mechanism to expand and functionally enhance CAR-T cells in vivo targeting blood and solid tumors. Preclinical results demonstrating this strategy were published in Science in 2019, Cell in 2023, and Nature Biomedical Engineering in 2025, highlighting the potential for AMP-conjugated CAR-binding ligands to expand and enhance the functional qualities of CAR-T cells in vivo, resulting in improved anti-tumor activity. AMP immunotherapies were found to specifically enhance aspects of CAR-T cell metabolism, polyfunctionality, and solid tumor infiltration, contributing to eradication of model tumors refractory to CAR-T monotherapy. Further, combination of CAR-T with AMP immunotherapy elicited antigen spreading T cell responses promoting improved activity against tumors with heterogenous expression of the CAR-targeted tumor antigen. This strategy has further been applied to develop AMP-ligands for combination with commercial FMC63-based anti-CD19 CAR-T products. We are currently evaluating opportunities to advance our AMP immunotherapy application to CAR-T cell therapy for oncology and other indications, through partnerships or collaborations.

AMP-ImmunoModulator (“AIM”) Preclinical Data

In November 2025, data from preclinical studies was presented at the SITC Annual Meeting which demonstrates that intratumoral AIM administration of Amph-CpG-7909 controls tumor growth and eradicates syngeneic solid tumors with subsequent durable protection against tumor rechallenge. AIM Therapy is designed to be an off-the-shelf therapy with the potential to treat various tumors in an antigen-agnostic manner. In the presented preclinical studies, tumor growth inhibition was critically dependent on CD8+ T cell responses and complete tumor eradication was further dependent on the development of systemic immunity induced in the lymph nodes. We are currently evaluating opportunities to advance our AIM Therapy application through partnerships or collaborations.

Licensing, Collaboration and Partnership Agreements

MIT License Agreement

On January 27, 2016, we entered into an Exclusive Patent License Agreement with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), which has been amended from time to time (the “MIT License Agreement”). Pursuant to the MIT License Agreement, we were granted an exclusive, worldwide license, with the right to sublicense, under certain patents and patent applications owned by MIT related to the AMP technology (the “MIT patent rights”) for the treatment of diseases, disorders and/or conditions in humans and animals and for diagnostic applications for human and veterinary use. The MIT patent rights cover vaccine product candidates in our current lead programs that are being developed for the treatment of certain mutant KRAS-driven cancers, mutant b-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (“BRAF”)-driven cancers, and mutated tumor protein p53 (“TP53”)-expressing cancers, and vaccine product candidates targeting certain other proteins that are drivers of disease, as well as programs using CpG as an adjuvant for immune activation in conjunction with an immunostimulatory agent.

The MIT License Agreement established annual license payment obligations and intellectual property cost reimbursement obligations for which we are responsible, specific product categories (including immunotherapeutic products and adjuvant products) for which we are required to invest specified minimum amounts of research funding and the timing of such investment, specified development and commercialization milestone obligations, and payments due with respect to the achievement of these milestones. On October 21, 2016, the MIT License Agreement was amended to update language around patent rights and MIT procedures. On February 22, 2018, the MIT License Agreement was amended to extend certain diligence dates. On each of January 31, 2019, June 23, 2020 and January 7, 2021, the MIT License Agreement was amended to add certain patent applications owned by MIT and include an additional fee, updates to patent application fees and to annual license maintenance fees. The amendments on June 23, 2020 and January 7, 2021 also adjusted milestones and diligence requirements under the MIT License Agreement.

Under the terms of the MIT License Agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable diligent efforts to develop products covered by the MIT patent rights, to introduce such products into the commercial market, and thereafter to make such products reasonably available to the public. In addition, we are obligated to achieve specified development and commercial launch objectives in accordance with a specified timeline as well as to expend specified resources in the development and commercialization of immunotherapeutic products and adjuvant products.

We are obligated to pay an annual license maintenance fee, which can be credited against royalties paid to MIT during the same calendar year. Such annual license maintenance fee is subject to increase in the event of a “change in ownership” as defined in the MIT License Agreement. We are also obligated to make milestone payments upon the occurrence of specific development and commercialization achievements during the term of the MIT License Agreement, including those relating to the making of certain regulatory filings, the initiation of certain clinical trials and the achievement of certain sales thresholds. The achievement of each milestone triggers the payment of a set dollar amount to MIT by us. These milestone payments could, in the aggregate, reach a maximum of approximately $26.2 million if all milestone events are achieved for all product categories.

We are also obligated to make royalty payments based on net sales by us, our affiliates, and our sublicensees equal to (i) a fractional to low single digit percentage of net sales of products that are covered by the MIT patent rights and (ii) a fractional percentage of net sales of products that could not have been identified, selected, or determined to have biological activity but for the use or modification of products that are covered by the MIT patent rights. These royalty rates are subject to an upward

adjustment if we or a sublicensee commence an action against MIT to declare or render invalid or unenforceable any of the licensed patent rights; and the amount of royalties payable to MIT are subject to a downward adjustment if we are required to secure certain patent licenses from third parties to avoid infringement by the practice of the licensed patent rights. These royalties are payable (1) until the expiration of the last to expire of the MIT patent rights with respect to products that are covered by the MIT patent rights and (2) for 12 years following the first commercial sale of products that could not have been identified, selected, or determined to have biological activity but for the use or modification of products that are covered by the MIT patent rights.

We are also obligated to pay a percentage of any revenue that we, our affiliates, or our sublicensees receive for the provision of services using products covered by the MIT patent rights or services that utilize a process that are covered by the MIT patent rights (a “licensed process”). We are also obligated to pay a percentage of any payments we or our affiliates receive from sublicenses, with certain exceptions. We are also required to share a portion of any funds we or a sublicensee receives in respect of the sale of a regulatory voucher if one is granted by any regulatory authority based upon the regulatory approval of a product or process subject to the MIT License Agreement for the treatment of a neglected disease.

MIT controls the prosecution and maintenance of the MIT patent rights, and we are required to pay all costs and fees associated with patent prosecution and maintenance of the MIT patent rights.

The term of the MIT License Agreement will continue in effect until the expiration or abandonment of all issued patents and filed patent applications within the MIT patent rights, unless earlier terminated. MIT may terminate the MIT License Agreement upon our uncured material breach of the MIT License Agreement or upon the occurrence of certain events, including if we or a sublicensee commence an action against MIT to declare or render invalid or unenforceable any of the licensed patent rights, or if we cease to carry on our business related to the MIT License Agreement. We may terminate the MIT License Agreement without cause upon six months’ prior written notice to MIT and upon payment of all amounts due MIT through the date such termination takes effect.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is of vital importance in our field and in biotechnology generally. We seek to protect and enhance proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business by seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We will also seek to rely on regulatory protection afforded through inclusion in expedited development and review, data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.

We have sought patent protection in the United States and internationally related to the AMP platform technology as well as the mKRAS, universal adjuvant, mutant serine/threonine-protein kinase BRAF, and mutant TP53 programs. We have issued patents in Australia, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Macau, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Ukraine, and the United States covering clinical product candidates but the patent portfolio owned by us currently largely comprises pending applications. Such applications may not result in issued patents and, even if patents do issue, such patents may not be in a form or scope that will provide us with meaningful protection for our product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets that may be important to the development of our business. Trade secrets are difficult to protect and provide us with only limited protection, as trade secrets do not protect against independent development of a technology by third parties.

