NASDAQ: FBRX

Three cohorts of single and two cohorts of multiple ascending doses in a Phase 1 trial of healthy volunteers were completed in which FB102 demonstrated a good safety profile. The primary objective of the Phase 1 trial was to assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of single and multiple ascending doses of FB102. No dose limiting toxicities were observed. FB102 demonstrated significant reductions in the NK cell pharmacodynamic marker (greater than approximately 70%). Based on the successful completion of the Phase 1 healthy volunteer cohorts, we initiated a patient-based Phase 1b trial in celiac disease in the third quarter of 2024 and a patient-based Phase 1b trial for non-segmental vitiligo in the first quarter of 2025.

In June 2025, we announced positive data in our celiac disease Phase 1b study. The study enrolled 32 subjects 3:1 randomized (24 on FB102 and 8 on placebo). Subjects received 4 doses of FB102 (10 mg/kg) and underwent a 16-day gluten challenge. In addition to safety and tolerability, the study assessed morphologic and inflammatory endpoints along with gluten challenge induced symptoms.

FB102 demonstrated a statistically significant benefit on the composite histological VCIEL endpoint (change from baseline). The mean VCIEL change from baseline was -1.849 for placebo subjects compared to 0.079 for FB102 treated subjects (p=0.0099).

The change in the density of CD3-positive T cells, or IELs, from baseline was an increase of 13.3 for placebo subjects compared to a decline of 1.5 for FB102 treated subjects (p=0.0035). Baseline IEL density was 25.6 for the placebo subjects and 23.5 for the FB102 treated subjects.

The mean change in the Vh:Cd ratio from baseline was -0.173 (0.21) for placebo subjects compared to -0.046 (0.09), a 73% improvement for FB102 treated subjects compared to placebo.

Gluten challenge induced GI symptoms (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and abdominal bloating) reported during the 16-day gluten challenge from patient diaries/AE collection demonstrated a 42% benefit for FB102 treated subject (4.0 events per subject) compared to placebo (6.9 events per subject).

There were no dropouts in the study. Treatment emergent adverse events were primarily mild (grade 1) with no grade 3 or higher SAEs reported in the FB102 arm.

Based on the successful completion of our patient-based Phase 1b celiac disease study, we initiated a Phase 2 celiac study in July 2025 with the topline readout expected in 2026. In November 2025, the US FDA approved our IND application for a US arm of our Phase 2 celiac study. Our Phase 1b non-segmental vitiligo trial is expecting topline data in the first half of 2026 and we have also initiated a Phase 1b alopecia areata study with topline data expected in 2026.

Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease that is triggered by consuming gluten and results in damage to the small intestine. Symptoms include diarrhea, fatigue, headaches, anemia, nausea and dermatitis herpetiformis (an itchy skin rash). A significant patient population of celiac disease patients do not respond to gluten free diet. The health consequences for not treating include malnourishment, cancer, other autoimmune conditions. It is estimated that 1:133 in U.S. (2.5 million people) have celiac disease (Fasano, Arch Intern Med. 2003 PMID: 12578508) and that 0.3% to 0.5% of celiac disease patients are non-responsive (Malamut Gastroenterology. 2024

3

38556189). It has been estimated by various U.S. advocacy and epidemiology sources that up to 80% of people in the U.S. with celiac disease are undiagnosed. There are no approved treatment options for celiac disease.

Vitiligo is a disease of the skin mediated primarily by NK and CD8+ T cells that attack melanocytes leading to patchy depigmentation of the skin. It is estimated that vitiligo affects 2 million people in the U.S (NIH). The global vitiligo treatment market size was estimated at $1.6-1.8 billion in 2024-2025 and is projected to reach approximately $2.3-2.7 billion by 2032-2034 (Fortune Business Insights).

Alopecia areata is a disease in which immune cells attack and damage hair follicles and is mediated primarily by CD8+ T cells and NK cells. The global alopecia treatment market has been valued at around $3-3.5 billion in 2024 with some forecasts pointing to the potential to reach $6 billion in 2032-2034 (DataM Intelligence).

Further we believe FB102 has potentially other autoimmune and autoimmune-related applications including in type 1 diabetes ("T1D") which is caused by autoreactive T Cells destroying insulin-producing pancreatic β- cells. CD8+ T cells with receptors recognizing β-cell specific peptides are enriched in pancreatic islets of T1D patients. Environmental stress causes β-cells to upregulate MHC and to express IL-15 and IL-15RA. (Herold 2024 Nat Rev Immunol. PMID 38308004). It is estimated that 64,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with T1D annually (https://beyondtype1.org/type-1-diabetes-statistics/).

We had approximately $77.0 million in cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2025. Our common stock is publicly traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol FBRX. Prior to our merger with Tocagen, Inc., a publicly traded biotechnology company, Forte was a privately held company incorporated in Delaware on May 3, 2017.

