NASDAQ: PDSB

We believe our proprietary combinations of Versamune® and PDS01ADC together with immune checkpoint inhibitors or other standards of
care, may enhance the proliferation, potency and longevity of antigen specific multifunctional CD8 T cells in the tumor microenvironment and work synergistically to inhibit or treat cancer.

In September 2024, we announced updated data from our VERSATILE-002 Phase 2 clinical trial presented during a poster session at the
European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2024.

In October 2024, we announced updated data from the IMMUNOCERV Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating PDS0101 with chemoradiation to treat
locally advanced cervical cancer presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting 2024.

In March 2025, we announced the initiation of our VERSATILE-003 Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating PDS0101 (PDS0101) in HPV16-positive
first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

In July 2025, we announced that the colorectal cancer cohort of a phase 2 clinical trial with PDS01ADC met the pre-defined criteria
for expansion to stage 2 following positive stage 1 results.

In August 2025, we announced final topline survival data from our VERSATILE-002 Phase 2 trial evaluating PDS0101 in HPV16-positive
first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

In September 2025, we announced final topline survival data for the low-CPS patient population from our VERSATILE-002 Phase 2 trial
evaluating PDS0101 in HPV16-positive first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

In October 2025, we announced our request for a Type C meeting with the FDA to discuss a proposed expedited pathway for our
VERSATILE-003 Phase 3 clinical trial, based on a proposed amendment to the trial’s design to include progression-free survival as an interim primary endpoint, in addition to median overall survival.

The challenges to effective immunotherapy

The clinical effectiveness of immunotherapy has been limited by two main challenges: (i) inability to access and convert the tumor to an
immunogenic microenvironment, and (ii) inability to generate adequate quantities of high-quality killer CD8 T cells. Effective treatments should also minimize systemic toxicities and generate immunological memory. On a fundamental biological or
immunological level, one of the most significant challenges facing clinicians is the availability of simple and easy to administer therapies that can effectively treat cancer with minimal side effects.

4

Index

Cancer Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy is a form of cancer treatment that utilizes the ability of the body’s own immune system to recognize, attack and
eliminate cancer. The ultimate goal of cancer immunotherapy is to improve patient quality of life and to extend patient life by slowing down progression of the cancer, causing shrinkage of the tumors and in some cases eradication of the cancer. The
body’s immune system is a complex, biological network designed to defend against germs, other microscopic invaders, and cancer cells. Once the immune system recognizes an organism or cell as foreign or dangerous, it begins a series of complex
reactions to identify, target and eliminate them. This process of events is referred to as mounting an immune response. Cancer immunotherapy takes advantage of the fact that most cancer cells express unique proteins, also called tumor antigens, not
normally expressed by healthy cells that can be recognized by the immune system as abnormal. Because the immune system is precise, for the most part, a resulting immune response can target these dangerous cancer cells exclusively while sparing
healthy cells. However, the challenge remains that cancer cells are able by various mechanisms to evade the immune system’s surveillance, so the body becomes tolerant to them.

We believe cancer immunotherapy should have the following attributes to maximize the opportunity for clinical effectiveness in patients:

●

Stimulate both tumor-specific killer and helper T cells within the body

●

Activate, arm and expand large numbers of T cells that recognize and target the tumor

●

Minimize immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment (TME) to make the cancerous tumor more visible or susceptible to attack by the immune system

●

Generate immune memory, so that there is a prolonged anti-tumor immune response to treatment

●

Optimize safety and tolerability by limiting systemic inflammation and toxicity

As stated in the June 2019 issue of The Journal of
Immunology, a leading peer-reviewed journal in the field of immunology, our Versamune® platform possesses each of these attributes, inducing potent anti-tumor responses in preclinical studies. (Gandhapudi, et al., J. Immunology, June 2019;
Rumfield et al, J. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer, May 2020). We believe our Versamune® technology platform, potentially in combination with our IL-12 antibody drug conjugate, PDS01ADC, is unique in its ability to successfully encompass the mechanistic attributes required to induce a safe and
effective anti-cancer immune response in preclinical data.

How does cancer immunotherapy work?

An important function of the body’s immune system is to identify and respond to proteins not normally expressed in healthy tissue
(antigens). Once an antigen has been identified as foreign, abnormal or dangerous, the antigen is presented to T cells, a type of white blood cell effective at eliminating cancer cells and infectious agents (e.g. bacteria and viruses). The
presentation of an antigen to T cells is implemented primarily in the lymph nodes by specialized antigen presenting cells known as dendritic cells which are programmed specially to identify foreign antigens, process them and to present them to T
cells. Unique proteins on the surface of dendritic cells, known as major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, bind to the foreign antigen and display them on the cell surface for recognition by the appropriate T cells. Then, once presented,
a sub-population of T cells known as the CD8 or killer T cells, are primed and respond to the specific foreign antigen by attacking and killing the cells containing the abnormal protein. Other T cell sub-populations, such as CD4 or helper T cells,
are also critical in regulating immune responses.

Cells communicate via chemical signaling. For an immune response to be triggered and to be effective, important immune signaling
pathways must be activated to enable the body to induce messenger proteins known as cytokines and chemokines. Some of these cytokines and chemokines serve both to activate and expand T cells and to arm the T cells with the appropriate
cancer-killing function.

An effective cancer immunotherapy must modulate these complex processes, enhancing activation and producing robust expansion of the
critically important high-quality, tumor-specific T cell populations, most notably CD8 killer cells. As will be reviewed in more detail in the section below, the ability to promote the induction of therapeutic quantities of high-quality
tumor-targeting CD8 killer T cells within a patient’s own body has been a major limitation of cancer immunotherapy.

5

Index

Production of adequate numbers of high-quality CD8 killer T cells alone, however, is insufficient to eradicate all cancer cells. One of
the difficulties in treating cancer stems from the fact that cancer cells have the unique ability to evade the immune system; they camouflage themselves or suppress T cell attack by activating immune mechanisms that suppress the ability of T cells to
detect or attack them. They accomplish this in part by increasing the population of immune suppressive cells, including cells known as regulatory T cells (Treg) as well as other cell types, within the tumor microenvironment. An effective
immunotherapy must overcome the tumor’s immune suppressive mechanisms in order to successfully locate and attack the cancer cells.

Finally, cancers can be difficult to cure because they may recur even after successful initial treatment due to micro-metastatic
(hidden) tumors that are not completely eradicated after treatment and that eventually expand. It is yet another task of the immune system to remain vigilant over a sustained period to mitigate the risk of recurrence. Such vigilance may be
mediated by memory T cells which serve as the immune system’s long-term memory. To be durable and effective over an extended period after treatment, and to minimize the likelihood of cancer recurrence, immunotherapy should enhance this immune
function as well.

Versamune® Platform

Versamune® has the potential to stimulate the body’s immune system

Versamune® is a proprietary lipid nanoparticle and T cell stimulating platform designed to overcome the challenges of current
immunotherapy and improve the treatment outcomes of patients with cancer. Versamune® derived products are based on positively charged (cationic) and immune activating lipids that form spherical nanoparticles in aqueous media. These lipids include the
R-enantiomer of 1,2-dioleoyl-e-trimethyl-ammonium-propane (R-DOTAP). Cationic lipids are positively charged molecules that have a water-soluble portion (head group) attached to a water insoluble tail. The water-soluble portion of the molecule has a
positive charge, and the water-insoluble portion is made up of hydrocarbon (also called fatty acid) chains. The nanoparticles, which are coated with a positive charge, are deliberately sized to mimic viruses, facilitating detection by the body’s
immune system and uptake by dendritic cells.

To treat a specific cancer, the unique or overexpressed antigen found on the surface of the cancer cells is manufactured, then mixed with the Versamune®
nanoparticles to create a pharmaceutical product for simple subcutaneous injection.

6

Index

Versamune® has the potential to promote dendritic cell update of antigens

One of the biggest challenges in developing a potent immunotherapy is the uptake of the immunotherapy by dendritic cells. Versamune® is
designed specifically to be taken up by dendritic cells in the skin. As noted above, Versamune® nanoparticles are sized comparably to viruses normally taken up as part of the natural function of the dendritic cells, facilitating efficient uptake of
the Versamune® based immunotherapy. Studies evaluating the uptake of Versamune® nanoparticles by dendritic cells and epithelial cells, found almost exclusive uptake by the dendritic cells. Four hours following a single subcutaneous injection, studies
have shown that about 80% of the dendritic cells in the draining lymph node were found to have taken up the Versamune® based immunotherapy.

7

Index

Versamune® has the potential to promote efficient antigen processing and T cell presentation

When dendritic cells take up Versamune® nanoparticles they become activated, mature and begin recruiting additional dendritic cells.
Once inside the dendritic cell, the tumor-associated antigen is released and processed into the requisite small peptides (pieces of protein) in the cell compartment known as the cytoplasm. An important potential advantage of Versamune® is its ability
to fuse with and destabilize endosomes in the cell, promoting efficient entry of the antigen into the cell compartment where processing can take place. Processed antigen is turned into peptides that go on to present in both the MHC class I and class
II pathways. The MHC class I pathway is critical to programming CD8 killer T cells and the MHC class II pathway to programming CD4 helper T cells to recognize tumor antigens. When Versamune® - induced maturation occurs, the dendritic cells express
costimulatory molecules on their surface, which facilitate the highly efficient uptake and presentation of antigens to the T cells. We believe this activity overcomes one of the most significant limitations of current immunotherapy development – the
efficient priming of critical CD8 killer T cells against tumor antigens. Versamune® has been demonstrated to promote presentation of antigens to CD4 helper T cells as well.

8

Index

Versamune® has the potential to promote efficient activation and robust expansion of high quality polyfunctional
CD8 killer T cells and CD4 helper in Lymph Nodes

Ultimately mature dendritic cells migrate into lymph nodes, small glands located throughout the body containing white blood cells
including T cells, where much of the key immunological activity pertaining to the priming and expansion of T cells takes place. In the lymph nodes, the dendritic cells present the tumor antigens to T cells resulting in activation or priming of the
T cells to recognize the particular antigen expressed by the cancer. Importantly, Versamune® has also demonstrated the potential to upregulate type I interferon genes (type I IFN), which are responsible for critical immunological processes.
Upregulation of type I IFN induces an important immunological protein called CD69 that facilitates interactions between the dendritic cell and T cells in the lymph nodes.

Upregulation of type I IFN signaling also induces
multiple immune messenger proteins called cytokines and chemokines that further signal T cells to infiltrate into the lymph nodes. Powerful activators of CD8 killer T cells, such as CCL2 and CXCL10 are documented to be induced by Versamune® as
well. As the Versamune® induced production of chemokines appears to be restricted to the lymph nodes, the site of T cell activation, it provides for both superior activation and expansion of CD8 killer T cells. Localization of these immune
messengers within the lymph nodes and their limited presence in the blood circulation enhances the safety of the Versamune® based immunotherapies. Thus, through the versatility of its mechanisms of action, as understood to date, we believe that
Versamune® may safely promote the efficient and robust expansion in-vivo of large numbers of highly potent (polyfunctional) CD8 killer T cells, both critical factors in developing a successful immunotherapy.

Versamune® has the potential to overcome immune suppression

Regulatory T cells (Treg) are a sub-population of white blood cells normally responsible for recognizing normal healthy cells and for
preventing autoimmune disease. In cancer however, they are utilized by the cancer cells to suppress immune detection. Versamune® may contribute to significant alteration of the tumor microenvironment by dramatically reducing the Treg to killer CD8
T cell ratio thus making the tumors more susceptible to destruction by killer T cells. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that lowering the Treg to CD8 killer T cell ratio with polyfunctional CD8 killer and CD4 helper T cells promotes effective
tumor lysis and regression. Overcoming a tumor’s immune tolerance and minimizing its ability to evade detection is a significant goal of successful cancer immunotherapy that together with potent T cell induction may translate to enhanced tumor
elimination.

9

Index

In preclinical studies, Versamune® (R-DOTAP) nanoparticles demonstrated a reduction in the Treg/CD8 T cell ratio

Results of Comparative Preclinical Testing of Versamune® and other Immunotherapies for the eradication of a Tumor

Using the tumor model, the Versamune® based therapy was unique in its ability to reduce the tumor size and eventually completely regress
the tumors. The results from the Versamune® based treatment are attributed to its ability to induce: (i) powerful activation of the critical immunological signaling pathways, (ii) robust production of both CD8 killer and CD4 helper T cells, and (iii)
the degradation of the tumor’s protective immune suppression mechanism.

10

Index

Versamune® has the potential to induce Immune Memory

Memory T cells allow the body to maintain tumor-recognizing and attacking T cells for an extended period after treatment, with the
ideal outcome of reducing cancer recurrence. Preliminary studies demonstrated that Versamune® protected mice that had experienced tumor regression against tumor reestablishment even when the mice were reinjected with the same tumor cells. This
sustained protection was evidence of immune memory: persistence of antigen-specific T cells to recognize tumor proteins associated with a particular cancer, as the animals were not protected against establishment of different tumors. Evidence of
the potential for Versamune® based immunotherapies to induce immune memory was also demonstrated in a Phase 1 clinical trial in humans.

Enhancing tumor-specific memory responses to monitor for tumor antigens and eradicate cancer cells well after initial treatment we
believe provides potential for significant durable clinical benefit by possibly reducing the incidence of tumor recurrence and improving survival of patients.