We expect to file additional patent applications in support of current and new clinical candidates as well as new platform and core technologies. Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection of current and future product candidates and the methods used to develop and manufacture them, as well as successfully defending any such patents against third-party challenges and operating without infringing on the proprietary rights of others. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates will depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. We cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our product candidates, discovery programs and processes.

The terms of individual patents depend upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in examining and granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier to expire patent. In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for extension, which permits patent term restoration to account for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the subject drug candidate is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug are available in Europe and other

foreign jurisdictions. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any issued patent we may obtain in any jurisdiction where such patent term extensions are available, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment that such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

In some instances, we have submitted and expect to submit patent applications directly to the USPTO as provisional patent applications. Corresponding non-provisional patent applications must be filed not later than 12 months after the provisional application’s filing date. While we intend to timely file non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether any such non-provisional patent applications will result in the issuance of patents that provide us with any competitive advantage.

We file U.S. non-provisional applications and Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications that claim the benefit of the priority date of earlier filed provisional applications, when applicable. The PCT system allows a single application to be filed within 12 months of the original priority date of the patent application, and to designate all of the PCT member states in which national patent applications can later be pursued based on the international patent application filed under the PCT. A PCT searching authority performs a patentability search and issues a non-binding patentability opinion which can be used to evaluate the chances of success for the national applications in foreign countries prior to having to incur the filing fees. Although a PCT application does not issue as a patent, it allows the applicant to seek protection in any of the PCT member states through national-phase applications. At the end of the period of two and a half years from the first priority date of the patent application, separate patent applications can be pursued in any of the PCT member states either by direct national filing or, in some cases by filing through a regional patent organization, such as the European Patent Office. The PCT system delays expenses, allows a limited evaluation of the chances of success for national/regional patent applications and enables substantial savings where applications are abandoned within the first two and a half years of filing.

For all patent applications, we determine claiming strategy on a case-by-case basis. Advice of counsel and our business model and needs are always considered. We seek to file patents containing claims for protection of all useful applications of our proprietary technologies and any products, as well as all new applications and/or uses that we discover for existing technologies and products, assuming these are strategically valuable. We continuously reassess the number and type of patent applications, as well as the pending and issued patent claims to pursue maximum coverage and value for our processes, and compositions, given existing patent office rules and regulations. Further, claims may be modified during patent prosecution to meet our intellectual property and business needs.

We recognize that the ability to obtain patent protection and the degree of such protection depends on a number of factors, including, at least, the extent of the prior art, the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention, and the ability to satisfy the enablement requirement of the patent laws. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted or further altered even after patent issuance. Consequently, we may not obtain or maintain adequate patent protection for any of our future product candidates or for our technology platform. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secrets, know how, other proprietary information and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturing organizations, sponsored researchers, advisors, and other third parties to execute confidentiality agreements no later than the commencement of employment, consulting, or service relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. Our agreements with employees also provide that all inventions conceived by the employee in the course of employment with us or from the employee’s use of our confidential information are our exclusive property. In the case of consultants and other third-party service providers, the agreements provide us with certain rights to all inventions arising from the services provided to us by those individuals or entities. However, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technologies and processes. Additionally, such confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements can be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting trade secrets, know-how and inventions.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. Third-party patents could require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, or our products or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or our failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights required to develop or commercialize our future products may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. For more information, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

When available to expand market exclusivity, our strategy is to obtain, or license additional intellectual property related to current or contemplated development platforms, core elements of technology and/or product candidates.

Company-owned Intellectual Property

We own the following patent families and applications:

We have two issued U.S. patents and pending U.S. and Canadian patent applications titled “ALK polypeptides and methods of use thereof”, which are related to our products in development for tumor indications where rearranged ALK is a driver of disease.

We also have a patent family titled “Compounds including a mutant KRAS sequence and a lipid and uses thereof” with granted patents in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Macau, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States and pending applications in the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Thailand, Ukraine, and South Africa. This patent family relates to our products in development for tumor indications where mutant KRAS is a driver of disease.

We also have a patent family titled “CpG amphiphiles and uses thereof” with granted patents in Australia, Europe, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Ukraine, and the United States and pending applications in the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and South Africa. This patent family relates to our products in development for tumor indications where expression of human papillomavirus protein(s) is a driver of disease.

We also have a patent family titled “Compositions and methods for inducing an immune response against coronavirus” with pending applications in the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Mexico. This patent family relates to the use of our AMP technology, including products in development, in methods of inducing an immune response against coronavirus.

We also have a patent family titled “Uses of amphiphiles in immune cell therapy and compositions therefor” with pending applications in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, and New Zealand. This application relates to the use of our AMP technology, including products in development, in immune cell therapy.

We also have a patent family titled “Compositions containing polynucleotide amphiphiles and methods of use thereof” with pending applications in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, and New Zealand. This application relates to aspects of our AMP technology platform.

We also have a patent family titled “Compositions containing polynucleotide and polypeptide amphiphiles and methods of use thereof” with pending applications in the United States, Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand. This patent family relates to aspects of our AMP technology platform.

We also have a patent family titled “Compositions containing mutant P53 peptide amphiphiles and methods of use thereof” with pending applications in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Russia. This patent family relates to aspects of our AMP technology platform.

We also have a pending U.S. provisional application titled “Combination therapies for treating mutant KRAS expressing cancers.” This application relates to treatments using ELI-002.

We have sole ownership of the above patents and patent applications. For these patents and for any patents granted on the pending applications, we anticipate that patent expiration would occur between 2037 and 2046 without taking into consideration patent term adjustments or extensions.

We also have a pending U.S. application titled “Uses of amphiphiles in immune cell therapy and compositions therefor.” This application relates to aspects of our AMP technology platform in connection with immune cell therapy. This application is co-owned with the University of Pennsylvania. If we are granted patents on this pending application, it is anticipated that patent expiration would occur in 2043 without taking into consideration patent term adjustments or extensions.

We also have a patent family titled “Compositions containing BRAF peptide amphiphiles and methods of use thereof” with pending applications in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Russia. This patent family relates to aspects of our AMP technology platform. This patent family is co-owned with Cornell University. If we are granted patents on pending applications in this patent family, it is anticipated that patent expiration would occur in 2044 without taking into consideration patent term adjustments or extensions.

Licensed Intellectual Property

We have an exclusive license from MIT for six patent families related to aspects of our AMP technology platform:

•“Immunostimulatory compositions and methods of use thereof”, which contains four patents granted in the United States, patents granted in Europe, Hong Kong, and Japan, as well as pending applications in the United States, Europe, Hong Kong, and Japan. This patent family relates to aspects of our AMP platform technology;

•“Albumin binding peptide conjugates and methods thereof,” which contains two patents granted in the United States, as well as pending applications in China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Europe. This patent family relates to certain additional aspects of our AMP platform technology;

•“Chimeric antigen receptor-targeting ligands and uses thereof” with a patent granted in the United States as well as a pending application in the United States. This patent family relates to further aspects of our AMP platform technology;

•“Compositions for chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy and uses thereof” which contains patents granted in Australia, Japan, Mexico, and Russia, as well as pending applications in the United States, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and New Zealand. This patent family relates to the use of our AMP platform technology in connection with CAR T therapy;

•“Uses of amphiphiles in immune cell therapy and compositions therefor” which contains a patent granted in the United States as well as pending applications in Europe, Hong Kong, and Japan. This patent family relates to use of our AMP platform technology in connection with immune cell therapy; and

•“Methods for identifying chimeric antigen receptor-targeting ligands and uses thereof” with a pending application in the United States. This patent family relates to methods of identifying further ligands for use in our AMP platform technology.

