NASDAQ: PROK

Chronic kidney disease is segmented into five stages, from mild (CKD Stage 1) to severe (CKD Stage 5 or kidney failure), and it is estimated that over 37 million people in the United States currently suffer from CKD. We are initially pursuing the development of rilparencel in the United States for use in patients with moderate to severe CKD and type 2 diabetes, a population that includes over one million people.

We are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical study and recently completed a Phase 2 clinical study for rilparencel in subjects with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. Rilparencel has received regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation from the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), a status granted to accelerate the development and review of promising regenerative medicine therapies. Rilparencel has, to date, been generally well tolerated by subjects with moderate to severe CKD in Phase 1 and 2 clinical testing.

REGEN-006/PROACT 1 trial:

REGEN-006 (PROACT 1) is an ongoing Phase 3, randomized, blinded, bi-lateral kidney dosing, sham controlled arm, efficacy and safety study of rilparencel in subjects with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. The related study protocol has been amended to focus on a subset of patients with Stage 4 CKD (eGFR between 20 and 30 mL/min/1.73m2) and late Stage 3b CKD (eGFR between 30 and 35 mL/min/1.73m2 with accompanying albuminuria UACR between 300 and 5000 mg/g). This study is being conducted in clinical centers in the United States, Mexico, and Taiwan.

The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given three months apart and delivered into both kidneys using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach with a targeted enrollment of approximately 470 patients. Subjects will be randomized (1:1) to the treatment group and the sham control group prior to kidney biopsy. Subjects in the treatment group will receive two injections of rilparencel of 3x106cells/g-KWest.

The surrogate endpoint to support a potential accelerated approval of rilparencel is annualized eGFR slope. The efficacy analysis set is expected to contain approximately 360 patients and will include all patients with at least 6 months of follow-up after first injection.

We anticipate topline data readout of the surrogate endpoint (eGFR slope) in the second quarter of 2027 and anticipate topline data readout of the confirmatory endpoint (composite time-to-event) in the second half of 2029.

REGEN-007:

In May 2025, we completed our REGEN-007 trial, a multi-center Phase 2 open-label 1:1 randomized two-arm trial of rilparencel in patients with diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR of 20-50 mL/min/1.73m². Full results were presented as a late-breaking clinical trial at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week 2025 and a more complete set of results were published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology in early 2026.

At randomization, patients were assigned to one of two treatment groups using different dosing regimens. Group 1 replicated the dosing schedule of our ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study in which patients receive two scheduled rilparencel injections (one in

4

each kidney), approximately three months apart. Group 2 tested an exploratory dosing regimen to investigate whether disease progression triggers, rather than a time-based trigger, could optimize multiple administrations of rilparencel. In Group 2, patients received a single rilparencel injection in one kidney and a second injection in the contralateral kidney only if triggered by a sustained eGFR decline from baseline of ≥ 20%, and/or an increase of >30% and >30mg/g in the urine albumin to creatinine ratio (“UACR”) from baseline.

The prespecified primary endpoint for REGEN-007 was the difference in annual eGFR slope (calculated using a linear mixed effects model) in the pre-injection period versus the period following the last rilparencel injection. The pre-injection period included all historical eGFR values collected up to 24 months before the screening visit as well as the on-study central laboratory eGFR results prior to first rilparencel injection. The period following the last injection included eGFR values from the last rilparencel injection to the end of study (“EOS”) visit. Median follow-up after the last injection was approximately 18 months in both Group 1 and Group 2.

Fifty-three patients were randomized in the study, of whom 49 patients (mITT population) received at least one rilparencel injection. Four patients did not receive any rilparencel injections. The majority of patients were male (69%), and the mean age was 60 years. At baseline, 38 of 49 patients (78%) had type 2 diabetes mellitus and 11 (22%) had type 1 diabetes. Thirty-nine (80%) patients were receiving an ACEi or an ARB, and 18 (37%) were receiving a SGLT2 inhibitor. At baseline, the mean (SD) eGFR was 33±10 mL/min/1.73m². Notably, the median UACR was higher in Group 1 (792 mg/g) compared to Group 2 (229 mg/g).