Many cancer immunotherapies produce serious systemic autoimmune effects due to blockage of existing regulatory mechanisms such as the
immune checkpoints as well as inflammatory toxicities due to the increased presence and spikes of cytokines in the blood circulation. We believe the mechanism of action of Versamune® as well as its design have the potential to contribute to the
localization of cytokines in the lymph nodes and specific targeting of CD8 killer T cells to antigens in tumor tissue. Therefore, our hypothesis is that Versamune® based therapies may exhibit an improved and favorable safety profile compared to
currently available treatments.

As noted, Versamune® is injected subcutaneously, and its mechanisms of action are localized primarily in the lymph nodes. Further
supporting these observations are data demonstrating that negligible levels of Versamune® induced cytokines were detected in the blood of mice. Very low quantities of Versamune® were detected in the blood or in any organ outside of the lymph nodes.

Additionally, Versamune® is broken down (hydrolyzed) in the body into fatty acids and excreted, showing in these preliminary studies
that it could mitigate the potential for short- or long-term accumulation of the nanoparticles. These preclinical observations have been confirmed by early clinical data documenting that this localized, and highly specific cascade of immune
activity was associated with an absence of significant systemic toxicity at all doses tested. In a Phase 1 clinical trial designed to evaluate safety, all patients had transient swelling and redness at the injection site due to initiation of the
immunological cascade at the injection site which cleared completely within 3-7 days and no dose-limiting toxicities or long-term safety concerns were observed. Similarly, in our ongoing Phase 2 trials in combination with other treatments, no
dose-limiting toxicities or long-term safety concerns were attributed to PDS0101 since the studies were initiated in 2020.

In choosing and designing a Versamune® based therapy for development, careful attention is paid to selecting specific, appropriate
antigens because, as described above, Versamune® induces a strong T cell response to the antigen. All the antigens currently being evaluated in combination with Versamune®, such as antigens specific to Human Papilloma Virus, are present primarily
in cancer cells which should therefore result in tumor-specific T cell attack, thereby minimizing off-target toxicity and potential destruction of healthy cells and tissue.

11

Index

Versamune® has the potential to minimize circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)

ctDNA is tumor-derived fragmented DNA that is released
into a person’s blood stream by cancerous cells and tumors. It can come from primary or metastatic cancer sites. We believe that the reduction of ctDNA, as a biomarker, has the potential to signify a potential reduction or elimination of cancer.
As noted, we believe Versamune® may safely promote the efficient and robust expansion in-vivo of large numbers of highly potent (polyfunctional) CD8 killer T cells. In a Phase 2 clinical trial lead by MD Anderson, IMMUNOCERV, the ctHPV 16 DNA biomarker measured in certain patients decreased
in the blood by Day 170 (T5) as HPV16-specific killer T cells proliferated in the tumor microenvironment as seen in a representative patient in the chart below.

Versamune®’s potential as a cancer immunotherapy platform

The potential ability of Versamune® to modulate and enhance numerous critical steps required for an effective immune response may
provide additional opportunities to treat a variety of cancers. Further, its diverse mechanisms of action together with its favorable safety profile suggest therapeutic promise when used in combination with other treatment modalities or
immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as in the single-agent monotherapy setting.

PDS0101: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)-Related Cancers

Despite the successful introduction of HPV preventive vaccines, HPV-related cancers remain a significant component of the global
cancer burden. HPV infection occurs in both men and women and is associated with head and neck (oropharyngeal), cervical, anal, vaginal, vulvar and penile cancers.

PDS0101 is our lead Versamune® based immunotherapy.
PDS0101 combines Versamune® with a mixture of short proteins (peptides) derived from the carcinogenic HPV16 viral protein. HPV16 is the most pervasive and difficult to treat HPV amongst the 13 different high-risk, cancer-causing HPV types. In a
preclinical study in the most widely utilized animal HPV-cancer tumor model, PDS0101 uniquely induced complete regression of the tumors after a single sub-cutaneous injection. As a result of this data, we conducted a Phase 1 open-label,
dose-escalation, proof of concept study of PDS0101 in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) infected with high-risk HPV types. The data demonstrated that PDS0101 was immunologically active at all three doses studied, confirmed
induction of high levels of active HPV-specific CD8 killer T cells, and was associated with clinical regression of the cervical lesions that often occurred rapidly. These results suggest that PDS0101 activated the critical mechanisms in humans
resulting in potent T cells which target and effectively kill human HPV-positive cancer cells. All patients who experienced regression remained disease-free over the 2-year retrospective evaluation period, suggesting potential durability or
memory of the immune response. The clinical data was presented at the 34th Annual Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer Conference in November 2019
(Wood, et al., 2019). Based on this encouraging preclinical and human data, PDS0101 has been studied in multiple Phase 2 clinical trials in various HPV-related cancers; one sponsored by the Company in collaboration with Merck (VERSATILE-002) and
three investigator-initiated trials being conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), MD Anderson Cancer Center and Mayo Clinic. We believe the data presented from these Phase 2 clinical trials in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 demonstrated
favorable results.

In 2025, we completed our VERSATILE-002 trial in head and neck cancer. The topline survival results of the trial appear to confirm the
potential efficacy of PDS0101 in HPV16-positive head and neck cancer treatment, and publication of the full results of the trial are expected in 2026.

12

Index

PDS0102: T cell receptor gamma Alternate Reading frame Protein (TARP)-Related Cancers

The TARP antigen is strongly associated with prostate and breast cancers. In the U.S. 450,000 patients are projected to be diagnosed
with prostate or breast cancer this year. Approximately 90% of prostate cancers and 50% of breast cancers overexpress the TARP tumor antigen. In a human clinical trial, the NCI demonstrated that its proprietary TARP antigens were effectively
recognized by the immune system in prostate cancer patients with PSA biochemical recurrence leading to a notable reduction in tumor growth rate. In preclinical studies, a dramatically enhanced TARP-specific killer T cell response was observed when
our designed TARP antigens were combined with Versamune®. As discussed further below, in November 2021, we entered into the NCI Patent License Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by the NCI of the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). We obtained a nonexclusive worldwide license to the patent rights for NCI’s TARP to develop and commercialize TARP peptide-based therapies in combination with our Versamune® technology for the treatment of
acute myeloid leukemia, prostate and breast cancers. We are not currently pursuing development of PDS0102.

PDS0103: Mucin-1 (MUC1)-Related Cancers

MUC1 is highly expressed in multiple solid tumor types and has been shown to be associated with drug resistance and poor disease
prognosis. We are developing PDS0103, a Versamune® based therapy in combination with novel, highly immunogenic, agonist epitopes of the MUC1 oncogenic C-terminal region to treat ovarian, breast, colorectal and lung cancers. In preclinical studies,
a dramatically enhanced MUC1-specific killer T cell response was observed when the novel antigens were combined with Versamune®.

Versamune® has demonstrated immunological compatibility with a wide array of tumor and pathogenic antigens. While our current oncology
pipeline pairs Versamune® with 4 different tumor antigens, to address over 10 cancer types, more than 75 tumor antigens have been identified and reported. We believe that Versamune® has the potential to work well with a wide range of identified tumor
antigens and neoantigens, and we are exploring the expansion of our Versamune® based pipeline by pairing the technology with multiple tumor antigens to potentially develop additional product candidates.

Versamune® based immunotherapies plus PDS01ADC as a cancer immunotherapy platform

PDS01ADC is a novel investigational antibody conjugated
(IgG1), tumor-targeting interleukin 12 (IL-12) immune-cytokine that enhances the proliferation, potency and longevity of T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Together with Versamune® based immunotherapies PDS01ADC works synergistically to
overcome immune suppression and simultaneously promote a targeted T cell attack against cancer. As with Versamune®, PDS01ADC is administered by subcutaneous injection. Clinical data suggests the addition of PDS01ADC to Versamune® based
immunotherapies may demonstrate significant disease control by shrinking tumors and/or prolonging life. In a completed Phase 2 clinical trial conducted by NCI, evaluating PDS0101 and PDS01ADC in combination with M7824 (Bintrafusp alfa),
survival data for ICI naïve patients from the trial indicated that 75% (6/8) of these patients were still alive at 36 months, and the median overall survival (OS) has not
yet been reached. Published data on standard-of-care ICIs report 30-50% of these patients typically remain alive at 12 months, and less than 30% of the patients remain alive at 24 months. In the ICI-resistant group, the 12-month OS rate was 72%
and the triple combination achieved a median OS of approximately 20 months.

PDS01ADC monotherapy has shown activation of an immune response and correlation with clinical
benefit in metastatic solid tumors

We believe PDS01ADC monotherapy promotes therapeutically
relevant immune responses, and stronger immune activation has been observed at higher doses. An analysis of patients at baseline and after PDS01ADC monotherapy treatment is displayed in the graphs below. Interferon-gamma is associated with the
induction of natural killer (NK) cells and T cells. Granzyme B is associated with the induction of active killer CD8 T cells. Importantly, higher levels of these CD8 T cells were associated with improved clinical outcomes. (Toney NJ et al. International Immunopharmacology 116 (2023) 109736).

13

Index

PDS01ADC is differentiated from other IL-12 treatments

PDS01ADC is a novel investigational immune-cytokine fusion protein composed of two molecules of IL-12 fused to each of the two
heavy-chains of a human IGg1 antibody. The IGg1 antibody targets the DNA/histones exposed in necrotic areas of solid tumors, thus delivering the IL-12 into the tumor and limiting its systemic accumulation. As seen in the chart below, PDS01ADC shows
low accumulation in blood circulation potentially promoting safety.

Oncology Development Strategy

The unique combination of high potency and favorable
safety profile of the Versamune® platform observed in preclinical studies was corroborated in the successfully completed 12-patient PDS0101 monotherapy Phase 1/2a clinical trial. All patients were infected with cancer causing (high risk) strains
of HPV, which are less likely to spontaneously regress. In September 2019, we reported retrospective clinical outcome data from this trial. Despite most of the patients being infected with multiple HPV strains including or excluding HPV16,
regression was seen in 8 out of 10 patients, with complete regression of pre-cancerous lesions documented in 6 out of 10 patients at their first post-treatment evaluation, which occurred within 1-3 months of completing treatment. In addition,
the fact that no disease recurrence occurred over the two-year evaluation period strongly suggested a robust and durable therapeutic immune response due to the induction of T cells by PDS0101 administration that were clinically active. As a
result of this information and the documentation in the trial of PDS0101’s ability to generate potent and biologically active CD8 T cells in-vivo, we focused our clinical strategy on areas of more severe unmet medical need in which PDS0101 is combined with other immune-modulating agents, including immune checkpoint
inhibitors and standard of care e.g., chemoradiotherapy, to provide improved clinical benefit to patients.

We believe that rational design of combination immunotherapies using complementary agents that promote synergy with each other and
reduce the potential for compounded toxicity will substantially enhance the potential for combination therapies to deliver improved clinical benefit for cancer patients. Based on our data, Versamune® appears to activate an appropriate combination
of immunological pathways to promote strong CD8 T cell induction while also altering the tumor microenvironment to make tumors more susceptible to T cell attack, which we believe makes it an ideal complement to immune checkpoint inhibitors and
other immune-modulating agents by enhancing their potency as part of combination therapies. In addition, the differences in mechanism of action between Versamune® and checkpoint inhibitors, as well as the initial demonstrated safety profile of
Versamune®, suggests that these combinations may be potentially much better tolerated by patients than other combination therapies involving immune checkpoint inhibitors and other cancer treatments such as immune-cytokines and chemotherapy.

Clinical Candidate Pipeline

VERSATILE-003: PDS0101 + pembrolizumab vs pembrolizumab

In March 2025, we initiated our VERSATILE-003 Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating the combination of PDS0101 in combination with the
anti-PD-1 therapy pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab as a monotherapy. The clinical trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of this therapeutic combination as a first line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer
and high-risk human papillomavirus-16 (HPV16) infection.

In this trial, which is sponsored by us, patients whose cancer has returned following initial treatment or spread (metastasized) will be
treated with either the combination of PDS0101and pembrolizumab or with pembrolizumab alone, to evaluate if the addition of PDS0101 might improve the efficacy of pembrolizumab alone. Patients in the trial will receive a total of 5 cycles of
combination therapy in the context of standard of care pembrolizumab therapy administered every three weeks until disease progression. The primary endpoint of VERSATILE-003 is median overall survival, or mOS. Following discussions with the FDA in
December 2025, we amended the trial’s protocol, among other modifications, to include progression-free survival (PFS) as an interim primary endpoint of the trial. Patients already enrolled prior to the amendment remain on the trial and continue to
receive treatment.

14

Index

VERSATILE-002: PDS0101 + Keytruda®

In November 2020, our VERSATILE-002 Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the combination of PDS0101 in combination with Merck’s anti-PD-1
therapy, Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) which is the FDA-approved standard of care for first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer commenced. Enrollment in stage 2 of 2 for the ICI naïve arm and the ICI resistant arms are complete.
The clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of this therapeutic combination as a first and second line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer and high-risk human papillomavirus-16 (HPV16) infection.

In this trial sponsored by PDS Biotech, patients whose cancer has returned following initial treatment or spread were treated with the
combination of PDS0101and Keytruda® to evaluate if the addition of PDS0101 might improve the efficacy reported in published studies of Keytruda® alone.
Patients in the trial received a total of 5 cycles of combination therapy in the context of standard of care Keytruda® therapy administered every three weeks until
disease progression. The primary endpoint of VERSATILE-002 was the objective response rate, or ORR, at six months following initiation of treatment. There were two cohorts

in the trial. Cohort 1 was for patients who have yet to be treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI naïve) and cohort 2 which consisted of patients who have failed immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICI resistant).