For these patents and for any patents granted on the pending applications, we anticipate patent expiration to occur between 2033 and 2041, without taking into consideration patent term adjustments or extensions.

We also have an exclusive license from Dr. Roberto Chiarle for a patent family titled “Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) as oncoantigen for lymphoma vaccination,” which contains two granted U.S. patents. This patent family relates to ALK antigen sequences that may be used in connection with our AMP platform technology. We anticipate patent expiration to occur in 2028 and 2031 without taking into consideration patent term extension.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate facilities for clinical drug manufacturing, storage, distribution or quality testing. Currently, all of our clinical manufacturing is outsourced to third-party contract manufacturing organizations. We currently obtain our supplies from these manufacturers on a purchase order basis and do not have long-term committed supply arrangements with respect to our product candidates and other materials. Our product candidates are manufactured using reliable and reproducible synthetic processes from readily available starting materials and are based on chemistry that is amenable to scale up. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost effectively at contract manufacturing facilities. See "Risk Factors — We rely on CMOs to manufacture our nonclinical and clinical pharmaceutical supplies and expect to continue to rely on CMOs to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidate, and our dependence on CMOs could adversely impact our business.”

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition, and strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe our technology, expertise, scientific knowledge, and intellectual property estate provide competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization. In addition, many small biotechnology companies have formed collaborations with large, established companies to (i) obtain support for their research, development and commercialization of products or (ii) combine several treatment approaches to develop longer lasting or more efficacious treatments that may directly compete with our current or future product candidates. We anticipate that we will continue to face increasing competition as new therapies and combinations thereof, technologies, and data emerge within the field of immunotherapy and, furthermore, within the treatment of cancer.

In addition to the current standard of care treatments for patients, numerous commercial and academic preclinical studies and clinical trials are being undertaken by many parties to assess novel technologies and product candidates in the field of immunotherapy. In the treatment of mKRAS associated cancers there are two approved therapies for NSCLC, Amgen Inc.’s

(“Amgen”) LUMAKRAS and Mirati Therapeutics, Inc.’s, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb Co. (“Mirati”), KRAZATI, both of which are for a single KRAS mutation. Other companies who are developing clinical stage personalized cancer immunotherapy, vaccine therapies or mKRAS-targeted therapies include AstraZeneca Plc (“AstraZeneca”), BioNTech SE (“BioNTech”), BridgeBio Oncology Therapeutics (“BridgeBio”), Boehringer Ingelheim (“Boehringer”), Bristol Myers Squibb Co. (“Bristol Myers”), Circio Holding ASA (“Circio”), D3 Bio, Inc. (“D3 Bio”), Eli Lilly & Co., Inc. (“Eli Lilly”), Erasca, Inc. (“Erasca”), Geneos Therapeutics, Inc. (“Geneos”), Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”), Incyte Corporation (“Incyte”), Jacobio Pharma (“Jacobio”), Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu”), Merck & Co. (“Merck”), Moderna, Inc. (“Moderna”), Roche Holding Ltd. (”Roche”)/Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”), Revolution Medicines, Inc. (“Revolution Medicines”), and Verastem, Inc. (“Verastem”), among others.

Many of our competitors, either alone or in combination with their respective strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, the regulatory approval process, and marketing than we do. Mergers and acquisition activity in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, and biotechnology sector is likely to result in greater resource concentration among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through sizeable collaborative arrangements with established companies. These competitors also compete with us in the recruiting and retaining of qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, better tolerated, or of greater convenience or economic benefit than any products we may develop. Our competitors also may be in a position to obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly, resulting in a stronger or dominant market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be product safety, efficacy, convenience and treatment cost.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Governmental authorities in the United States, at the federal, state, and local level, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, approval, manufacturing, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import, and export of biopharmaceutical products. In addition, sponsors of biopharmaceutical products participating in Medicaid, Medicare, and other government health care programs are required to comply with mandatory price reporting, discount, and rebate requirements. We, along with our 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. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

FDA Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the Public Health Services Act (“PHSA”), and their implementing regulations. The FDA further has issued a growing body of guidance documents, which, while not binding, provide the agency’s current interpretation of its statutes and regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending biologics license applications (“BLAs”) or the FDA’s issuance of warning letters, or the imposition of fines, civil penalties, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions and/or criminal prosecution brought by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) or other governmental entities.

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

•completion of preclinical (or non-clinical) laboratory tests and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice (“GLP”) regulations;

•submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin at United States clinical trial sites;

•approval by an institutional review board (“IRB”) for each clinical site before each site can be activated for trial participation;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the product candidate’s safety, purity, potency, and efficacy for its intended use, performed in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) as well as IND regulations and other clinical-trial related regulations;

•development of manufacturing processes and controls to ensure the product candidate’s identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency in compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) regulations;

•submission to the FDA of a BLA;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-license (or pre-approval) inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP regulations and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s continued identity, strength, quality and purity for a drug and safety, purity and potency for a biologic;

•review of the product by an FDA advisory committee where appropriate or applicable, as determined by the FDA in its sole discretion; and

•FDA review and approval of the BLA to permit commercial marketing for particular indications for use.

Preclinical Studies and IND Submission

The testing and approval process of product candidates requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or target indication. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity, and product formulation, and may involve in vitro testing or in vivo animal studies to assess the potential for toxicity, adverse events, and other safety characteristics of the product candidate, and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. Such studies must generally be conducted in accordance with FDA GLP regulations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, signed into law on December 29, 2022, (P.L. 117-328) amended the FDCA and the PHSA to specify that non-clinical testing for drugs and biologics may, but is not required to, include in vivo animal studies. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill non-clinical testing requirements by completing various in vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems), in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or nonhuman biology-based tests (e.g., bioprinting), or in vivo animal studies.

Prior to commencing the first clinical trial at a U.S. investigational site with a product candidate, an IND sponsor must submit the results of the non-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or relevant scientific literature (including data from clinical trials conducted outside of the United States), and proposed clinical study protocols among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request from a clinical study sponsor to obtain authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug or biological product to humans in accordance with a specific clinical trial protocol. Some long-term non-clinical testing to further establish the safety profile of the product candidate, as well as manufacturing process development and product quality evaluation, may continue after the IND is submitted.

An IND goes into effect upon notification by the FDA or automatically 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30–day-time period, notifies the sponsor of safety concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve all outstanding concerns or questions posed by the FDA before the clinical trial can begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance with applicable regulations. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with federal regulations and GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial, as well as review and approval of the trial by an IRB. Investigators must also provide certain information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make certain financial disclosures to the FDA. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the trial procedures, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A statistical analysis plan will be prepared for analysis of the data collected. A protocol for each clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB for each site participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol (initial and amendments) for any clinical trial, informed consent forms, and communications and documents provided to trial subjects before a trial commences and for the duration of the trial at that site. An IRB considers, among other things, whether the risks to individuals participating in the trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, and whether the planned human subject protections are adequate. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted. If a product candidate is being investigated for multiple intended indications, separate INDs may also be required. Status reports summarizing the progress of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions occur, findings from other studies suggest a significant risk to humans exposed to the investigational product, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or other significant safety information is found.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions on various grounds, including if the agency believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial subjects. An IRB may also require performance of the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements or if the trial poses unexpected serious harm to subjects. The FDA or an IRB may also impose conditions on the conduct of a

clinical trial. Clinical trial sponsors may also choose to discontinue clinical trials as a result of risks to subjects, a lack of favorable results, or changing business priorities. Some clinical trials also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee (“DMC”) which provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on review of certain data from the trial, to which the DMC has access, and may recommend halting the trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or on other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy.