Since our inception, we have funded our operations primarily through private placements and public offerings of our equity securities. In fiscal year 2025, 2024 and 2023, we raised approximately $75.0 million, $53.0 million and $25.0 million respectively, through a combination of private placements and public offerings as discussed in more detail in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Manufacturing and Supply

Forte has outsourced the manufacturing of FB102 to facilities at third party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) and the preclinical testing and clinical development to clinical research organizations (CROs). These facilities and associated equipment are designed and operated to be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. However, from time to time, we source critical raw materials and services from one or a limited number of suppliers with potentially long lead times or limited manufacturing and testing slot availability. There is a risk that if such supplies or services were interrupted, it could materially harm the manufacturing and development of FB102.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, strong competition and an emphasis on proprietary products. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of any product candidate will include efficacy, safety profile, method of administration, cost, level of promotional activity and intellectual property protection.

We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize similar products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects or are less expensive than any products that we and/or our collaborators may develop.

Intellectual Property

We own one US patent for administering a combination of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria along with metabolites for treatment of a wide variety of skin conditions. The patent’s estimated expiration date is 2039. This patent is not material to Forte’s FB102 program. We also own one pending PCT application, six pending US applications and eighteen pending foreign applications in Europe, Australia, Canada, China, Eurasia, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Brazil, India, South Africa, Taiwan and Argentina related to the FB102 program. The estimated expiration dates of these patents are 2043-2046. We also own one pending US application and one pending application in Europe that is not material to Forte's FB102 program.

4

Government Regulation

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

United States Biological Product Development

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

Forte’s product candidates must be approved by the FDA through a Biologic License Application (“BLA”) process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

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

•
Submission to the FDA of an Initial New Drug (“IND”) application, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•
Approval by an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”), or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated;

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

•
Submission to the FDA of a BLA;

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

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

•
Potential FDA audit of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; and

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

Preclinical Studies and IND

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases, to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies.

A sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless, before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

5

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

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

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

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

•
Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a large number of patients at multiple sites and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use, its safety in use and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

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

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic, as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

FDA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. The BLA is

6

a request for approval to market the biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety, purity and potency for the biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from several alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual 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.

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

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

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

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, as amended (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug 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 grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug 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 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study 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

7

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 and/or other clinical development programs.

Post-marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote off-label uses. Prescription biologic promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Further, if there are any modifications to the biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the BLA without an approved REMS. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing. Newly discovered or developed safety or efficacy data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and may also require the implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS, or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly discovered safety issue.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. Forte relies, and expects to continue to rely, on third parties to produce clinical and commercial quantities of Forte’s products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These 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 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 requirements and other laws.

Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, 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 recall.

Other Regulatory Matters

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

Other Healthcare Laws

Biopharmaceutical manufacturers are subject to additional healthcare laws, regulation, and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, U.S. federal anti-kickback, anti-self-referral, false claims, transparency, including the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, consumer fraud, pricing reporting, data privacy, data protection, and security laws and regulations as well as similar foreign laws in the jurisdictions outside the U.S. Similar state and local laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales, and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information; state and local laws which

8

require the tracking of gifts and other remuneration and any transfer of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities; and state and local laws that require the registration of biopharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and local laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), thus complicating compliance efforts.

The risk of our being found in violation of these or other laws and regulations is increased by the fact that many have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts and their provisions are open to various interpretations. These laws and regulations are subject to change, which can increase the resources needed for compliance and delay product approval or commercialization. Any action brought against us for violations of these laws or regulations, even if successfully defended, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Also, we may be subject to private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers on behalf of the federal or state governments. Actual or alleged violation of any such laws or regulations may lead to investigations and other claims and proceedings by regulatory authorities and in certain cases, private actors, and violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply may result in penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, additional reporting obligations, and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and imprisonment.

Current and Future Healthcare Reform Legislation

In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of Forte product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect Forte’s ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which it obtains marketing approval. Forte expects that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the price that Forte, or any of its collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), for example, contains provisions that subject biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars and may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, address 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, increase the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establish annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and create a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (increased pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and Forte expects there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, in November 2020, the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments on the ACA case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. In June 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Accordingly, the ACA remains in effect in its current form. In January 2021, President Trump issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period to allow people to obtain health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, and instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, among others. We cannot predict how the Supreme Court ruling, other litigation, or the healthcare reform measures of the Trump administration will impact our business. Complying with any new legislation or reversing changes implemented under the ACA could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013, which, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2032, unless Congress takes additional action. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted bills 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 products. Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates

9

that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs was eliminated. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business. In August 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) can qualify for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D drugs in 2023 and the negotiated maximum fair price for each drug has been announced. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, up to an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, up to 20 additional Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Various industry stakeholders have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the IRA are unconstitutional. Additionally, the current administration also issued executive orders focused on decreasing prescription drug prices, including directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy drugs directly from manufacturers who sell at a most-favored-nation price and directing the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the United States. In November 2025, CMS announced a voluntary initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid Model) to introduce the option of most-favored-nation pricing to the Medicaid program, whereby a drug manufacturer may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. Government agreements with pharmaceutical companies and other government measures that use most-favored-nation pricing targets for prescription drugs, including the use of international pricing reference to set drug prices in the United States, or that increase generic drug and biosimilar entry sooner than expected, could materially harm the Company’s business, including with respect to its ability to set adequate pricing for new drugs to recover its research and development costs. The impact of future judicial challenges, legislative, executive, and administrative actions implemented by the government on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates if approved.