In June 2023, an abstract was presented at the
2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology: Abstract number 6012, Safety and Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Naïve Cohort from Study of PDS0101 and Pembrolizumab in HPV16-Positive Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC). The
abstract was also selected as one of the featured posters to be reviewed by an expert panel in the Head and Neck Cancer discussion session. Data on 34 patients was presented. The data from the abstract is as follows:

●

Estimated 12-month overall survival rate was 87.1%. Published results are 36-50% with approved ICIs used alone.

●

Median progression-free survival was 10.4 months (95% CI 4.2, 15.3). Published results are median PFS of 2-3 months for approved ICIs when used as monotherapy in
patients with similar PD-L1 levels.

●

A disease control rate (disease stabilization or tumor shrinkage) of 70.6% (24/34)

●

Confirmed and unconfirmed objective response rate is 41.2% (14/34 patients), which is identical to the preliminary response rate data PDS Biotech previously reported at
ASCO 2022 (7/17 patients). To date these responses have been confirmed in nine of the 34 patients (26.5%), including one complete response.

●

15/34 patients (44.1%) had stable disease.

●

9/34 patients (26.5%) had progressive disease.

●

4/48 (8.3%) of patients had a Grade 3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). No Grade 4 or higher TRAEs were observed.

In October 2023, at a key opinion roundtable updated interim data was presented based on an August 2, 2023 cut-off from our
VERSATILE-002 Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the combination of PDS0101 in combination with Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy, Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) which is an FDA-approved standard of care for first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic head and
neck cancer. Data on 52 patients was presented. The data from the roundtable based on investigator assessment was as follows:

Highlights from the ICI naïve cohort included:

●

24-month overall survival (OS) rate of 74%; published 24-month survival rate of less than 30% for approved ICI.

●

12-month OS rate of 80%; published results of 30-50% with approved ICIs.

●

Tumor shrinkage seen in 60% (31/52) of patients.

●

Confirmed overall response rate ORR of 27% (14/52) to date.

●

Median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.1 months to date; published results of 2-3 months PFS with approved ICIs.

●

13% (8/62) of patients experienced Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) and 0% (0/62) experienced Grade 4 or 5 TRAE; published results report 13-17% Grade
3-5 TRAE with approved ICI monotherapy.

●

60% (33/55) of patients had CPS score of 1-19 (who generally have a weaker response to Keytruda®), and 40% (22/55) have CPS score ≥20 (who generally have a stronger
response to Keytruda®).

In May 2024, at a virtual key opinion leader event, updated interim data was presented based on a November 30, 2023 cut-off from our
VERSATILE-002 Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the combination of PDS0101 in combination with Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy, Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) which is an FDA-approved standard of care for first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic head and
neck cancer. Data from 53 patients was presented. The data from the event based on investigator assessment was as follows:

15

Index

Highlights from the ICI naïve cohort with CPS > 1 included:

●

Median overall survival of 30 months; published results for ICIs are 7-18 months.

●

Confirmed overall response rate ORR of 34% (18/53) to date; published results for comparable patients receiving treatment with ICIs are less than 20%.

●

Confirmed complete responses, partial responses and stable disease according to RECIST v1.1 were seen in 75.5% of patients.

●

Median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.3 months to date; published results of 2-3 months PFS with approved ICIs.

●

The combination of PDS0101and Keytruda® appeared to be well tolerated with 11% (7/62) of patients experienced Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) and 2%
(1/62) experienced Grade 4 or 5 TRAE; published results report 13-17% Grade 3-5 TRAE with approved ICI monotherapy.

●

60% (32/53) of patients had CPS score of 1-19 (who generally have a weaker response to Keytruda®), and 40% (21/53) have CPS score ≥20 (who generally have a higher
response to Keytruda®).

In June 2024, we provided a data update from our VERSATILE-002 clinical trial. Interim data was presented based on a May 17, 2024
cut-off. The data update was as follows:

●

Median Overall Survival of 30 months, consistent with data presented our key opinion leader event in May of 2024, which was based on a data cut as of November 30, 2023.

●

27 of the censored patients remained alive and were awaiting their next clinical assessment, 6 censored patients had withdrawn consent for further follow-up, and 2
patients had been lost to follow-up, and 18 patients had died.

●

The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is 19.7 months, and the upper limit is not yet estimable, as the majority of patients continue to be followed for
survival.

In August 2024, we provided an update to our clinical strategy following discussions with the FDA. During the August 2024 update, we
announced our intent to initiate a registrational study in first line treatment in HPV16-positive recurrent/metastatic HNSCC with the double combination of PDS0101 + pembrolizumab.

In September 2024, we announced updated data from our VERSATILE-002 Phase 2 clinical trial presented during a poster session at the
European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2024. The data presented was based on a May 17, 2024 data cut-off. The main elements of the update were as follows:

●

Median Overall Survival (mOS) was 30 months with a lower 95% confidence interval of 19.7 months; Published mOS for pembrolizumab is 12-18 months

●

Objective Response Rate (ORR) of 36% (19/53); Published ORR for pembrolizumab is 19-25%

●

Disease Control Rate (DCR) is 77% (41/53)

●

21% (11/53) of patients had deep tumor responses and shrinkage of 90-100%

●

9% (5/53) of patients had a complete response

●

Treatment-related adverse events of Grade ≥3 were seen in 9 patients (Grade 3, n=8 and Grade 4, n=1)

In June 2025, we announced publication of an abstract at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting with updated
data from VERSATILE-002. Main elements of the update were as follows:

●

Median Overall Survival (mOS) was 30.0 months overall; 39.9 months for patients with CPS≥20; 26.1 months for patients with CPS 1-19.

●

Median Progression Free Survival (mPFS) was 6.3 months overall; 14.1 months for patients with CPS≥20; 5.1 months for patients with CPS 1-19

●

Objective Response Rate (ORR) was 35.8% overall; 47.6% for patients with CPS≥20; 28.1% for patients with CPS 1-19

●

Tumor shrinkage of 90-100% was 20.8% overall; 28.6% for patients with CPS≥20; 15.6% for patients with CPS 1-19

●

Disease Control Rate (DCR) was 77.4% overall; 81.0% for patients with CPS≥20; 75.0% for patients with CPS 1-19

●

Median Duration of Response (DoR) was 21.8 months overall; not yet estimable for patients with CPS≥20; 21.8 months for patients with CPS 1-19

16

Index

In August 2025, we announced final topline survival data from VERSATILE-002. Main element of the update was as follows:

●

Median overall survival (mOS) was 39.3 months in patients with CPS ≥ 1. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is 23.9 months, and the upper limit is not yet
estimable.

In September 2025, we announced final topline survival data for the low-CPS patient population from VERSATILE-002. Main element of the
update was as follows:

●

Median overall survival (mOS) for patients within the CPS 1-19 cohort (n=32) was 29.5 months.

National Cancer Institute: PDS0101 + PDS01ADC +Bintrafusp Alfa

In June 2020, the first patient was dosed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), in the NCI led Phase 2
investigator-initiated trial evaluating PDS0101 with PDS01ADC, and M7824 (Bintrafusp alfa), which is owned by EMD Serono (Merck KGaA) in patients with advanced HPV-positive cancers who have failed prior treatment. In February 2021, the NCI’s Phase 2
clinical trial of PDS0101 for the treatment of advanced HPV-positive cancers had achieved its preliminary objective response target in patients naïve to check point inhibitors which allowed for full enrollment of approximately 20 patients in this
group. In addition, based on promising results in the ICI naïve arm, the trial was amended to allow enrollment of a separate cohort of ICI -resistant patients for assessment of safety and activity of the triple combination. The trial has been closed
for enrollment. Preliminary efficacy assessment of the triple combination in this added group of 29 ICI resistant patients has been completed and evaluation of long-term patient survival is ongoing.

Preclinical study results arising from this CRADA were published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer, Immunomodulation to enhance the efficacy of an HPV therapeutic vaccine (Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer2020;8:e000612. Doi:10.1136/ jitc-2020-000612), and indicate
that PDS0101 generated both HPV-specific T cells and an associated antitumor
response when used as a monotherapy. When PDS0101 was combined with the two other novel clinical-stage anti-cancer agents, Bintrafusp Alfa and M9241 (which is now
owned by us and referred to as PDS01ADC), the preclinical data suggested that all three therapeutic agents worked synergistically to provide superior tumor T cell
responses and subsequent tumor regression when compared to any of the agents alone or the 2-component combinations. The published preclinical data demonstrating powerful activity of the triple combination appears to be corroborated in the Phase 2 trial, and this triple combination could form the basis of a unique platform providing improved cancer treatments across multiple cancers.

In November 2023, we released updated interim survival data as follows:

●

75% of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) naïve patients remain alive at 36 months; published median overall survival (OS) in similar patients is 7-11 months

●

12-month survival rate in (ICI) resistant patients of 72%

●

Median OS in ICI resistant HPV-positive patients of approximately 20 months; published median OS is 3.4 months

In February 2025, we announced the publication of clinical results in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Oncology:

●

Median Overall Survival (mOS) of 42.4 months in immune checkpoint inhibitor naïve patients; Historical published result is 7-12 months

●

Continued survival in the cohort of HPV16-positive immune checkpoint inhibitor naïve patients - mOS not yet reached

●

Median OS of 17 months in HPV16-positive immune checkpoint inhibitor resistant patients; Historically published result is 3-4 months

●

Significant tumor shrinkage with confirmed objective response rate (ORR) of 75% in HPV16-positive immune checkpoint inhibitor naïve patients; Historically published
result is 11-24%

MD Anderson Cancer Center (IMMUNOCERV): PDS0101
+ Chemoradiotherapy

In October 2020, a Phase 2 Investigator Initiated Trial (IIT) was initiated with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. This
clinical trial investigated the safety and anti-tumor efficacy of PDS0101 in combination with standard-of-care chemo-radiotherapy, or CRT, and their correlation with critical immunological biomarkers in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.
The trial enrolled 17 newly diagnosed high-risk patients with large tumors of at least 5 cm in size.

17

Index

In October 2023, data demonstrating PDS0101 combination with standard-of-care (SOC) chemoradiotherapy was associated with a rapid
decline in human papillomavirus circulating cell-free DNA (ctHPV-DNA), a potential predictive biomarker of treatment response. The data from the IMMUNOCERV Phase 2 clinical trial was featured in an oral presentation at the American Society for
Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting which included the following:

●

Earlier and greater proportion of ctDNA clearance with PDS0101 plus chemoradiation (CRT) vs. SOC CRT alone 81.3% clearance after 3 weeks vs. 30.3% with SOC
(p=0.0018), and 91.7% of clearance at 5 weeks vs. 53.1% with SOC (p=0.0179).

●

Baseline ctDNA levels correlated with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and lymph node involvement; 100% of patients treated with
PDS0101 had cancer that had spread to the lymph nodes.

In October 2024, final data from the IMMUNOCERV trial were presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting
2024. Highlights from the presentation include:

●

All patients received at least 2 doses of PDS0101

●

Median follow-up was 19 months

●

36-month overall survival (OS) rate was 84.4%, and 100% for the eight patients who received all five doses of Versamune® HPV. Historical published data show 36-month OS
rate with chemoradiation in this population of approximately 64%.

●

36-month progression free survival (PFS) rate was 74.9%, among all patients and 100% for the eight patients who received all five doses of PDS0101. Historical published
data show 36-month PFS rate with chemoradiation in this population of approximately 61%

●

Complete metabolic response (CMR) was achieved in 15/17 (88%) patients.

●

PDS0101 appeared to be safe and well-tolerated. The most common treatment-related toxicities were injection site reactions in twelve patients (71%).

Mayo Clinic: PDS0101 Monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab

In February 2022, we initiated an IIT, MC200710, for PDS0101 alone or in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitor,
pembrolizumab, in patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV(+) OPSCC) at high risk of recurrence. The trial was conducted by the Mayo Clinic, a nationally and internationally recognized center of excellence for the treatment of head and
neck cancers. We believe that this trial allows us to better understand the activity of PDS0101 alone or in combination with pembrolizumab in earlier stages of disease.

In this trial, treatment was administered before patients proceed to transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with curative intent. Treatment in
this setting is referred to as neoadjuvant treatment. PDS0101 has been shown to induce killer T cells that target and kill HPV-positive cancers, either alone or in combination with ICIs in preclinical studies, and in combination in clinical studies
of patients with advanced recurrent/metastatic HPV-positive cancers. The trial explored whether PDS0101 with or without checkpoint inhibition may increase HPV-specific anti-tumor responses, potentially resulting in tumor shrinkage, pathologic
regression, and decreases in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA).

PDS0103 (Versamune® MUC1)

In April 2020, the above-mentioned CRADA between PDS Biotech and the NCI was expanded beyond PDS0101 to include clinical and preclinical
development of PDS0103. PDS0103 is an investigational immune therapy owned by PDS Biotech and designed to treat cancers associated with the mucin-1, or MUC1, oncogenic protein. These include cancers such as ovarian, breast, colorectal and lung
cancers. PDS0103 combines Versamune® with novel highly immunogenic agonist epitopes of MUC1 developed by the NCI and licensed by us.

MUC1 is highly expressed in several types of cancer and has been shown to be associated with drug resistance and poor disease prognosis
in breast, colorectal, lung and ovarian cancers, for which PDS0103 is being developed. Expression of MUC1 is often associated with poor disease prognosis, due in part to drug resistance. In preclinical studies, and similarly to PDS0101, PDS0103
demonstrated the ability to generate powerful MUC1-specific CD8 killer T cells.