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products generally must register and disclose certain clinical trial information to a public registry maintained by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”). In particular, information related to the investigational product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial site locations and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results may be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the primary endpoint of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Final Rule and NIH’s complementary policy on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and the government has brought enforcement actions against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. Sponsors or distributors of investigational products for the diagnosis, monitoring, or treatment of one or more serious diseases or conditions must also have a publicly available policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access requests.

The manufacture of investigational biologics for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational biologics and their therapeutic substances that are imported into the United States are also subject to regulation by the FDA. Further, the export of investigational products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FDCA.

In general, for purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined.

•Phase 1—The product candidate is initially administered to healthy human volunteers and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, structure-activity relationships, mechanism of action, absorption, metabolism, distribution, and excretion. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to administer ethically to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients with the target disease or condition. If possible, Phase 1 trials may also be used to gain an initial indication of product effectiveness.

•Phase 2—Studies are conducted in limited subject populations with a specified disease or condition to evaluate preliminary efficacy, identify optimal dosages, dosage tolerance and schedule, possible adverse effects and safety risks, and expanded evidence of safety. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more extensive clinical trials.

•Phase 3—Clinical trials are undertaken with larger subject populations, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to generate sufficient data to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and safety of the product candidate, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product candidate, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product candidate. Typically, two adequate, well-controlled trials are required by the FDA for biological product approval. Under some limited circumstances, however, the FDA may approve a BLA based upon a single clinical trial plus confirmatory evidence from a post-market trial or, alternatively, a single large, robust, well-controlled multicenter trial without confirmatory evidence.

Additional kinds of data may also help to support a BLA, such as patient experience and real-world data. For appropriate indications sought through supplemental BLAs, data summaries may provide marketing application support. For genetically targeted products and variant protein targeted products intended to address an unmet medical need in one or more patient subgroups with a serious or life threatening rare disease or condition, the FDA may allow a sponsor to rely upon data and information previously developed by the sponsor or for which the sponsor has a right of reference, that was submitted previously to support an approved application for a product that incorporates or utilizes the same or similar genetically targeted technology or a product that is the same or utilizes the same variant protein targeted therapeutic agent as the product that is the subject of the application.

The FDA may also require, or companies may voluntarily conduct, additional clinical trials for the same indication after a product is approved. These post-approval trials, generally referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 trials as a condition of approval of a BLA. The results of Phase 4 studies can confirm or refute the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional non-clinical studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must

be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, manufacturers must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity of the final product. 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.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the FDCA to require sponsors of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new medical product to support marketing authorization, to submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. A sponsor must submit a diversity action plan to FDA by the time the sponsor submits the trial protocol to the agency for review. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. If the FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan and requires the sponsor to amend the plan or take other actions, it may delay trial initiation.

Marketing Application Submission, Review by the FDA, and Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical and preclinical testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, including chemistry, manufacture, and controls information, non-clinical studies, and clinical trial results, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are all submitted to the FDA, along with the proposed commercial product labeling, as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. A BLA must contain sufficient evidence of the biological product candidate’s safety, purity, potency and efficacy for its proposed indication or indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended (“PDUFA”), each BLA submission is subject to a substantial application user fee, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. The application user fee must be paid at the time of the first submission of the application, even if the application is being submitted on a rolling basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Product candidates that are designated as orphan products are also not subject to application user fees, unless the application also includes a non-orphan indication.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen, or route of administration, must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 clinical trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early-phase clinical trials or other clinical development programs. Orphan products are exempt from the PREA requirements.

The FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 introduced a provision regarding required pediatric studies. Under this statute, for product candidates intended for the treatment of adult cancer which are directed at molecular targets that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of pediatric cancer, original application sponsors must submit, with the marketing application, reports from molecularly targeted pediatric cancer investigations designed to yield clinically meaningful pediatric study data, gathered using appropriate formulations for each applicable age group, to inform potential pediatric labeling. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals or waivers of some or all of this data, as above. Unlike PREA, orphan products are not exempt from this requirement.

The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product candidate outweigh the risks and to assure safe use of the biological product. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe and effective use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required. An assessment of the REMS must also be conducted at set intervals. Following product

approval, a REMS may also be required by the FDA if new safety information is discovered and the FDA determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.

Once the FDA receives a marketing application for a biologic, it has 60 days to review the BLA to determine if it is substantially complete to permit a substantive review, before it accepts the application for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review.

Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has set the review goal of completing its review of 90% of BLAs within 10 months of the filing date for a standard application and within six months of the filing date for an application with priority review. For all original BLAs, the 10 and six-month time periods run from the filing date; for all other submissions, including resubmissions, efficacy supplements and other supplements, the FDA’s stated review time periods, ranging from two to 10 months, run from the submission date. This review goal is referred to as the PDUFA date. The PDUFA date is only a goal, and it is not uncommon for FDA review of a BLA to extend beyond the PDUFA date. The review process and the PDUFA date may also be extended if the FDA requests, or the sponsor otherwise provides, substantial additional information or clarification regarding the submission.

The FDA may also refer certain applications to an advisory committee. Before approving a product candidate for which no active ingredient has previously been approved by the FDA, the FDA must either refer that product candidate to an external advisory committee or provide in an action letter a summary of the reasons why the FDA did not refer the product candidate to an advisory committee. The FDA may also refer other product candidates to an advisory committee if FDA believes that the advisory committee’s expertise would be beneficial. An advisory committee is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, who review, evaluate, and make a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making product approval decisions.

The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate meets the agency’s approval standards, such as whether the application includes sufficient evidence that the product candidate is safe and effective for the proposed indications, and whether the manufacturing methods and controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity. As part of its review, the FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. Before approving a marketing application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured, referred to as a pre-license (or pre-approval) inspection. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities, including contract manufacturers and subcontractors, are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a marketing application the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with applicable IND trial requirements and GCP. To assure cGMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

After evaluating the marketing application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”). A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form, and it describes all of the specific deficiencies that the FDA identified. A CRL generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the marketing application and may require additional clinical or non-clinical testing for the FDA to reconsider the application. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes; or major, for example, requiring additional Phase 3 clinical trials. In September 2025, the FDA began publishing CRLs soon after issuing them to the respective sponsors, breaking with long standing agency tradition of publishing CRLs with approval documentation after the product is approved. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either: resubmit the marketing application, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter; withdraw the application; or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA’s goal is to review 90% of application resubmissions in either two or six months of the resubmission date, depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications or populations for use of the product; require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a boxed warning; require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety and efficacy after approval; require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization; or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA also may not approve label statements that are necessary for successful commercialization and marketing or may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs.

After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. The FDA may also withdraw the product approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. Further, should new safety information arise, additional testing, product labeling, or FDA notification may be required.