Individual states in the United States have also been increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, a number of states are considering or have recently enacted state drug price transparency and reporting laws that could substantially increase Forte’s compliance burdens and expose it to greater liability under such state laws once it begins commercialization after obtaining regulatory approval for any of its products. For example, FDA has authorized the state of Florida to develop a program to import certain prescription drugs from Canada for a limited period to help reduce drug costs, provided that Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration meets the requirements set forth by the FDA. Other states may follow Florida. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.

Packaging and Distribution in the United States

If Forte’s products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against Forte for violation of these laws, even if Forte successfully defend against it, could cause Forte to incur significant legal expenses and divert Forte’s management’s attention from the operation of its business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by Forte could materially affect its business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact Forte’s business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to Forte’s manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the

10

recall or discontinuation of Forte’s approved products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of Forte’s business.

Other U.S. Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations

Forte may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, Forte’s operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if Forte contracts with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, Forte cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of Forte’s hazardous materials, Forte could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed Forte’s resources. Forte also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Forte maintains workers’ compensation insurance to cover costs and expenses it may incur due to injuries to its employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, Forte does not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against it.

In addition, Forte may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair Forte’s research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

U.S. Patent-Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of any of Forte’s product candidates, some of Forte’s U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, Forte may apply for restoration of a patent term for Forte’s currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCI Act”). This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product 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, that the product and the reference product 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 biological product without such alternation or switch.

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

11

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing regulatory exclusivity periods. This six-month exclusivity may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

Rest of the World Regulation

For other countries outside of the United States, such as the European Union and countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials 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 Forte fails to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, Forte may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Additional Laws and Regulations Governing International Operations

If Forte further expands its operations outside of the United States, Forte must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which it plans to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from offering, paying, promising to pay, or authorizing payment of money or anything of value, to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty, or to secure any improper advantage 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 certain 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.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials for the purposes of the statute. Certain payments made in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If Forte expands its presence outside of the United States, Forte will need to dedicate additional resources to complying with these laws, and these laws may preclude Forte from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit Forte’s growth potential and increase its development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of Forte’s approved products will depend, in part, on the extent to which Forte’s approved products, will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurers and managed healthcare organizations, as well as the level of reimbursement such that those third-party payors provide for Forte’s products. Patients and providers are unlikely to use Forte’s products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of Forte’s products. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drugs or biological products exists, and one payor’s determination to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for a product does not assure that other payors will make a similar determination. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of Forte’s product candidates, if approved, will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. As a result, the coverage determination process may be a time-consuming and costly process that will require Forte to provide scientific clinical, and cost-effective data to support the use of Forte’s approved products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical products, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy.

12

As noted above, the marketability of any products for which Forte receives regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and other third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. An increasing emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States has increased and Forte expects will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. 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 Forte receives regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for our product if approved.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices Forte may obtain for any of its product candidates for which Forte may obtain regulatory approval or the demand for any such approved products.

In addition, in most foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. 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. In some countries, Forte may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of Forte’s product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. 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 Forte’s approved products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and, generally, prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries.

Employees and Human Capital

As of December 31, 2025, we had 19 full-time employees, primarily engaged in research and development, manufacturing and administration. None of Forte’s employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. Forte considers its relationship with its employees to be good.

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

Corporate Information and History

On June 15, 2020, Forte completed a business combination (the “Merger”) with Tocagen, Inc. (“Tocagen”), a publicly traded biotechnology company, with Forte being the surviving business. Prior to the Merger, Forte was a privately held company incorporated in Delaware on May 3, 2017. Forte's legal predecessor, Tocagen, was incorporated in Delaware in August 2007.

Our principal executive office is located at 3060 Pegasus Park Drive, Building 6, Dallas TX 75247 and our telephone number is (310) 618-6994. Our corporate website is located at www.fortebiorx.com. We make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Our SEC reports can be accessed through the investor relations page of our website located at https://www.fortebiorx.com/investor-relations/sec-filings/default.aspx. The SEC also maintains a website that contains our SEC filings. The address of that site is www.sec.gov.

We may webcast our earnings calls and certain events we participate in or host with members of the investment community on our investor relations page of our website. In addition, we use our website as a means of disclosing information about our company, our products, our planned financial and other announcements, our attendance at upcoming investor conferences, and other matters. It is possible that the information we post on our website could be deemed material information. We may use our website to comply with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Therefore, investors should monitor our website in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings, public conference calls, and webcasts. Corporate governance information, including our board committee charters and code of ethics, is also available on our investor relations page of our website. The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any other report or document we file with the SEC, and any references to our website are intended to be inactive textual references only.

13