In March 2025, we announced FDA clearance of our IND application for the combination of PDS0103 and PDS01ADC in treatment of metastatic
colorectal cancer.

18

Index

IL-12 Oncology Immunocytokine Pipeline

PDS01ADC is a novel investigational IL-12 fused antibody drug conjugate (IgG1), tumor-targeting interleukin 12 (IL-12) immune-cytokine
that enhances the proliferation, potency and longevity of T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Together with Versamune® based immunotherapies, PDS01ADC works synergistically to overcome tumor immune suppression and to promote a targeted T cell
attack against cancers. As with Versamune®, PDS01ADC is given by a subcutaneous injection. Clinical data suggests the addition of PDS01ADC to Versamune® based immunotherapies may demonstrate significant disease control in advanced cancer patients
by shrinking tumors and/or prolonging life.

With the exclusive global license agreement with Merck
KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany for PDS01ADC, we believe we have simplified our registrational pathway for the NCI-led triple combination by owning both PDS0101 and PDS01ADC and combining these agents with an FDA approved ICI. PDS01ADC has been designed
to overcome the limitations of cytokine therapy as explained above and based on extensive preclinical studies performed at the NCI evaluating PDS01ADC as a monotherapy and also in combinations with established standard of care treatments for
cancer, we believe that PDS01ADC has significant potential as a cytokine therapy independent of Versamune®. Based on the informative preclinical studies, several IIT Phase 2 trials are currently in progress at the NCI, some of which are outlined
below:

●

A Phase 2 Study Evaluating PDS01ADC in Combination With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump (HAIP) and Systemic Therapy for Subjects With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, or Metastatic Adrenocortical Carcinoma

●

A Phase 2 Study Evaluating ICI Naïve and Resistant Patients with HPV-positive
malignancies treated with PDS01ADC, PDS0101 and bintrafusp alfa.

●

A Phase 2 Study Evaluating T-Cell Clonality After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Alone and in Combination with the Immunocytokine PDS01ADC in Localized High and
Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Androgen Deprivation Therapy

●

A Phase 1/2 Study of PDS01ADC in Combination with Docetaxel in Adults with Metastatic Castration Sensitive and Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer

●

A Phase 1/2 Study of PDS01ADC going forward as a Monotherapy in Advanced Kaposi Sarcoma

●

A Phase 1/2 Study of PDS01ADC in Combination with a Histone Deacetylase (HDAC) Inhibitor in ICI resistant MUC1-positive colon and bladder cancers among others

In October 2023, interim safety and immune response data was presented for the first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating
PDS01ADC in combination with current SOC chemotherapy, docetaxel, to treat metastatic castration sensitive and castration resistant prostate cancer. The data was featured in an oral presentation at the 11th Annual Meeting of the
International Cytokine & Interferon Society. The data presented included the following:

●

Decrease in PSA levels was seen in all patients at all three tested doses of PDS01ADC and 61% of patients had at least a 60% decrease in PSA levels.

●

All doses of the combination were well-tolerated with one patient experiencing Grade 4 neutropenia.

●

Administration of the combination was associated with decreases in T reg cells and increases in activated natural killer (NK) cells, memory CD8 T cells, proliferating
CD4 and CD8 T cells and cytokines INF-γ and Interleukin 10 (IL-10).

●

The changes in immune responses with the combination were independent of the PDS01ADC dose.

We are working closely with the NCI to determine the best pathway forward for the prioritized PDS01ADC studies, as well as evaluating
the use of PDS01ADC in combination with other Versamune® based clinical candidates.

19

Index

Current Clinical Pipeline of Versamune®, and PDS01ADC Based Therapies

Infectimune® Development Strategy

Infectimune® has potential as an infectious disease vaccine platform

We have developed a second cationic platform that is being applied to the development of infectious disease vaccines and this specific
formulation has been trademarked Infectimune®. It has been formulated to activate the immune system to induce rapid and longer-lasting neutralizing antibody responses for improved protection against infectious pathogens. Preclinical studies
suggest that it has the potential to induce T cell responses including memory T cell responses to provide the immune system with long-term memory and potential sustained protection against infectious pathogens over an extended period of time that
may exceed traditional antibody-based protection. We believe it could provide safe and effective vaccines that are well tolerated by healthy individuals.

PDS0202: Universal influenza vaccine

We believe the key differentiating attributes of the Infectimune® platform technology are strong induction of CD8 and CD4 T cells as
well as antibodies which can be leveraged to improve treatment and preventive options in several infectious disease indications. In January 2022, we presented preclinical data on our universal flu program sponsored by the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) demonstrating the potential of the Infectimune® technology with computationally designed influenza proteins developed by the laboratory of Dr. Ted Ross at the University of Georgia to generate broadly protective
anti-influenza immune responses across multiple strains of influenza. This data has provided a unique opportunity to highlight Infectimune®’s potentially transformative utility in the development of more broadly effective and longer lasting
protective vaccines. Current preventive and prophylactic vaccine approaches and technologies predominantly focus on creating strong induction of antibody responses. However, the induction of T cell responses, in addition to antibody responses,
provides more durable and broad protection against infectious diseases.

Based on the preclinical data with the universal seasonal flu vaccine and the current focus of the NIAID in developing more effective
flu vaccines, we have decided to focus our near-term infectious disease activities to align with the interests of the NIAID Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers (CIVICs) program. This will involve development of a universal seasonal flu
vaccine and the potential development of a universal pandemic influenza vaccine based on similar computationally designed antigens as have shown promise with Infectimune®.

The preclinical results for Infectimune® based vaccines were published in two separate articles in the peer reviewed journal Viruses in
February 2023: 1. preclinical studies demonstrating complete protection against sickness after lethal challenge with live SARS-CoV-2 or influenza viruses (Gandhapudi SK et al. Viruses 2023, 15, 432) and 2. Dramatically enhanced CD4 T cell responses
to recombinant influenza proteins compared to leading commercial vaccine adjuvants (Henson TR et al. Viruses 2023, 15, 538).

20

Index

In September 2023, preclinical data on our investigational universal flu vaccine, PDS0202, was presented at the 9th European Scientific
Working Group on Influenza (ESWI) conference. This data demonstrated active neutralization across multiple influenza viruses in animals and provided protection against infection and weight loss after challenging with high doses of H1N1 viruses when
they were not previously exposed to flu.

Clinical Development Strategy

Since our inception we have devoted substantially all our resources to developing our Versamune® and Infectimune® platforms, and
products derived thereof, as well as PDS01ADC. This includes advancing preclinical programs, conducting clinical trials, manufacturing PDS0101 and PDS01ADC for clinical trials, and providing general and administrative support. We have funded our
operations primarily from the issuance of common stock and issuance of debt. We have not generated any product revenue to date. We have never been profitable and have incurred net losses each year since our inception.

Our net losses were $34.5 million, and $37.6 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of
December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $216.6 million. Substantially all our net losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with
these operations.

As of December 31, 2025, we had $26.7 million in cash and cash equivalents.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including the following:

●

the timing and costs of our planned and ongoing clinical trials and manufacturing of our clinical products;

●

the timing and costs of our planned preclinical studies of our Versamune® platform, as well as other earlier-stage programs;

●

the outcome, timing and costs of seeking regulatory approvals;

●

the ability to repay debt financings including interest payments;

●

the terms and timing of any future collaborations, licensing, consulting or other arrangements that we may enter into;

●

the amount and timing of any payments we may be required to make in connection with the licensing, filing, prosecution, maintenance, defense and enforcement of any
patents or patent applications or other intellectual property rights; and

●

the extent to which we license or acquire other products and technologies.

Leadership

We are led by a team of executives and directors with
significant experience in drug discovery, development and commercialization. The following table sets forth certain information about our executive officers as of the date of the filing of this Annual Report:

Name

​

Age

​

Position

Frank Bedu-Addo, Ph.D.

​

61

​

President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and Director

Gregory L. Conn, Ph.D.

​

71

​

Chief Scientific Officer

Kirk V. Shepard, M.D.

​

74

​

Chief Medical Officer

Lars Boesgaard

​

56

​

Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

Stephan Toutain

60

Chief Operating Officer

Spencer Brown

​

56

​

Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer

21

Index

Frank Bedu-Addo, Ph.D.

Dr. Bedu-Addo has served as director, President and Chief Executive Officer of PDS Biotech since March 2019. Dr. Bedu-Addo is a
veteran biotech executive with experience in successfully starting and growing biotechnology organizations. He has been responsible for the oversight, development and implementation of operational and drug development strategies in both large
organizations and emerging biotechnology companies. Dr. Bedu-Addo was a member of the senior executive team at KBI BioPharma, Inc. As Vice President of Drug Development, he oversaw all operations including business development, drug
development/manufacturing and profit and loss. Before his tenure at KBI, he successfully started and managed Cardinal Health’s East Coast biotechnology drug development and manufacturing operations. Prior to Cardinal Health, Dr. Bedu-Addo was an
Associate Director at Akzo-Nobel, Senior Scientist at Elan (The Liposome Co.), and Principal Scientist at Schering-Plough. In these positions, he contributed to the development of numerous drugs, including antiviral and anticancer products. Dr.
Bedu-Addo obtained both his M.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics from the University of Pittsburgh.

Gregory L. Conn, Ph.D.

Dr. Conn was a founding member of the PDS Biotech team in 2005 as Chief Scientific Officer and continues to serve PDS Biotech in that
role. He has more than 35 years of drug-development expertise, including development of antiviral and anticancer drugs through to commercialization. He is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, where he obtained both his M.S. and
Ph.D., discovering novel angiogenic molecules in the human brain. Dr. Conn started his pharmaceutical career at Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme, where he continued his work on novel angiogenic factors, discovering and characterizing the VEGF family of
growth factors, work which led to the development and commercialization of the anti-cancer drug Avastin. He was later a leading scientist at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, where he established and headed various groups in the Cell and Molecular Biology
and Drug Discovery departments. Dr. Conn subsequently became a Director in the Process Development department at Covance Biotechnology Services Inc., a contract research and development and drug manufacturing organization, where he supervised the
analytical development teams responsible for drug characterization, method development and drug stability studies, and program teams responsible for developing drug manufacturing processes. Dr. Conn has expertise across all phases of the drug
development process, including FDA and regulatory requirements, and is the co-inventor of eight drug patents.

Kirk V. Shepard, M.D.

Dr. Shephard has served as Chief Medical Officer of PDS Biotech since January 2024. Dr. Shepard is a board-certified medical oncologist
and hematologist with more than 30 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. His experience spans multiple therapeutic areas and includes operational and strategic product development from Phases 1 through 4 and diverse disciplines of
medical affairs and product commercialization. Prior to joining PDS Biotech, Dr. Shepard was Chief Medical Officer, Senior Vice President and Head of the Global Medical Affairs Oncology Business Group at Eisai Pharmaceutical Company from March 2017
to August 2023. Dr. Shepard previously held leadership roles including Senior Vice President & Head, Global Medical Affairs at Baxter International Inc., Senior Vice President, Global Medical Affairs at Takeda Pharmaceuticals International and
Vice President, Clinical and Scientific Affairs at Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Before his pharmaceutical industry career, Dr. Shepard served as a staff physician in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at the Cleveland
Clinic Foundation, where he supervised numerous studies in oncology and symptom control. He has been published in more than 50 medical publications. Dr. Shepard holds a bachelor’s degree from Cornell University and earned his medical degree from the
University of Cincinnati Medical School. He completed his internship and internal medicine residency at Case Western Reserve University and fellowships in hematology and oncology at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics.

Lars Boesgaard

Mr. Boesgaard has served as Chief Financial Officer of PDS Biotech since December 2023. Mr. Boesgaard has had a career spanning more
than 25 years in healthcare and has deep capital markets and investor relations experience with global clinical and commercial-stage pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He has prepared and executed corporate transactions and built financial
frameworks for rapidly growing organizations. Mr. Boesgaard served as CFO of AM-Pharma B.V. from September 2021 to August 2023. Mr. Boesgaard also served as CFO of Columbia Care from August 2018 to August 2021, where he completed key transactions
including an IPO/reverse merger resulting in a $120 million capital infusion and raising $200 million in public equity and debt offerings. Mr. Boesgaard was also previously the Vice President, CFO of Roka Bioscience from November 2015 to July 2018
and held several other senior finance positions with publicly traded companies including Insulet Corporation, Alexion Pharmaceuticals and Novo Nordisk A/S. Mr. Boesgaard holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the Copenhagen
Business School and a Master of Business Administration from the Richard Ivey School of Business, Western University, Ontario, Canada.

22

Index

Stephan Toutain

Mr. Toutain has served as Chief Operating Officer of PDS Biotech since May 2024. Mr. Toutain brings more than 30 years of operational
experience in the pharmaceutical industry from drug development, general management, operations, commercial development, market access and sales and marketing leadership with prior global expertise in the oncology and orphan drugs markets. Before
joining the Company, Mr. Toutain served as COO at Anavex Life Sciences from May 2018 to April 2024 and Chief Commercial Officer at Interleukin Genetics (OTCQB: ILIU) from July 2016 to August 2017. Mr. Toutain also worked with Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals to build its early access program. In addition, Mr. Toutain led Global Commercial Development for Sarepta Therapeutics and served as General Manager for Alexion Pharmaceuticals in Europe. Mr. Toutain has also held various U.S.
commercial, marketing and product management positions with Celgene Corporation and Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Toutain received a Master of Business Administration from the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School and a Master of
Engineering in Biotechnology from the University of Nancy II in France.