Patent Term Restoration

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our biological product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension. These patent term extensions permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for any patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND, and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension, and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The USPTO in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. To date, a number of biosimilars have been licensed under the BPCIA, and numerous biosimilars have been approved in Europe. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach for the review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be demonstrated through analytical studies, animal studies, and for some biosimiliar products, clinical trials. There must be no difference between the reference product and a biosimilar in mechanism of action, conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, and strength. A biosimilar product may be deemed interchangeable with the reference product if it meets the higher hurdle of demonstrating that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products 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 without such alternation or switching. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. The FDA approved the first interchangeable biosimilars, including an interchangeable monoclonal antibody biosimilar, in 2021.

A reference biologic is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the first approved interchangeable biological product will be granted an exclusivity period of up to one year after it is first commercially marketed. However, certain changes and supplements to an approved BLA, and subsequent applications filed by the same sponsor, manufacturer, licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity do not qualify for the 12-year exclusivity period. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the PHSA in order to permit multiple interchangeable products approved on the same day to receive and benefit from the one-year exclusivity period. If pediatric studies are performed and accepted by the FDA as responsive to a written request, the 12-year exclusivity period will be extended for an additional six months. In addition, the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a supplement for the reference product for a subsequent application filed by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the reference product (or licensor, predecessor in interest or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device, or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact and implementation of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather,

if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies.

Orphan Product Designation and Exclusivity

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of products for rare diseases or conditions. Specifically, sponsors may apply for and receive Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) if a product candidate is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition affecting less than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or affecting more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States will be recovered from United States sales. Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain ODD if there is a product already approved by the FDA that that is considered by the FDA to be the same as the already approved product and is intended for the same indication. This hypothesis for clinical superiority must be demonstrated to obtain orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a marketing application for the product candidate and does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. If granted, ODD entitles the applicant to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical study costs, tax advantages, and certain user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants ODD, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use will be disclosed publicly by the FDA; the posting will also indicate whether the drug or biologic is no longer designated as an orphan product. More than one product candidate may receive an orphan designation for the same indication.

If a product candidate receives FDA approval for the indication for which it has ODD, the product is generally entitled to orphan exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market a product containing the same active moiety for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity. A product is clinically superior if it is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Thus, orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of one of our potential products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same orphan indication and we are not able to show the clinical superiority of our product candidate. In addition, the FDA will not recognize orphan drug exclusivity if a sponsor fails to demonstrate upon approval that the product is clinically superior to a previously approved product containing the same active moiety for the same orphan condition, regardless of whether or not the previously approved product was designated an orphan drug or had orphan drug exclusivity. A product that has received ODD may not receive orphan exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received the designation. Orphan exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biological product for the same disease or condition, or the same product for a different disease or condition. In addition, orphan drug 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.

The FDA’s approach to determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity has been challenged in court, but at this time, the agency continues to apply its long-standing interpretation of the governing regulations and has stated that it does not plan to change any orphan drug implementing regulations.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs or present a significant improvement over existing therapy. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and priority review designation.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product candidate is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. In addition, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a marketing application before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the submission of the application sections and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. In some cases, a product with fast track designation may be eligible for accelerated approval or priority review if the relevant criteria are met. The FDA may rescind, or the sponsor may forfeit, fast track designation if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging from the clinical trial process.

Under the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”) enacted in 2012, a sponsor may request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drug or biologic, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects

observed early in clinical development. Products designated as breakthrough therapies are eligible for the same benefits described above for fast track designation, as well as intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1 trials, and a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative and cross-disciplinary review. Drugs or biologics designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval of their respective marketing applications.

The FDA may grant priority review designation to product candidates that are intended to treat serious conditions and, if approved, would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness over existing therapies. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug or biologic represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from 10 months to six months for an original application from the date of filing.

In 2025, the FDA created a new voucher program called the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher (“CNPV”) with the goal of radically expediting the drug and biological product review and approval process. The agency may award a CNPV to a company or a specific product candidate that demonstrates alignment with certain national health priorities. The FDA aims to take action on a marketing application for which a CNPV is used within one to two months after the filing date.

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. Furthermore, none of these programs changes the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Accelerated Approval

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval from the FDA and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a drug or biologic when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”) and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA will require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs and biologics granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug or biologic, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval when the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate long-term clinical benefit of a drug or biologic.

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

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to establish the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw approval of the drug or biologic. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided the FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs or biologics previously being considered for accelerated approval. Under the act’s amendments to the FDCA, the FDA may require the sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on

a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports are published on the FDA’s website. The amendments also give the FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product.

All promotional materials for product candidates being considered and approved under the accelerated approval program are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Post-approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, periodic reporting requirements, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, as well as advertising and promotion requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as off-label uses), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the Internet.

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 of a new BLA or a supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional non-clinical studies and clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals, including the requirement for a REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products.

In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the quality and long-term stability of the product. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our product candidates must meet cGMP requirements and satisfy the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities before any product is approved and our commercial products can be manufactured. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These third-party manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers, and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control, facilities, equipment and personnel to maintain cGMP compliance. Future inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, the discovery of conditions that violate these rules, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, voluntary recall and regulatory sanctions as described further below.

The FDA also strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. A company can make only those claims relating to a product that are approved by the FDA. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgment, may prescribe legally available products for unapproved indications that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Biopharmaceutical companies, however, are required to promote their products only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including, but not limited to, criminal and civil penalties under the FDCA and False Claims Act, exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, mandatory compliance programs under corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts.

Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (“DSCSA”) was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA imposes phased-in and resource-intensive obligations on biopharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers related to product tracking and tracing over a 10-year period which culminated in November 2023. Among the requirements of this legislation, manufacturers are required to provide certain information regarding the products to wholesale distributors and dispensers to which product ownership is transferred, label products with a product identifier, and keep certain records regarding the product. A manufacturer must also verify that purchasers of the manufacturer’s products are appropriately licensed. Further, under this legislation, manufacturers have product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products that would result in serious adverse

health consequences of death to humans, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death. After an additional one-year stabilization period to give entities subject to the DSCSA additional time to finalize interoperable tracking systems and to ensure supply chain continuity, the applicable requirements under the DSCSA became fully enforceable as of November 27, 2024.

FDA’s post-market requirements are continuously evolving and additional requirements may apply. For instance, in March 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), which includes various provisions regarding FDA drug shortage reporting requirements, as well as provisions regarding supply chain security, such as risk management plan requirements, and the promotion of supply chain redundancy and domestic manufacturing. Any changes of law may require that we modify how we conduct our business and may require additional expenditure to ensure that we are in compliance.

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 significant regulatory actions. Such actions may include refusal to approve pending applications, product license or approval suspension or revocation, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, provision of corrective information, imposition of post-market requirements including the need for additional testing, imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, FDA debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, and adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

Additional Controls for Biologics

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. 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. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also 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, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

Fraud and Abuse, Data Privacy and Security, and Transparency Laws and Regulations

Although we currently do not have any products on the market, our business activities and current and future arrangements with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers may be subject to regulation and enforcement by numerous federal and state regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including potentially the DOJ, the Department of Health and Human Services and its various divisions, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and state and local governments. Our business activities must comply with numerous health care laws, including but not limited to, anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations as well as data privacy and security laws and regulations, which are described below, as well as state and federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which regulates, among other things, marketing practices, educational programs, pricing policies, and relationships with health care providers or other entities, prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order, or the referral to another for the furnishing or arranging for the furnishing of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health care programs, in whole or in part. The term “remuneration” has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between biopharmaceutical industry members on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. There are certain statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or 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 Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, 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. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal health care covered business, including purchases of products paid by federal health care programs, the statute has been violated. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (”ACA”) of 2010, as amended, also modified the intent requirement under the Anti-Kickback Statute to a stricter standard, such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA also provided that a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

The federal civil False Claims Act (“FCA”) prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. The FCA has been used to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, improper use of Medicare provider or supplier numbers when detailing a provider of services, improper promotion of off-label uses, and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to products, contract requirements, and services rendered. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the FCA. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the government or may be brought by private individuals on behalf of the government, called “qui tam” actions. If the government decides to intervene in a qui tam action and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any fines or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone. The FCA provides for treble damages and a civil penalty for each false claim, such as an invoice or pharmacy claim for reimbursement, which can aggregate into millions of dollars. For these reasons, since 2004, FCA lawsuits against biopharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements regarding certain sales practices and promoting off label uses. FCA liability may further be imposed for known Medicare or Medicaid overpayments, for example, overpayments caused by understated rebate amounts that are not refunded within 60 days of discovering the overpayment, even if the overpayment was not caused by a false or fraudulent act. In addition, conviction or civil judgment for violating the FCA may result in exclusion from federal health care programs, and suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts.

The government may further prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal False Claims Act. The criminal False Claims Act prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the False Claims Act, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim.

The civil monetary penalties statute is another potential statute under which biopharmaceutical companies may be subject to enforcement. Among other things, the civil monetary penalties statute imposes fines against any person who is determined to have knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, claims to a federal health care program that the person knows, or should know, is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) also created federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a health care benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, in connection with the delivery or payment for health care benefits, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, health care benefits, items, or services relating to health care matters. Additionally, the ACA amended the intent requirement of certain of these criminal statutes under HIPAA so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation.

Under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act and its implementing regulations, manufacturers of biologics for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) must make annual reports to CMS regarding payments and other transfers of value made to or at the request of covered recipients, such as, but not limited to, physicians, certain advanced non-physician health care providers, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family. Certain payments for clinical trials are included within the ambit of this law. CMS makes the reported information publicly available.

Further, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the “HITECH Act”) and its implementing regulations impose requirements on covered entities relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, known as protected health information. Among other things, the HITECH Act, through its implementing regulations, makes HIPAA’s security standards and certain privacy standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s

workforce, that creates, receives, maintains, or transmits protected health information on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA. The HITECH Act also strengthened the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates, and individuals, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. We are not a covered entity or a business associate under HIPAA, however, we are indirectly affected by HIPAA because the protected health information held by investigators conducting our clinical trials is subject to HIPAA and can only be used for our research consistent with HIPAA requirements imposed on those investigators.

In addition, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which took effect on January 1, 2020, and in 2020, California voters passed the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), which became effective as of January 1, 2023, and significantly amends the CCPA and imposes additional data protection obligations on companies doing business in California, in addition to establishing a new regulatory agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency.

Many states have also adopted fraud and abuse laws similar to each of the above federal laws, which may be broader in scope and apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers. Certain state laws also regulate sponsors’ use of prescriber-identifiable data. Certain states also require implementation of commercial compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments or the provision of other items of value that may be made to health care providers and other potential referral sources; impose restrictions on marketing practices; or require sponsors to track and report information related to payments, gifts, and other items of value to physicians and other health care providers. Furthermore, to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws requiring the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Recently, states have enacted or are considering legislation intended to make drug prices more transparent and deter significant price increases, typically as consumer protection laws. These laws may affect our future sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws or regulations described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties or other enforcement actions, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts and non-procurement transactions such as grants, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to health care professionals.

Coverage and Reimbursement Generally

The commercial success of our product candidates and our ability to commercialize any approved product candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental payor programs at the federal and state levels, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, and other third-party payors provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our product candidates. Government authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations generally decide which therapeutics they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels for health care. A growing trend in recent years is the containment of health care costs. Accordingly, governmental payors are increasingly trying to control therapeutic prices through reimbursement restrictions, rebates, mandatory discounts, and formulary restrictions, among other strategies.

Medicare is a federal health care program administered by the federal government that covers individuals aged 65 and over as well as individuals with certain disabilities. Drugs and biologics may be covered under one or more sections of Medicare depending on the nature of the product and the conditions associated with and site of administration. For example, under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which provide coverage for outpatient prescription drugs. Part D plans include both stand-alone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level.

Medicare Part B covers most injectable drugs and biologics given in an in-patient setting and some products administered by a licensed medical provider in hospital outpatient departments and doctors’ offices. Medicare Part B is administered by Medicare Administrative Contractors, which generally have the responsibility of making coverage decisions. Subject to certain

payment adjustments and limits, Medicare generally pays for a Part B-covered drug or biologic based on a percentage of manufacturer-reported Average Sales Price, which is regularly updated. We believe that our product candidates, which are intended to be administered by a health care professional in a clinical environment, will be subject to the Medicare Part B rules.

In the United States, the European Union, and other markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which often has resulted in average selling prices lower than they would otherwise be and sometimes at or below the provider’s acquisition cost. In the United States, it is also common for government and private health plans to use coverage determinations to leverage rebates from sponsors in order to reduce the plans’ net costs. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of health care services and products and lower the realization on sponsors’ sales of prescription therapeutics. Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling health care costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific therapeutic products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication or might impose high copayment amounts to influence patient choice. Third-party payors also control costs by requiring prior authorization or imposing other dispensing restrictions before covering certain products and by broadening therapeutic classes to increase competition. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. Absent clinical differentiators, third-party payors may treat products as therapeutically equivalent and base formulary decisions on net cost. To lower the prescription cost, sponsors frequently rebate a portion of the prescription price to the third-party payors. Recently, purchasers and third-party payors have begun to focus on value of new therapeutics and have sought agreements in which price is based on achievement of performance metrics.

Federal programs also impose price controls through mandatory ceiling prices on purchases by federal agencies and federally funded hospitals and clinics and mandatory rebates on retail pharmacy prescriptions covered by such programs. By example, payment or reimbursement of prescription therapeutics by Medicaid or Medicare requires sponsors to submit certified pricing information to CMS. The Medicaid Drug Rebate statute and state statutes require sponsors to calculate and report price points, which are used to determine mandatory rebate payments or negotiate supplemental rebate payments on both the state and federal level and Medicaid payment rates for certain therapeutics. For therapeutics paid under Medicare Part B, sponsors must also calculate and report their Average Sales Price, which is used to determine the Medicare Part B payment rate. Furthermore, as a condition of receiving Medicare Part B reimbursement for eligible drugs or biologicals, the manufacturer is required to participate in other government health care programs, including the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires biopharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services (“DHHS”) as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient therapeutic products furnished to Medicaid patients. Under the 340B Drug Pricing Program, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities that participate in the program. In addition, therapeutics covered by certain government payor programs are subject to an additional inflation penalty which can substantially increase rebate payments. Certain states have also enacted laws requiring manufacturers to report certain pricing information, including drug price increases. States laws may also limit the amount that prices may be increased or require negotiation of supplemental rebates for new drugs entering the market at price points determined to be high. Refusal to negotiate supplemental rebates can negatively affect market access and provider reimbursement.