Spencer Brown

Mr. Brown has served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel of PDS Biotech since June 2022. He was appointed as Compliance Officer
in October 2023. Mr. Brown previously served as Vice President, Legal Affairs from January 2018 to January 2022 and as Senior Vice President, Legal Affairs and Compliance Officer from January 2022 to May 2022, for Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ACRS). Prior to joining Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., Mr. Brown worked nearly eight years at GE Healthcare as Senior Commercial Counsel for the Life Sciences Core Imaging business in Princeton, New Jersey. Prior to that, Mr. Brown spent
almost ten years at AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in Wilmington, Delaware where he provided legal support for most of the company’s therapeutic areas at some point during his tenure. Mr. Brown has over two decades of in-house experience in the
pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Brown began his legal career as an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Mr. Brown earned his bachelor’s degree at Princeton University and obtained his juris doctorate degree from the University of
Pennsylvania Carey School of Law.

Facilities & Manufacturing and Commercial Scale Up

Product candidates using our Versamune®, Versamune® in combination with PDS01ADC and Infectimune® development platforms are
manufactured using a readily scalable, fill-finish process with well-defined and reproducible operations. We do not own or operate cGMP compliant manufacturing facilities to produce any of our product candidates and we do not have plans to develop
our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations to produce the amounts of our product candidates necessary for our preclinical research and clinical studies. As part
of the manufacture and design process for our product candidates, we rely on internal, scientific and manufacturing know-how and trade secrets and the know-how and trade secrets of third-party manufacturers. We currently employ internal resources
to manage our manufacturing contractors.

Our research and development activities are located at the Princeton Innovation Center BioLabs, 303A College Road East, Princeton, NJ
08540, which provides first-rate development facilities for biotech companies. All animal toxicology and efficacy testing are done via third-party contracts and collaborations to provide maximum flexibility and to minimize operational costs and
overhead. This approach allows for independent validation of our data, and we believe it has historically been a cost-efficient way to progress our development programs.

We do not intend to incur the costs of building, staffing and maintaining manufacturing facilities in the near term. Our management team
has formulation, manufacturing and operations expertise, including past senior executive management roles in contract drug development and manufacturing. Our management team plans to utilize its expertise and knowledge to identify suitable
alternative contract manufacturers who will be capable of efficiently manufacturing our products.

For our PDS0101 and PDS01ADC product candidates, we continue to progress our ongoing Phase 3 and Phase 2 clinical trials. The final
protocols for all clinical trials were submitted to the FDA prior to trial initiation and information for all trials is available on www.clinicaltrials.gov.

We anticipate that we will seek marketing authorization from the FDA for our product candidates through the Biologics License
Application pathway, under Section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act. This process and the requirements are described further under “U.S. Product Development Process.”

For our earlier stage, preclinical product candidate PDS0103, we submitted an IND for a Phase 1 trial in colorectal cancer in January
2025.

23

Index

Intellectual Property

Patents

We seek to maintain high barriers to entry around our clinical and product candidates and the markets in which they are utilized by
using a multiple layered approach to our patents, patent applications, substantial know-how and trade secrets related to our platforms. We strive to protect and enhance our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially
important to our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our platforms and on know-how, continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain its proprietary
position in the vaccine field. In addition, we rely on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available. We also utilize trademark protection for our company name and we expect
to do so for products and/or services as they are marketed.

We have developed numerous patents and patent applications
and own substantial know-how and trade secrets related to our Versamune® platform. As of March 9, 2026, we hold fourteen (14) U.S. patents with granted claims directed to its platform technology and seven (7) pending U.S. patent applications. These
issued patents will expire in 2026 through 2037. Should the more recently submitted patent applications currently in prosecution be issued, these will expire in 2033 through 2043 assuming no patent term extensions are granted. As of March 9, 2026,
we hold seventy-nine (79) issued foreign patents and thirty-five (35) pending or published foreign patent applications. Most of our international issued patents are issued in multiple countries including Europe, Japan and Australia, and all of
which cover compositions of matter and methods of use related to its platform technology. These issued patents will expire in 2028 through 2038, or later if patent term extension applies. Included in the patents above is a patent protecting the
use of Versamune® in combination with IL-12.

Licensed Patents

We have licensed patented antigens from the US government for use worldwide in our cationic lipid immunotherapies. We have licensed T
cell receptor gamma alternate reading frame protein (“TARP”) from the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) to develop and commercialize TARP peptide-based therapies in combination with our Versamune® technology and any other of our proprietary
technologies for prostate and breast cancers and Acute Myeloid Leukemia. These patents are directed to immunogenic peptides and peptide derivatives for the treatment of prostate and breast cancer treatment and multi-epitope TARP peptide vaccines
and uses thereof. These antigens are incorporated in PDS0102 with Versamune®. We have licensed novel and highly immunogenic agonist epitopes of mucin-1 (“MUC1”) developed by the National Cancer Institute. MUC1 is highly expressed in multiple solid
tumors and has been shown to be associated with drug resistance and poor disease prognosis in breast, colorectal, lung and ovarian cancers, for which PDS0103 is being developed. We have granted patents and are pursuing additional patents that
cover compositions and methods of use of cationic lipid immunotherapies with each of the licensed technologies.

We entered into a non-exclusive agreement to license COBRA universal influenza antigens with the University of Georgia Research
Foundation to develop, manufacture and use COBRA antigens in a clinical trial for a universal influenza vaccine worldwide. These antigens are developed by Dr. Ted Ross at the University of Georgia. We believe that the combination of these
antigens with our proprietary Infectimune® technology, represented by PDS0202, has the potential to induce a broad immune response as a universal flu vaccine, based on preclinical development studies performed to date.

Exclusive License Agreements

On December 30, 2022, we entered into a License Agreement (the “Merck KGaA License”), with Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, pursuant to
which Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany granted us an exclusive (even as to Merck KGaA), worldwide, sublicensable, milestone and royalty-bearing right and license to certain patent rights and certain related data (the “Licensed Technology”) to
develop, manufacture, use, commercialize and otherwise exploit any product containing NHS-IL12 fusion protein formerly known as M9241, now PDS01ADC (the “Compound”). Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany retains the right under the Licensed Technology in
connection with certain existing collaborations between Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and academic institutions to allow such academic institutions to exercise their rights granted under such collaborations. We agreed to use commercially
reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture and commercialize at least one pharmaceutical preparation, substance, or formulation, comprising or employing, the Compound (the “Product”).

In consideration for the rights granted by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, we (i) made a one-time up-front cash payment of $5.0
million to Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and (ii) entered into a Share Transfer Agreement dated December 30, 2022 (the “Share Transfer Agreement”), pursuant to which we issued 378,787 shares of our common stock (the “Shares”) to Merck KGaA,
Darmstadt, Germany in a private placement for an aggregate value of $5.0 million, as measured by the closing price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market as of December 30, 2022.

24

Index

Pursuant to the Merck KGaA License Agreement, we agreed to make (i) development and first commercial sale milestone payments totaling
up to $11 million upon the achievement of certain milestones, including the dosing of the fifth patient in a Phase 3 trial of the Product and first commercial sale of the Product for a first and second indication in a major market, and (ii) up to
$105 million upon achieving certain aggregate sales levels of the Product.

We also agreed to pay Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany a royalty of 10% on aggregate net sales of Product as specified in the Merck KGaA
License Agreement on a Product-by-Product and country-by-country basis until the later of: (i) ten years after the first commercial sale of a Product in a given country; and (ii) the expiration or invalidation of the licensed patents covering the
Compound or Product in such country (collectively, the “Royalty Term”). The royalty rate is subject to reduction in that event that (i) a Product is not covered by a valid patent claim, (ii) a biosimilar to the Compound or the Product comes on the
market in a particular country, or (iii) we obtain a license to any intellectual property owned or controlled by a third-party in order to ensure that we are not infringing intellectual property owned or controlled by such third-party by making,
using or selling the Compound.

The Merck KGaA License Agreement will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon expiration of the
last-to-expire Royalty Term for such Product. On expiration (but not earlier termination), we will have a fully paid-up, royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual and irrevocable license under the licensed patent rights and related data
to develop, manufacture, use, commercialize and otherwise exploit the Compound. Either party may terminate the Merck KGaA License Agreement for the other party’s material breach following a cure period. The Merck KGaA License Agreement may not be
terminated upon certain insolvency events relating to us. We may terminate the License Agreement for any reason upon ninety days written notice to Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The Merck KGaA License Agreement also includes indemnification
obligations of each party.

Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary Information

In contrast to patent protection or regulatory
exclusivities, trade secret protection is a form of intellectual property that does not require disclosure of the subject information as part of the process, but instead depends on maintaining the subject information as strictly confidential.
Companies may in some circumstances rely on trade secrets to protect certain aspects of their proprietary know-how and technological advances, especially where they do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. Trade secret
protection depends in part on confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors that prohibit disclosure of designated proprietary information. Trade secrets can be
difficult to protect. Confidentiality agreements may not succeed in preventing a person or parties from disclosing confidential information, and in that event the rights of the trade secret holder are subject to the viability of an adequate remedy
at law, typically under state law modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Protection Act, to stop, mitigate or compensate for the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce
and determine the scope of our proprietary rights. Finally, there is always at least some risk that others may independently discover the trade secrets and proprietary information.

Material License Agreements and Research and Development Agreements

Patent License Agreements with National Institutes of Health.

Effective January 5, 2015, we entered into a Patent License Agreement (the “Patent License Agreement”) as Amended by the First
Amendment to Patent License Agreement (“First Amendment”) of August 5, 2015, with an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), pursuant to which NIH granted us a nonexclusive license to certain patent rights for the
development of a therapeutic cancer vaccine specifically in combination with our proprietary Versamune® technology for ovarian, breast, colon and lung cancers. The Patent License Agreement expires when the last licensed patent expires if the Patent
License Agreement is not terminated prior to that date. NIH may terminate the Patent License Agreement if we are in default in the performance of any material obligation under the Patent License Agreement. We may unilaterally terminate the Patent
License Agreement in any country or territory upon sixty (60) days’ written notice.

Under the Patent License Agreement and First Amendment we agreed to pay NIH: (a) a non-creditable, non-refundable royalty in the amount
of $30,000 upon execution of the Patent License Agreement; (b) a non-creditable, non-refundable royalty in the amount of $60,000 upon execution of the First Amendment to Patent License Agreement (c) a non-refundable minimum annual royalty of $5,000;
(d) earned royalties of two percent (2%) on net sales, reducible by a half percent (0.5%) for any earned royalties we must pay to third parties; (e) benchmark royalties as follows: (i) $25,000 upon successful completion of each Phase 2 Clinical
Studies of a licensed product for breast, colon, lung or ovarian cancer within each licensed territory; (ii) $50,000 upon initiation of the first Phase 3 Clinical Trial of a licensed product for breast, colon, lung or ovarian cancer within each
licensed territory; (iii) $750,000 upon the first commercial sale in the licensed territory utilizing and/or directed to licensed product(s) and/or licensed process(es) within the licensed patent rights for breast, colon, lung or ovarian cancer; and
(f) additional sublicensing royalties for each sublicense required to be approved by NIH of four percent (4%) on the fair market value of any consideration received for granting such sublicense.

25

Index

Effective as November 5, 2021, we entered into a Patent License Agreement (the “NCI Patent License Agreement”) with the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, as represented by NCI of NIH. Pursuant to the NCI Patent License Agreement, we obtained a nonexclusive, worldwide license to the patent rights for TARP to develop and commercialize TARP peptide-based therapies in
combination with our Versamune® technology and any other of our proprietary technologies for prostate and breast cancers and Acute Myeloid Leukemia. The NCI Patent License Agreement expires when the last licensed patent expires if the Patent License
Agreement is not terminated prior to that date. NCI may terminate the Patent License Agreement if we are in default in the performance of any material obligation under the Patent License Agreement. We may unilaterally terminate the NCI Patent License
Agreement in any country or territory upon sixty (60) days written notice. Under the NCI Patent License Agreement, we agreed to pay NCI certain non-creditable, nonrefundable license issue royalties, unreimbursed patent expenses for the licensed
patent rights, a nonrefundable minimum annual royalty, earned royalties as a percentage of net sales and benchmark royalties.

DOTAP Chloride Enantiomer License Agreement with Merck Eprova AG.

Effective November 1, 2008, we entered into a DOTAP Chloride Enantiomer License (the “DOTAP License Agreement”) with Merck Eprova AG
(“EPRO”), pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive license from EPRO technology to undertake development of products relating to the R-enantiomer and S-enantiomer of DOTAP Chloride for worldwide commercialization in a composition and method of
inducing an immune response in a subject by administering at least one cationic lipid with or without an antigen. The DOTAP License Agreement expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the
obligation to pay royalties applicable to such licensed product in such country. We have the right to unilaterally terminate the DOTAP License Agreement (in its entirety or on a licensed product-by-licensed product or country-by-country basis) at any
time for any reason upon prior written notice.

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for Intramural-PHS Clinical Research with The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.