Private payors often rely on the lead of the governmental payors in rendering coverage and reimbursement determinations. Therefore, achieving favorable CMS coverage and reimbursement is usually a significant gating issue for successful introduction of a new product. In addition, government programs as a condition of participation mandate fixed discounts or rebates from sponsors regardless of formulary position or utilization and may utilize mechanisms such as formulary placement to attain further price reductions, which can greatly reduce realization on the sale. Furthermore, recent U.S. federal actions include initiatives incorporating “most favored nation” (international reference pricing) concepts for certain prescription drugs, as well as agency testing of new payment models that could tie Medicare reimbursement or manufacturer rebates to prices in specified reference countries.

Further, the increased emphasis on managed health care in the United States and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the European Union will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement, and utilization, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, competition within therapeutic classes, laws, regulations and judicial decisions related to governmental health benefit programs, health care reform, biopharmaceutical coverage and reimbursement policies, and pricing in general. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated health care costs. Sales of our product candidates will therefore depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our products will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar health care management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other third-party payors.

In addition, 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. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed upon. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessment (“HTA”)) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European

Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products that may be approved for commercialization in such countries. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States, and prices generally tend to be significantly lower in the European Union.

As a result of the above, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain marketing approvals in the United States and in other jurisdictions. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective, or the rebate percentages required to secure coverage may not yield an adequate margin over cost. Additionally, companies are increasingly finding it necessary to establish bridge programs to assist patient access to new therapies during protracted initial coverage determination periods.

Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved or that significant price concessions will not be required to avoid restrictive conditions. High health plan co-payment requirements may result in patients refusing prescriptions or seeking alternative therapies. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in therapeutic development. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Legislative proposals to reform health care or reduce costs under government insurance programs may result in lower reimbursement for our products and product candidates or exclusion of our products and product candidates from coverage. The cost containment measures that health care payors and providers are instituting and any health care reform could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any products for which we may obtain approval. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our product candidates in whole or in part.

Health Care Reform Measures

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the health care system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product and therapeutic candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell therapeutic products that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product and therapeutic candidates. In addition, future legislative and regulatory proposals may materially impact the ability of the FDA and other regulatory agencies to operate as they have historically operated. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether any of the FDA’s regulations, guidances or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the FDA and its scientific review staff, if any, may be. For example, negotiations on the next FDA user fee reauthorization package began in mid-2025, and the resulting agreement is expected to be sent to Congress in early 2027 for purposes of initiating the legislative process. Reauthorization of the prescription drug user fee program must be finalized by Congress by the end of September 2027 in order to avoid a disruption in FDA’s review goals for BLAs and other activities supported by user fees assessed against industry. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in health care systems with the stated goals of containing health care costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. For example, the ACA has had a significant impact on the health care industry in the United States. The ACA expanded coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall health care costs. With regard to biopharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed 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, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by such manufacturers under the rebate program and extended the program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs; and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. Additionally, the CREATES Act, which became law on December 20, 2019, was enacted to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and industry stakeholders that some brand manufacturers had improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic product developers access to samples of the brand products. Because generic product developers need such samples to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Although lawsuits have been filed under the

CREATES Act since its enactment, those lawsuits have settled privately; therefore, to date no federal court has reviewed or opined on the statutory language and there continues to be uncertainty regarding the scope and application of the law.

Legislative and regulatory changes under the ACA are possible, but it is unknown what form any such changes or any law would take and how or whether it may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in the future. We expect that changes or additions to the ACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and changes stemming from other health care reform measures, especially with regard to health care access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the health care industry in the United States. Moreover, there has 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 legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. For example, a manufacturer of a drug or biological product covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if the drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a product-by-product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug or biological product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, CMS will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single-source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities, announcing the first round of negotiated “maximum fair” prices for the first 10 drug products in August 2024, which will become applicable for payment year 2026. The second round of negotiated prices for 15 drug products was announced in November 2025. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.

Separately, the Trump Administration announced the creation of a government website called TrumpRx, which will allow consumers to purchase certain drugs at reduced prices as negotiated between the drug manufacturers and the administration. As of December 2025, the Trump Administration secured deals with five major drug manufacturers to offer certain drugs at most-favored-nation prices.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, in recent years, several states have formed prescription drug affordability boards (“PDABs”). Much like the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, these PDABs have attempted to implement upper payment limits (“UPLs”) on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. For example, in August 2023, Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits. Furthermore, in December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers (“PBMs”) and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area.

In mid-2022, the Federal Trade Commission launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry, and published interim reports with its findings in mid-2024 and January 2025, that appear to be contributing to additional federal and state legislative and regulatory proposals, as well as enforcement action and private litigation, targeting PBM operations, pharmacy networks, and financial arrangements. In February 2026, President Trump signed into law several PBM regulatory reforms as part of a federal budget package, including but not limited to requirements for PBMs to pass back 100% of rebates and fees to commercial health plan sponsors; to provide extensive informational disclosures related to patients’ coverage and benefits; and to accept only bona fide service fees from drug companies when providing services under Medicare Part D. The Department of Labor (“DOL”) also issued a proposed rule in January 2026 that would mandate specific PBM fee disclosures to self-insured plan fiduciaries under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). If finalized as proposed, the DOL rule would also allow plan fiduciaries to audit those PBM disclosures to confirm accuracy. Additional proposals and legislative changes aimed at PBMs and their business practices are likely to continue to be introduced and considered in Congress and by executive agencies. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the United States may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including biopharmaceutical developers like us.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care

reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services, including any future drug products for which we secure marketing approval.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party, or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Activities that violate the FCPA, even if they occur wholly outside the United States, can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts. However, in February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the DOJ to pause enforcement of the FCPA and to issue new enforcement guidelines that take into consideration U.S. national security and the competitiveness of U.S. companies abroad. It is unclear how this presidential directive may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in particular.

European Union Drug Development

In the European Union (“European Union” or the “EU”), our product candidates and products, should they receive marketing authorization in the EU, will be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.

In April 2014, the Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, was adopted and it became effective on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable in all of the European Union Member States (“EU Member States”), repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will depend on when the clinical trial is initiated or on the duration of an ongoing trial. As of January 2023, all new clinical trials must comply with the Clinical Trials Regulation. In addition, any clinical trial that was already under way as of January 1, 2023 and continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable (i.e., January 31, 2025), the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial.

The Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the “EU portal” or Clinical Trial Information System (“CTIS”); a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each EU Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State.

To obtain a marketing authorization of a medicinal product in the European Union, we may submit marketing authorization applications (“MAA”) either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures. Before granting the marketing authorization under any such procedures, described below, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) or the competent authorities of the individual member states assess the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Centralized procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the EMA that is valid in all EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicines (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”). Accelerated assessment 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. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.

National authorization procedures

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

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

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

Only products for which marketing authorizations have been granted may be promoted in the European Union. A marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after the initial five-year period on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA, or the applicable competent authority, with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission, or the applicable competent authority, decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any marketing authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the market in the European Union (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market in the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

In April 2023, the European Commission issued a proposal to revise and replace the existing general pharmaceutical legislation, which was subsequently finalized and adopted in December 2025. The revisions will significantly change several aspects of drug development and approval in the EU.