Effective February 2, 2016, we entered into a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (the “CRADA”) with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to perform certain research and development activities as defined by the exhibited Research Plan. The principal goal of the CRADA is to determine whether our
Versamune® immunotherapeutic technology will be effective for enhancing delivery of cancer vaccines or viral vaccines or other immunotherapies developed by the Vaccine Branch, Center for Cancer Research, NCI, in mouse models and in human clinical
studies. The CRADA provides for development, testing and studies to be conducted in conjunction with the Vaccine Branch involving Versamune® and Multi-epitope (ME) T cell receptor gamma alternate reading frame protein peptide (TARP) to develop a
treatment for prostate cancer using autologous dendritic cells and co- administered locally with ME TARP peptides co-formulated with Versamune® immunotherapeutic technology in a non-cellular vaccine platform.

Cost Reimbursement Agreement with University of Kentucky Research Foundation

Effective November 1, 2015, we entered into an annual
Research Agreement (the “Cost Reimbursement Agreement”) with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation (“UKRF”), pursuant to which UKRF agreed to test our preclinical and clinical-stage formulations based on HPV, TARP, MUC1 and Melanoma
antigens as specified more fully in the statement of work. The agreement was terminated on November 11, 2025.

Cost Reimbursement and Sponsored Agreement with University of Kentucky Research Foundation - II.

Effective November 1, 2015, we entered into an annual
Research Agreement (the “Cost Reimbursement Agreement”) with UKRF, pursuant to which UKRF agreed to test our preclinical and clinical-stage formulations based on HPV, TARP, MUC1, Melanoma antigens as specified more fully in the statement of work.
The agreement was terminated on November 11, 2025.

26

Index

Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement with MSD International GmbH.

Effective May 19, 2017, we entered into a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement (the “CTCSA”) with MSD International GmbH
(“Merck”) pursuant to which we and Merck agreed to collaborate in a Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the safety, and preliminary efficacy of the concomitant and/or sequenced administration of the combination of a Merck compound (i.e.,
pembrolizumab, a humanized anti-human PD-1 monoclonal antibody) and our compound (i.e., PDS0101, a cationic lipid-based therapeutic vaccine combining HPV peptides) in treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer and
high-risk human papillomavirus-16 (HPV 16) infection. The term of the CTCSA commenced on May 19, 2017 and will continue until the earlier of (i) delivery of the final trial report and (ii) study completion (i.e., upon database lock of the trial
results), or until terminated by either party. In the event the CTCSA is terminated by Merck upon a material breach by us, we must reimburse Merck for its direct manufacturing costs, such as manufacturing fees, raw materials, direct labor, freight
and duty, factory overhead costs and its indirect manufacturing costs, such as allocations of indirect factory overhead and site support costs. This agreement was amended on October 28, 2019 to reflect that the trial will be for first in line
treatment of disease.

On October 28, 2019, we entered into an amendment to the clinical trial collaboration agreement with Merck to evaluate the combination
of our lead Versamune® based immunotherapy, PDS0101, with Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy, Keytruda® (pembrolizumab), in a Phase 2 clinical trial. The modification to the clinical trial design to evaluate PDS0101 in combination with Keytruda® as first-line
treatment comes as a result of Merck’s approval by the FDA on June 10, 2019 for first line treatment of patients with metastatic or unresectable recurrent HNSCC using Keytruda® in combination with platinum and fluorouracil (FU) for all patients and
as a single agent for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 as determined by an FDA-approved test. The trial (VERSATILE-002) was initiated in November of 2020 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination as a first-line treatment in patients
with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer and high-risk human papillomavirus-16 (HPV16) infection.

Other Research and Development Agreements

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for Intramural-PHS Clinical Research with The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.

Effective April 22, 2019, we entered into a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (the “CRADA”) with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to perform certain research and development activities as defined by the exhibited Research Plan. Under the agreement, we will collaborate with the NCI’s
Genitourinary Malignancies Branch (“GMB”) and Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Biology (“LTIB”) with plans to conduct a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating PDS0101 with novel immune-modulating agents M7824 and NHS-IL12 being studied at NCI as
part of a CRADA with EMD Serono (“Merck KGaA”). The Phase 2 clinical trial was initiated in June of 2020. The CRADA also involves preclinical evaluation of PDS0101 in combination with other therapeutic modalities upon the mutual agreement of both
parties. In April 2020, this agreement was amended to include PDS0103, in preclinical and clinical development for treatment of ovarian, breast, colorectal and lung cancers.

The term of the CRADA is five (5) years, starting April 22, 2019. Pursuant to Appendix A, we agreed to provide $110,000 annually, the
first payment of which is to be made on the first anniversary of the CRADA Effective date or upon the initiation of a Phase 2 clinical trial as the NIH Clinical Center, whichever comes first for NCI to use in connection with acquiring technical,
statistical, and administrative support for the clinical research activities, as well as to pay for supplies and travel expenses and infrastructure costs. The CRADA may be terminated by either party at any time by mutual written consent. Either party
may unilaterally terminate the CRADA at any time by providing sixty (60) days’ written notice. If we terminate prior to the completion of all approved or active study protocol(s) pursuant to the CRADA, we must supply enough study test product to
complete these study protocol(s) unless termination is for safety reasons. If the CRADA is mutually or unilaterally terminated by us before its expiration, we must pay non-cancellable obligations for personnel for a period of six (6) months after the
termination date or until the expiration date of the CRADA, whichever is sooner. If we suspend development on the test article without the transfer of its active development efforts, assets, and obligations to a third party within ninety (90) days of
discontinuation, NCI may continue development. In such event, we must transfer all information necessary to enable NCI to contract for the manufacture of the test article and grant NCI a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up license regarding
same.

Option to License with the University of Georgia Research Foundation of Georgia Research Foundation

On October 25, 2021, we entered into a non-exclusive agreement to license Computationally Optimized Broadly Reactive Antigen (“COBRA”)
with the University of Georgia Research Foundation. This agreement allows us to develop, manufacture and use COBRA antigens in a clinical trial for a universal influenza vaccine worldwide. The term of the agreement extends twelve months after
initiation of the first Phase 1 clinical trial and may be extended upon agreement of the parties. We may convert the option to a full agreement any time prior to the conclusion of the term.

27

Index

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense competition to develop new technologies and proprietary
products. We are aware of various established companies, including major pharmaceutical companies, broadly engaged in immunotherapies and vaccines in research and development that may compete directly with the products we are developing including
Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine (part of Johnson & Johnson), Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Merck and Pfizer, among others. In addition, there are many development-stage biotechnology companies in various immunotherapy and
vaccine development including, but not limited to, Genmab, Inovio, Kite Pharma, Moderna, BioNTech, Osivax, Vaxart, IO Biotech, Exelixis, Bicara and Flugen. If one or more of these companies is successful in developing their technologies, it could
materially impact our business.

While we believe that the Versamune®, Versamune® in combination with PDS01ADC and Infectimune® platforms provide us with competitive
advantages, we face competition from many different sources, including biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies, as well as public and private research institutions. Any products that we may
commercialize will have to compete with existing products and therapies as well as new products and immunotherapies that may become available in the future.

We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new immunotherapies enter the market and advanced technologies
become available. We expect any products that we develop and commercialize to compete based on, among other things, efficacy, safety, convenience of administration and delivery, price, availability of therapeutics, the level of generic competition
and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our competitors may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than us and may obtain approval for their products, which could result
in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic
products.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Federal, state and local government authorities in the United States and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things,
the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biological
and pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally
marketed in foreign countries. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and
financial resources.

U.S. Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates biological drug products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and the Public
Health Service Act, or PHSA, and implementing regulations. Products are also subject to certain other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate
federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval
process or post-approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial action. FDA decisions or enforcement actions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of approval, a clinical hold,
warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal
penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

28

Index

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

●

completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to good laboratory practice regulations, or GLP, and applicable requirements for the humane use
of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations;

●

submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application, or an IND, which must become effective before human clinical studies may begin;

●

approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated;

●

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical studies according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practice, or GCP, and any
additional requirements for the protection of human research subjects and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use;

●

recommendations by a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) or similar group of individuals with relevant experience that may be utilized to review accumulating clinical
data as to one or more clinical sites and recommend whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial or trials;

●

submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for marketing approval that meets applicable requirements to ensure the continued safety, purity, and
potency/efficacy of the product that is the subject of the BLA based on results of nonclinical testing and clinical studies (including among other things clinical data, chemistry, and manufacturing and controls (CMC) data);

●

review by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;

●

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product, or components thereof, are produced, to assess
compliance with cGMP, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

●

pre-license or pre-approval inspection by the FDA of the sponsor (or any third-party service providers) relative to oversight of clinical studies, clinical trial sites
that generated the data in support of the BLA, and any manufacturing facilities to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of clinical data;

●

payment of user fees;

●

FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA; and

●

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

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 candidate or disease. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific trials or all trials conducted under the IND. The testing and approval
process requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources.

Preclinical studies

Before testing any product candidate in humans, the product enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as
nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to
assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including
GLP. The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND.
Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical studies of product candidates with small patient populations may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical
studies or the results once the applicable clinical studies are completed.

29

Index

The IND and IRB processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA and PHSA that allows an unapproved drug to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an
investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any new drug that is not the subject of an
approved NDA or BLA. In support of a request for an IND, a sponsor must submit, among other things, a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor may be a
company seeking to develop the drug or, as in the case of an investigator-initiated trial, the sponsor may be an investigator who is conducting the trial. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information,
analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before the IND is
considered effective and clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. The IND automatically becomes effective
30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical studies and places the study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any
outstanding concerns before the clinical study can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical studies due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical
hold, studies may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical studies to begin, or that, once begun,
issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such studies.

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

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted
under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the study as support
for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, FDA has promulgated regulations governing the acceptance of foreign clinical trials not conducted under an IND, establishing that such studies will be accepted as support for an IND or
application for marketing approval if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and use of proper procedures for obtaining informed consent from subjects, and the FDA is
able to validate the data from the study through an on-site inspection if FDA deems such inspection necessary. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help
ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that
required for IND studies. If a marketing application is based solely on foreign clinical data, the FDA requires that the foreign data be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; the studies must have been performed by clinical
investigators of recognized competence; and the FDA must be able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means, if the FDA deems such an inspection to be necessary.

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and
approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and
informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical
trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical
trial conducted during product development, as well as amendments to previously submitted clinical trials. Further, an independent IRB for each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial,
its informed consent form, and other communications to study subjects before the clinical trial commences at that site. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted, including any changes to the study plans.

30

Index

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data
safety monitoring board (DSMB) or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the trial. Suspension or
termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on
evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for
public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials in support of an NDA or BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to 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, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in
writing before 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 (for example, inclusion and exclusion
criteria), and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to
the FDA as part of the IND and require IRB approval. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in four sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

●

Phase 1. The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening
diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in seriously ill subjects. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage
tolerance, absorption, metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.

●

Phase 2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the
efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule. Multiple Phase 2 clinical studies may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more
expensive Phase 3 clinical studies.

●

Phase 3. The biological product is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled
clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk to benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for
product labeling.

●

Phase 4. Post-approval studies, which are conducted following initial approval, are typically conducted to gain additional experience and data from treatment of
patients in the intended therapeutic indication.

Although these are the typical phases of progression, and characteristics of the phases of a clinical development program, certain
expedited programs allow for variations that could support a marketing application based on surrogate endpoints, intermediate clinical endpoints, or single-arm as opposed to comparative or placebo-controlled studies (for example, FDA could rely on
well-controlled Phase 2 studies for evidence of effectiveness under certain circumstances).

In December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a
diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of
FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them.

In February 2025, FDA announced that it plans to eliminate the de facto expectation that two pivotal trials would be conducted and
instead would require one adequate and well controlled trial plus confirmatory evidence to support approval. We do not yet know how this new announcement of policy is going to affect the processes of and costs associated with clinical trials and
marketing approval.

31

Index

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities,
clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators of potential
safety risks, from clinical trials or any other source, including for serious and unexpected adverse events and serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions, any findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk in humans exposed to the
drug, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator
brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected
adverse reaction as soon as possible but no later than within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if
at all. The FDA, the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, which receives special access to unblinded data during the clinical trial, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that
the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or no demonstration of efficacy. 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 biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the
clinical data submitted.

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for
public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website, and other jurisdictions have similar laws that may apply.

Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional studies and must also develop additional information about the
physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use
of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product
candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability
studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of
the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. 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, or PDUFA, as
amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant application fee. For approved drugs, including BLA-licensed biological products, PDUFA also imposes an annual PDUFA program fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Under
federal law, the submission of BLAs requiring clinical data is additionally subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2026 is $4,682,003. The sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual program fees, which for
fiscal year 2026 are $442,213 per eligible product. 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. No user fees are assessed on BLAs
for products designated as orphan drugs unless the application for the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete
before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the
additional information. The resubmitted application also is 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 of the BLA. The FDA has agreed to
specified performance goals in the review process of BLAs. Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the filing date, and most applications for “priority review” products are meant to be reviewed within six months of
the filing date. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA
following the original submission.

32

Index

The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and effective for its intended
use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer an application to an
advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved, and applications for new molecular entities and original BLAs are generally discussed at advisory committee meetings unless the FDA
determines that this type of consultation is not needed under the circumstances. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or
REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product,
expected duration of treatment, and seriousness of known or potential adverse events. REMS can include medication guides, physician communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or EYASU. EYASU may include, but
are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispending, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The FDA may require a REMS before approval or post-approval if
it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with the use of a product. 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. The requirement for a
REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. These pre-licensing
inspections may cover all facilities associated with a BLA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve the product unless it is satisfied that the
manufacturing establishments and processes supporting the BLA meet the appropriate requirements and comply with the applicable regulations (including cGMP requirements and adequate assurance for consistent commercial production of the product
within required specifications). Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of regulated participants in clinical trials (for example, the sponsor, investigators responsible for specific sites,
and CROs) to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with the IND and GCP requirements. 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.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its
regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical studies are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than PDS Biotech interprets the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in
its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for
example, requiring additional clinical studies. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. 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 the submission is re-submitted with additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the
application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the
indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product.

Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may
impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical studies, sometimes
referred to as Phase 4 clinical studies, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. The FDA may prevent
or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many 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.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for a new indication, dosage form, dosage regimen, or
route of administration must contain data that is 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.

33

Index

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

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the
treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation. In May 2014, the FDA published a final Guidance for Industry
titled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions-Drugs and Biologics,” which provides guidance on the FDA programs that are intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new product candidates as well as threshold criteria generally
applicable to concluding that a product candidate is a candidate for these expedited development and review programs.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more
other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions
with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by
the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period
goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by
data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, a product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other
products, 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. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice
to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient
manner.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would
provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement 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 product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious
outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority 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 ten months to six months.

Fourth, the FDA may designate a product as a regenerative
medicine advanced therapy (RMAT) if it is a regenerative medicine therapy (defined as a cell therapy, engineered tissue, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such products, except for those regulated under Section
361 of the PHSA), is indicated for a serious or life-threatening condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such condition.

Accelerated approval pathway

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

34

Index

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, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs for
treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival
benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval
confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a drug 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 confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All
promotional materials for drug candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

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. In addition, the manufacturer of an investigational drug for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on
its website, its policy on responding to requests for expanded access. Furthermore, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately
expedite the development or approval process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products for which PDS Biotech receives FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other
things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising
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 or consistent with the approved
labeling, known as ‘off-label’ use, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for
off-label uses, if the physicians deem to be appropriate in their professional medical judgment, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Recent court decisions have impacted the FDA’s enforcement activity regarding off-label
promotion in light of First Amendment considerations; however, there are still significant risks in this area in part due to the potential False Claims Act exposure.

After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior
FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical
data.

In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after
approval to ensure the long-term stability of the product. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding 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 products 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 to maintain
cGMP compliance. 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, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. In
addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new
indications and claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

The Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA imposes obligations on manufacturers of prescription biopharmaceutical products for
commercial distribution, regulating the distribution of the products at the federal level, and sets certain standards for federal or state registration and compliance of entities in the supply chain (manufacturers and repackagers, wholesale
distributors, third-party logistics providers, and dispensers). The DSCSA preempts certain previously enacted state pedigree laws and the pedigree requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA. Trading partners within the drug supply
chain must now ensure certain product tracing requirements are met that they are doing business with other authorized trading partners, and they are required to exchange transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements.
Product identifier information (an aspect of the product tracing scheme) is also now required. The DSCSA requirements, development of standards, and the system for product tracing have been and will continue to be phased in over a period of years.
The distribution of product samples continues to be regulated under the PDMA, and some states also impose regulations on drug sample distribution.

35

Index

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

●

restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, including total or partial suspension of production, complete withdrawal of the product from the market
or product recalls;

●

fines, warning or untitled letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

●

refusal of the FDA to approve pending BLAs or supplements to approved BLAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

●

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

●

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

In addition, the distribution of prescription drug products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates
the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription drug product
samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Failure to comply with any of the FDA’s requirements could result in significant adverse enforcement actions. These include a variety of
administrative or judicial sanctions, such as refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters,
modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees,
corporate integrity agreements, refusals of government contracts and new orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines
and imprisonment. It is also possible that failure to comply with the FDA’s requirements relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse and other laws, as
well as state consumer protection laws. Any of these sanctions could result in adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved
product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the
FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the
addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies
may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of its product candidates under development.

Regulatory Exclusivities Applicable to Biologics and Related Matters

Abbreviated Licensure Pathway for Biosimilars: The
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) amended the PHSA to create an abbreviated approval pathway for “biosimilar” biologics, that is, those shown to be highly similar to an already-FDA-licensed reference biologic. The
abbreviated approval process for biosimilars under the BPCIA is similar in concept to the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for generic small molecule drugs established by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(“Hatch-Waxman”) amendments to the FDCA. As with Hatch-Waxman, the goal of the BPCIA was to increase access to lower-priced versions of drugs, while balancing the need to continue incentivizing innovation in drug development. Biosimilarity is
defined to mean that the proposed biologic is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and
the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product. Further, a biosimilar may be determined to be “interchangeable” with the reference product, in which case the biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product
under state substitution laws, similar to the way generic small molecule drugs are substituted. The higher standard of interchangeability requires a showing that the biosimilar is expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference
biologic in any given patient, and further that the risk to the patient in terms of safety, purity, and/or potency of switching between the biosimilar and the reference product is no more than using the reference product without switching. FDA
has generally recommended switching studies in the past as part of the data package needed to demonstrate interchangeability of a biosimilar. However, with the advent of improved analytical tools to evaluate and characterize biological products,
in June 2024 FDA issued guidance suggesting a revised approach wherein switching studies will generally not be needed.

36

Index

Regulatory Exclusivities Applicable to Biologics Under
the BPCIA: The BPCIA established certain regulatory exclusivities that provide reference biologics with prescribed periods of time during which competing biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilars may not be approved or may not be
marketed. Once its BLA is approved (“date of first licensure”) the reference biologic is entitled to a period of four years after its date of first licensure during which time FDA is prohibited from accepting a marketing application that would
seek approval of any products that are biosimilar to the branded product, known as a data exclusivity because it prohibits the submission of a BLA application and attendant data. In addition, the reference biologic is entitled to a period of 12
years after its date of first licensure during which time the FDA is prohibited from approving marketing applications for any products that are biosimilar to the branded product, known as marketing exclusivity, because it prohibits the approval
of a BLA for marketing. In addition, the first interchangeable biosimilar may be entitled to marketing exclusivity for a period of one year after its date of first licensure, or other periods keyed to the outcome of patent litigation if
instituted, during which the FDA is prohibited from finding that any other biosimilars are interchangeable to the same reference biologic. The reference biologic may also be entitled to regulatory exclusivity under other statutory provisions that
apply to biologics and small molecule drugs.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity: Under the Orphan Drug
Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no
reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). A company must request orphan product designation
before submitting an NDA. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review
and approval process. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and an exemption from the NDA or BLA application fee. The FDA may revoke orphan drug designation, and if it does, it will publicize
that the drug is no longer designated as an orphan drug.

If the sponsor of a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for that drug for the disease or condition for
which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan product exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity provides marketing
exclusivity which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a drug or drug product designated as an orphan product ultimately
receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity, however, could also block the approval of one of our therapeutic
candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains orphan drug designation and FDA approval of the same therapeutic candidate for the same condition or disease as our orphan-designated drug.

Orphan exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the
same active ingredient for the same indication is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity
is not able to meet market demand. Further, the FDA may approve more than one product for the same orphan indication or disease as long as the products contain different active ingredients. Moreover, competitors may receive approval of different
products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity.

In addition, as the FDA has interpreted the Orphan Drug Act, even if a previously approved same drug does not have unexpired orphan
exclusivity, a demonstration of clinical superiority is required for a subsequent marketing application for the same orphan-designated drug for the same disease or condition to be awarded a 7-year period of orphan exclusivity upon marketing
approval. In recent years, there have been multiple legal challenges to this FDA interpretation, and in August 2017, Congress amended the orphan drug provisions of the FDCA through enactment of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 to codify FDA’s
longstanding interpretation. Section 527 of the FDCA now expressly provides that if a sponsor of an orphan-designated drug that is otherwise the same as an already approved drug for the same rare disease or condition is seeking orphan exclusivity,
the FDA shall require such sponsor, to demonstrate that such drug is clinically superior to any already approved or licensed drug that is the same drug in order to obtain orphan drug exclusivity.

In September 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit decided in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA that the FDA’s interpretation of orphan drug exclusivity “for the same drug for the same disease or condition” as meaning the same “use or indication” was inappropriately narrow. This decision had the potential to significantly
broaden the scope of orphan drug exclusivity for drugs that receive marketing approval for orphan indications that are narrower than their orphan-designated conditions in the United States. On January 24, 2023, the FDA issued a statement to
address the uncertainty created by the circuit court’s decision in Catalyst. This notification announced that, at this time, in matters beyond the scope of that court order (i.e., ordering the FDA to set aside its approval of the specific drug at issue), the FDA intends to continue to apply its
existing regulations tying orphan drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. We cannot guarantee which rules and interpretations will be governing going forward in different situations, that the FDA will
maintain this current position, or that other judicial actions will not impact the FDA’s application of the Orphan Drug Act.

37

Index

Pediatric Study Requirements and Pediatric Exclusivity:
Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA), a sponsor qualifies for “pediatric exclusivity” if it complies with a Written Request (WR) issued by FDA for pediatric studies. The sponsor may apply to FDA to issue a WR. Pediatric
exclusivity operates by adding six months of marketing exclusivity to the end of the latest-expiring form of exclusivity and may apply to patent rights or to FDA regulatory exclusivities. To qualify for pediatric exclusivity, at least one of those
rights must still be currently in force at the time FDA approves the pediatric studies.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA, BLA, or supplement thereto must contain data that is adequate to assess the
safety and effectiveness of the drug 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. With enactment
of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data.

Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study
objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon
a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

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. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in
FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Patent Term Extensions: Patents have a limited
lifespan. In most countries, including the U.S., the standard expiration of a patent is 20 years from the effective filing date. Various extensions of patent terms may be available in certain circumstances, for example where there are delays in
obtaining FDA regulatory approvals that result in a reduction of the period of time during which we could market a product under patent protection. In the U.S., a patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term
extension or PTE under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits the extension of a patent term by up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The PTE period granted is typically one-half the time
between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA less any time the applicant did not act with due diligence during the period, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date less any time
the applicant did not act with due diligence during the period. A PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the
PTE, only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended, and the application for the PTE must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers
multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any PTE in consultation with the FDA. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other
foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for PTE on patents covering those products. We plan to seek PTEs to any of our
issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if
granted, the length of such extensions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, PDS Biotech’s activities are potentially subject to regulation, either directly or indirectly, by various
federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for instance the Office of
Inspector General (OIG), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the
anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the criminal provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal false claims laws, the physician payment
transparency laws, and similar state laws, each as amended. The compliance and enforcement landscape, and related risk, is informed by government enforcement precedent and settlement history, Advisory Opinions, and Special Fraud Alerts. Our
approach to compliance may evolve over time in light of these types of developments.

38

Index

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute 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 the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable
under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical
manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of 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, purchasing or recommending 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, however, 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. PDS Biotech’s practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. The lack of uniform
court interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute combined with emerging, novel enforcement theories, makes compliance with the law difficult. The potential safe harbors available are subject to change through legislative and regulatory action, and
we may decide to adjust our business practices or be subject to heightened scrutiny as a result. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can result in significant criminal fines, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid and
follow-on civil litigation, among other things, for both entities and individuals.

Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Affordable Care Act 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 Affordable Care Act codified case law that a claim including items or services
resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a per se false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act, as discussed below.

The Criminal Healthcare Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1347 prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare
benefit program, including private third-party payers. Federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1001, among other sections, prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have
presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health 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 Civil Monetary Penalties Law authorizes the
imposition of substantial civil monetary penalties against an entity, such as a pharmaceutical manufacturer, that engages in activities including, among others (1) knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a claim for services not provided as
claimed or that is otherwise false or fraudulent in any way; (2) arranging for or contracting with an individual or entity that is excluded from participation in federal healthcare programs to provide items or services reimbursable by a federal
healthcare program; (3) violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; or (4) failing to report and return a known overpayment.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits, among other
things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or 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. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and similar state laws allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal or state government and to share in any monetary recovery. As a result of a modification
made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government, whether directly or indirectly. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare
companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product.

Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for
unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit 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 money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and
willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.
Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

39

Index

Also, many states have enacted similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under
Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor, even extending to self-pay items and services.

PDS Biotech may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which it conducts
its business. We are not a covered entity under HIPAA and have not functioned as a business associate under HIPAA that would cause the HIPAA Security Rule and provisions of the Privacy Rule to apply directly to us as a business associate. To the
extent that we ever function in a business associate capacity, HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH Act, and its respective implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes requirements relating to the
privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Following enactment of the HITECH Act, HIPAA’s privacy and security standards now directly apply to business associates of covered entities that receive or obtain
protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, 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 attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified
circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, and may apply more broadly thus complicating compliance efforts (for example, California recently enacted legislation — the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA-which went
into effect on January 1, 2020 and among other things, creates new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provides new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information,
and creates a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches). The CCPA was recently amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, expanding certain consumer rights such as the right to know. It remains unclear
what, if any, additional modifications will be made to these laws by the California legislature or how these laws will be interpreted and enforced. The potential effects of the CCPA and CPRA and implementing regulations are significant and may
cause us to incur substantial costs and expenses to comply.

Even for entities that are not deemed “covered entities” or “business associates” under HIPAA, according to the United States Federal
Trade Commission, or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or the
FTCA, 15 USC § 45(a). The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available
tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Medical data is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. The FTC’s guidance for appropriately securing consumers’ personal information is similar to what is required by the HIPAA
Security Rule. The FTC’s authority under Section 5 is concurrent with HIPAA’s jurisdiction and with any action taken under state law.

Additionally, the Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act under the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, require
that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with certain exceptions, report information related to certain
payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain
ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to timely, accurately, and completely submit the required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $150,000 per
year and up to an aggregate of $1 million per year for “knowing failures”. In 2022 the Sunshine Act reporting will be extended to payments and transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other mid-level practitioners (with
reporting requirements going into effect in 2022 for payments made in 2021). Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on pharmaceutical manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and
reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to healthcare providers and entities.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must also comply with state laws that require 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.
Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical
studies and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in
sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of PDS Biotech’s activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

40

Index

We expect that one or more of our products, if approved, may be eligible for coverage under Medicare, the federal health care program
that provides health care benefits to the aged and disabled, including coverage for outpatient services and supplies, such as certain drug products, that are medically necessary to treat a beneficiary’s health condition. In addition, one or more of
our products, if approved, may be covered and reimbursed under other federal health care programs, such as Medicaid and the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in
effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and pay quarterly rebates based on utilization of a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs under the program as a condition for states to receive
federal matching funds for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients and in order for payment to be available for a manufacturer’s drugs under Medicare Part B. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are also required to
participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program in order for payment to be available for a manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Under the 340B Drug Pricing Program, a manufacturer must charge no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for
its covered outpatient drugs purchased by statutorily defined covered entities that participate in the program.

In addition, federal law requires that, in order for
payment to be available for a manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B, as well as to be purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, it must also participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Federal Supply
Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program. To participate, manufacturers are required to enter into an FSS contract and other agreements with the VA for their covered drugs. Under these agreements, manufacturers must make their covered drugs available to
the “Big Four” federal agencies— the VA, the Department of Defense (“DoD”), the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), and the Coast Guard—at pricing that is capped pursuant to a statutory federal ceiling price, or FCP,
formula. The FCP is based on a weighted average non-federal average manufacturer price, which manufacturers are required to report on a quarterly and annual basis to the VA. Further, pursuant to regulations issued by the DoD to implement Section
703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, manufacturers may enter into an agreement with the Defense Health Agency (DHA) under which they agree to honor “Big Four” pricing for their covered drugs when they are dispensed
to TRICARE beneficiaries by TRICARE retail network pharmacies.

As part of the requirements to participate in these government programs, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report
certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average manufacturer price, best price, average sales price, and non-federal average manufacturer price. The calculations can be complex and are often subject to interpretation by
manufacturers, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. Governmental agencies may also make changes in program interpretations, requirements, or conditions of participation, some of which may have implications for amounts previously
estimated or paid. Any failure to comply with these price reporting and rebate payment obligations, when applicable, could negatively impact our financial results. Civil monetary penalties can be applied if a manufacturer is found to have knowingly
submitted any false price information to the government, if a manufacturer is found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of its average sales price, or if a manufacturer fails to submit the required price data on a timely basis. Such
conduct also could be grounds for CMS to terminate a manufacturer’s Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs and may provide
a basis for other potential liability under other federal laws such as the False Claims Act.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will
involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, guidance, case law or other applicable law. If our operations are found
to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation
in federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations pursuant to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of
non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to market our products, if approved, and adversely impact our financial results. Although
effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws and regulations, these risks cannot be eliminated entirely. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us
to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do
business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, it may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources, and they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded
healthcare programs.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare
reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between pharmaceutical companies and providers and patients, which has led
to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the industry. Ensuring that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government
authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business, even if investigators ultimately find that no violation has occurred.

41

Index

If PDS Biotech operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other
governmental regulations that applies to it, PDS Biotech may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties; damages; fines; disgorgement; exclusion from participation in government programs,
such as Medicare and Medicaid; injunctions; private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow it to enter into government contracts; contractual damages; reputational harm;
administrative burdens; diminished profits and future earnings; and the curtailment or restructuring of its operations; any of which could adversely affect PDS Biotech’s ability to operate its business and its results of operations.

In addition to the laws discussed above, we may see more stringent state and federal privacy legislation in the future, as the increased
instances of cyberattacks have heightened attention to data privacy and security in the U.S. and other jurisdictions. We cannot predict where new legislation might arise, the scope of such legislation, or the potential impact to our business and
operations.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and
reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on
the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health
insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a
payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are
increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive
pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our product candidates, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically
necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. No uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement exists among third-party payors in
the United States, which causes significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products, and the procedures which may utilize such newly approved products. Further, one payor’s determination to provide
coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor and health care provider to health care provider. As a result,
the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that requires the provision of scientific and clinical support for the use of new products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate
reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on its investment in product
development.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems
under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a
particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a
result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any product candidates, for which it
receives regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement or require onerous prior approvals or other restricted access. In addition, emphasis on managed
care in the United States has increased and PDS Biotech expects the pressure on healthcare pricing will continue to increase. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement
status is attained for one or more products for which PDS Biotech receives regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited
than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a product, or the procedures which utilize such product, will be paid for in all cases or at a rate which the
health care providers who purchase those products will find cost effective. Additionally, we expect pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of
health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes.

42

Index

We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize, or the procedures which
utilize such product, and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and
reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

In recent years, there have been numerous initiatives on
the federal and state levels in the United States for comprehensive reforms.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative and regulatory changes
and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of our future collaborators, to
effectively sell any drugs for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect 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 we, or our future collaborators, may receive for any approved drugs. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively,
“PPACA”) has substantially changed and continues to impact healthcare financing and delivery by both government payors and private insurers. Among the PPACA provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical industry, in addition to those otherwise
described above, are the following:

●

an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities
according to their market share in certain federal programs identified in the PPACA;

●

expansion of beneficiary eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with
income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;

●

expansion of manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate for both branded and generic drugs and revising
the definition of “average manufacturer price” for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices;

●

extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

●

a separate 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;

●

expansion of the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program;

●

establishment of the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program that, as a condition for the manufacturers outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D,
requires manufacturers to provide a now 70% point-of-sale-discount off the negotiated price of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period;

●

establishment of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to test innovative payment and service delivery
models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending;

●

creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with
funding for such research;

●

reporting of certain financial arrangements between manufacturers of drugs, biologics, devices, and medical supplies and physicians and teaching hospitals under the
Physician Payments Sunshine Act; and

●

annual reporting of certain information regarding drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to licensed practitioners.

43

Index

The framework of the PPACA continues to evolve as a result of executive, legislative, regulatory, and administrative developments that
have challenged the law and contribute to legal uncertainty that could affect the profitability of our products. While the United States Congress has not enacted legislation to comprehensively repeal the PPACA, legislation affecting the PPACA has
been signed into law, including the elimination, effective January 1, 2019, of the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the PPACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, which
is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In December 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the PPACA’s individual mandate, without the penalty that was eliminated effective January 1, 2019, was unconstitutional and could
not be severed from the PPACA. As a result, the court ruled the remaining provisions of the PPACA were also invalid. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but it
remanded the case back to the district court for further analysis of whether the mandate could be severed from the PPACA (i.e., whether the entire PPACA was therefore also unconstitutional). On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed this
challenge without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the PPACA.

Effective January 1, 2019, the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2018, among other things, further amended portions of the Social Security Act implemented as part of the PPACA to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in the Coverage Gap Discount
Program must provide to eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries during the coverage gap phase of the Part D benefit, commonly referred to as the “donut hole,” and to reduce standard beneficiary cost sharing in the coverage gap from 30% to 25% in
most Medicare Part D plans. In addition, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, signed into law December 20, 2019, fully repealed the PPACA’s “Cadillac Tax” on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans (for tax years
beginning after December 31, 2019), the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share (for calendar year 2021), and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices (for sales after December 31, 2019).
In the future, there may be additional challenges and/or amendments to the PPACA. It remains to be seen precisely what any new legislation will provide, when or if it will be enacted, and what impact it will have on the availability and cost of
healthcare items and services, including drug products.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed
and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, resulted in reductions in payments to Medicare providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to
subsequent legislation, will remain in effect through 2031, with the exception of a temporary suspension of the payment reduction which occurred from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Sequestration started again
on April 1, 2022. From April 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022, payment for Medicare fee-for-service claims was adjusted downwards by 1%; beginning on July 1, 2022, the payment was adjusted downwards by 2%. In addition, on March 11, 2021, President Biden
signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January
1, 2024. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced CMS payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover Medicare overpayments to
providers from three to five years. These legislative changes may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain
regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Recently, the cost of prescription pharmaceuticals has been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. Congress
considered and passed legislation, and the former Trump administration pursued several regulatory reforms to further increase transparency around prices and price increases, lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers, and decrease spending on
prescription drugs by government programs. Congress also continued to conduct inquiries into the prescription drug industry’s pricing practices. While several proposed reform measures will require Congress to pass legislation to become effective,
Congress and the Biden administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to address prescription drug costs. The Biden administration has taken several recent executive actions that
signal changes in policy from the prior administration. For example, on July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to promote competition in the U.S. economy that included several initiatives addressing prescription drugs. Among other
provisions, the executive order directed the Secretary of HHS to issue a report to the White House within 45 days that includes a plan to, among other things, reduce prices for prescription drugs, including prices paid by the federal government for
such drugs. In response to the Executive Order, on September 9, 2021, HHS issued a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that identified potential legislative policies and administrative tools that Congress and the agency can pursue in
order to make drug prices more affordable and equitable, improve and promote competition throughout the prescription drug industry, and foster scientific innovation. Additionally, on February 2, 2022, the Biden Administration signaled its continued
commitment to the Cancer Moonshot initiative, which was initially launched in 2016. In its recent announcement, the administration noted that its new goals under the initiative include addressing inequities in order to ensure broader access to
cutting-edge cancer therapeutics and investing in a robust pipeline for new treatments. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and states are implementing regulations designed to control spending and patient
out-of-pocket costs for drug products. Implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms that affect the pricing and/or availability of drug products may impact our ability to generate revenue, attain or maintain
profitability, or commercialize products for which we may receive regulatory approval in the future.

44

Index

On August 16, 2022 the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires
manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that
outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of
these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, and the impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully
determined.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage
criteria and/or new payment methodologies, and place additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians and other healthcare providers receive for administering any
approved product we might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels and implementation of more rigorous coverage criteria or new payment methodologies may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products
are prescribed or administered. Any coverage or reimbursement policies instituted by Medicare or other federal health care programs may result in similar policies from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other
healthcare reforms may affect our ability to generate revenue, attain or maintain profitability, or commercialize our drug candidates. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of
which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and
biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from
other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription
drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, which could limit
the amounts that state governments will pay for healthcare products and services and result in additional pricing pressures. The boom in state laws targeting drug pricing is unprecedented and the requirements are not uniform from state to state,
creating additional compliance and commercialization challenges for manufacturers. If PDS Biotech is able to obtain marketing approval for one or more of our products, our revenue and future profitability could be negatively affected if these or
other inquiries were to result in legislative or regulatory proposals that limit our ability to increase the prices of any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Foreign Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements
of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical studies, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of its products. Whether or not PDS Biotech obtains FDA
approval for a product, it would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical studies or marketing of the product in foreign countries and jurisdictions. Although many of
the issues discussed above with respect to the United States apply similarly in the context of the European Union, the approval process varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional
administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure
regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

European Union member states and other foreign jurisdictions, including Switzerland, have adopted data protection laws and regulations
which impose significant compliance obligations. Moreover, the collection and use of personal health data in the European Union, which was formerly governed by the provisions of the European Union Data Protection Directive, was replaced with the
European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, in May 2018. The GDPR, which is wide-ranging in scope, imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided
to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third-party processors in connection with the processing of personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of
personal data out of the European Union to the United States, provides an enforcement authority and imposes large penalties for noncompliance, including the potential for fines of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the
noncompliant company, whichever is greater. The recent implementation of the GDPR has increased our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, including in clinical trials, and we may in the future be required to put
in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, which could divert management’s attention and increase our cost of doing business. In addition, new regulation or legislative actions regarding data privacy and security (together
with applicable industry standards) may increase our costs of doing business. In this regard, we expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards relating to privacy and data protection in the United States,
the European Union and other jurisdictions, and we cannot determine the impact such future laws, regulations and standards may have on our business.

45

Index

Employees and Human Capital Management

Our management team possesses considerable experience in drug development research, manufacturing, clinical development and regulatory
matters. PDS Biotech’s virtual operating strategy of collaborating with scientific and clinical experts in cancer immunology, tumor immunology and gynecological oncology provides additional considerable experience in immunotherapy development,
clinical design and execution. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and we have not experienced any work stoppages.

As of December 31, 2025, we had 21 employees, all of whom were full-time employees. Our employees are highly skilled, and many hold
advanced degrees. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. Our future performance depends significantly upon the continued service of our key scientific, technical, and senior management personnel and our continued ability to
attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with market salaries and bonuses, opportunities for equity ownership, development programs that enable continued learning and growth and a robust employment package that promotes
well-being across all aspects of their lives. In addition to salaries, these programs include potential annual discretionary bonuses, stock awards, a 401(k) plan, healthcare and insurance benefits, health savings spending accounts, paid time off,
family leave, and flexible work schedules, among other benefits.

Environmental Regulations

We believe we are compliant in all material respects with applicable environmental laws. Presently, we do not anticipate such compliance
will have a material effect on capital expenditures, earnings, or our competitive position with respect to any of our operations.