European Data Collection

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, in the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The GDPR applies to any company established in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The GDPR establishes stringent requirements applicable to the processing of personal data, including strict requirements relating to the validity of consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, requirements to conduct data protection impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, special provisions affording greater protection to and requiring additional compliance measures for “special categories of personal data” including health and genetic information of data subjects, mandatory data breach notification (in certain circumstances), “privacy by design” requirements, and direct obligations on service providers acting as processors.

The GDPR also prohibits the international transfer of personal data from the EEA to “non-adequate” countries outside of the EEA unless a valid data transfer mechanism has been put in place to safeguard the personal data, such as the Standard Contractual Clauses or certification under the newly-adopted Data Privacy Framework.

The GDPR also enhances enforcement authority and imposes large penalties for non-compliance, including the potential for fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover of the infringer, whichever is greater. Additionally, the GDPR confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR.

United Kingdom Regulation

As of January 1, 2021, EU law no longer directly applies in the United Kingdom (“United Kingdom” or the “UK”). The United Kingdom has adopted existing EU medicines regulation as standalone UK legislation with some amendments to reflect procedural and other requirements with respect to marketing authorizations and other regulatory provisions.

In order to market medicines in the United Kingdom, manufacturers must hold a UK authorization. On January 1, 2021, all EU marketing authorizations were converted to UK marketing authorizations subject to a manufacturer opt-out. UK medicines legislation is subject to future regulatory change under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which sets out a framework for the adoption of medicines regulation. Guidance issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) states that the United Kingdom will have the power to take into account marketing authorizations made under the EU decentralized and mutual recognition procedures. In addition, the MHRA’s guidance has been updated to refer to UK-specific licensing procedures including routes of evaluation for novel and biotechnological products. In some cases, medicinal products may be eligible for submission through the International Recognition Procedure, which was launched by

MHRA in January 2024 to provide an expedited authorization pathway for products that have received positive marketing authorization decisions from trusted partner agencies, such as the EMA or the FDA. In Northern Ireland, however, marketing applications granted by the European Commission continue to apply.

Different rules apply in Northern Ireland following implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, under which European Union central marketing applications continue to apply there. However, in March 2023, the United Kingdom government and the European Commission reached agreement on a regulatory framework to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol, referred to as the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework became effective as of January 1, 2025 and requires changes to the system that was previously in effect under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including the regulation of pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom. Specifically, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicines intended to be marketed in the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland), while the EMA will no longer be involved in approving medicines intended for sale in Northern Ireland.

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom contains an Annex in relation to medicinal products with the objective of facilitating availability of medicines, promotion of public health and consumer protection in respect of medicinal products. The Annex provides for mutual recognition of cGMP inspections and certificates, meaning that manufacturing facilities do not need to undergo duplicate inspections for the two markets. The Annex establishes a Working Group on Medicinal Products to deal with matters under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, facilitate co-operation and for the carrying out of technical discussions. It is expected that further bilateral discussions will continue with respect to regulatory areas not the subject of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, including pharmacovigilance. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement also does not include reciprocal arrangements for the recognition of batch testing certification. However, the United Kingdom has listed approved countries, including the EEA which will enable UK importers and wholesales to recognize certain certification and regulatory standards. The European Commission has not adopted such recognition procedures.

Relatedly, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, the GDPR’s requirements have been implemented in the United Kingdom (referred to as the “UK GDPR”). The UK GDPR sits alongside the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018 which implements certain derogations in the EU GDPR into United Kingdom law. Under the UK GDPR, companies not established in the United Kingdom but who process personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the United Kingdom, or to monitor their behavior will be subject to the UK GDPR – the requirements of which are (at this time) largely aligned with those under the EU GDPR and as such, may lead to similar compliance and operational costs with potential fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. In June 2021, the European Commission issued a decision, valid for four years from its entry into force, that the United Kingdom ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred under the EU GDPR from the EU to the United Kingdom.

Rest of the World Regulation

For other countries outside of the EU and the United States, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, as well as Australia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement, and data privacy vary from country to country. Additionally, clinical trials to support applications for marketing authorization in such jurisdictions must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements 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 or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2025, we had 33 employees, all of whom were full-time, 9 of whom have Ph.D. or M.D. degrees, and 25 of whom are engaged in research and development and manufacturing activities. We do not have any employees represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Talent Acquisition and Retention

We are committed to advancing novel immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer, including mKRAS-positive pancreatic, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and other mKRAS positive cancers. To that end, we recognize that our industry is specialized and dynamic, and a significant aspect of our success is our continued ability to execute our human capital strategy of attracting, engaging, developing, motivating and retaining highly skilled talent. We offer competitive compensation packages including base salary, annual incentive bonuses, and long-term equity incentive awards. We also are committed to our employees’ health, safety, and wellness and offer comprehensive and robust employee benefits, such as life, disability, and health insurance, health savings accounts, paid time off, and a 401(k) plan. We also provide flexible work arrangements consisting of remote, hybrid, and onsite work. We believe that our non-lab-based employees can be highly productive working remotely and we are building a culture that closely connects all employees, regardless of location, based on open and frequent communication, transparency, and employing people with a desire to participate in company events, frequent video face-to-face discussions, and other activities designed to eliminate “remoteness” from working remotely. We pride ourselves on our strong

company culture and initiatives aligned with our mission, vision, and values. We also support our local community in their efforts to bridge the opportunity gap for underserved communities. In addition, we strive to provide a collegial atmosphere where teamwork and collaboration are emphasized and valued. We use internal and external resources to recruit highly-skilled candidates for open positions. It is our express intent to be an employer of choice in our industry by providing market-competitive compensation and benefits packages, which we believe allows us to attract and retain superior talent. We are an equal opportunity employer and cultivate a highly collaborative and entrepreneurial culture.

Training and Development

We believe in encouraging employees to become lifelong learners by providing ongoing learning and leadership training opportunities. We strive to provide real-time recognition of employee performance. In addition, we have formal mid-year and annual review processes to determine individual contributions that may lead to pay and equity adjustments and promotions. The mid-year and annual review processes also help us identify areas where training and development may be needed.

Corporate Information

Elicio Therapeutics, Inc. (“Elicio” or the “Company”) was incorporated in Delaware as Vedantra Pharmaceuticals Inc. in August 2011. In 2023, the Company completed a reverse merger transaction with Angion Biomedica Corp. (“Angion”), a clinical-stage biotechnology company, Arkham Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Angion (“Merger Sub”), and Elicio Operating Company, Inc. (“Former Elicio”), pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Former Elicio, with Former Elicio surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Angion (the “Merger”). On June 1, 2023, the Company completed the Merger in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement and Angion changed its name from “Angion Biomedica Corp.” to “Elicio Therapeutics, Inc.”

Our principal executive office is located at 451 D Street, Suite 501, Boston, MA 02210.

Available Information

We file electronically with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy information and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that website is http://www.sec.gov.

We maintain a public website at https://www.elicio.com and use our website as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Our website includes an Investors section through which we make available, free of charge, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Proxy Statements and Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed on behalf of directors and executive officers, as well as any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The members of our board of directors are reflected on the signature page of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also make available on our website the charters for our board of directors’ Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, as well as our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and other related materials. The information on our website is not part of this Annual Report.