In Group 1 (n=24), kidney function stabilized after receiving rilparencel. The annual decline in eGFR slope improved by 78% from -5.8 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period to -1.3 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection. This 4.6 mL/min/1.73m² per year difference was statistically significant (p<0.001) and clinically meaningful. Among Group 1 patients, 15 of 24 (63%) met key Phase 3 PROACT 1 inclusion criteria. In this subgroup, treatment with rilparencel resulted in a 5.5 mL/min/1.73m² improvement in the annual decline in eGFR slope. This 85% improvement was statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

In Group 2 (n=25), the annual change in kidney function as measured by eGFR slope was -3.4 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period versus -1.7 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection, resulting in an improvement of 50%, or 1.7 mL/min/1.73m² per year. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.085) but suggests evidence of a dose response. Out of the 25 patients in Group 2, 15 (60%) met the re-dosing trigger and received a second rilparencel injection. The median time between the first and second injections in these 15 patients was approximately 11 months.

No rilparencel-related serious adverse events were observed across all patients in the study who received at least one rilparencel injection (n=49). The overall study safety profile was consistent with previously reported study results and comparable to a kidney biopsy.

We currently operate a manufacturing facility that has been designed to comply with FDA and European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) quality standards and to produce rilparencel treatments from biopsied material. Our manufacturing site, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in the United States, has a potential capacity sufficient to supply our Phase 3 study as well as a potential commercial launch, should rilparencel receive regulatory approval.

5

Our Clinical Trial Program

We are leveraging our cell therapy technology to develop product candidates designed to stop or delay kidney failure in CKD. The following table summarizes our current clinical study program:

Clinical studies suggest that rilparencel can impact kidney function positively, as shown by its stabilization of eGFR, or attenuation of the rate of eGFR decline, in patients with CKD and diabetes. We have developed a cryopreserved version of rilparencel that allows for long-term product preservation and that is being used in our Phase 3 trial of rilparencel (called PROACT 1 or REGEN-006), and was used in our Phase 2 trial of rilparencel (called REGEN-007). In addition to the cryopreserved formulation of rilparencel, we used a gelatin-based hydrogel formulation in other Phase 2 trials (called RMCL-002 and REGEN-003) and a Phase 1 trial in CAKUT (called REGEN-004).

Our Team and Corporate History

We have an experienced internal research and development team focused on utilizing our deep understanding of kidney disease pathways to discover and develop novel cell-based therapies with a multi-modal mechanism targeting various pathways. Since our founding, we have expanded our team to incorporate additional expertise as needed to pursue our goal of becoming a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company. We have assembled key management team members with expertise in kidney disease, cell therapy, development, regulatory affairs, operations, quality and manufacturing.

Effective July 1, 2025 (the “Domestication Date”), the Company completed a domestication process through which it changed its jurisdiction of incorporation from the Cayman Islands to the State of Delaware (the “Domestication”). ProKidney Corp., the Cayman Islands exempted company (“ProKidney Cayman”) deregistered as an exempted company in the Cayman Islands pursuant to Sections 206 and 207 of the Companies Act (as amended) of the Cayman Islands (the “Companies Act”), and domesticated and continued its existence as a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware pursuant to Section 388 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), effective as of the Domestication Date. In connection with the Domestication, the Company also completed certain other restructuring transactions (such transactions, together with the Domestication, the “Restructuring”) on the Domestication Date. Prior to the Restructuring, ProKidney Cayman. conducted its business indirectly through ProKidney LP (“PKLP”), a limited partnership under the laws and regulations of Ireland and its subsidiaries. As part of the Restructuring, (i) PKLP contributed substantially all of its assets to a newly formed subsidiary, ProKidney Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“PK Holdings”) (other than its limited liability company interests in PK Holdings), (ii) PKLP commenced winding-up and made a liquidating distribution of its limited liability company interests in PK Holdings to its partners, including ProKidney Cayman., in redemption of their interests in PKLP, and (iii) ProKidney Corp. GP Limited, the general partner of PKLP, sold its nominal economic interest in PK Holdings received in such liquidating distribution to ProKidney Cayman. (collectively, the “Substitution”). Immediately following the Domestication, ProKidney (“ProKidney-KY”), then a wholly owned subsidiary of PK Holdings and a Cayman Islands exempted company, re-registered as a Cayman Islands limited liability company and then deregistered as a limited liability company in the Cayman Islands and registered by way of continuation out for purposes of the Limited Liability Companies Act (as amended) of the Cayman Islands and domesticated and continued for purposes of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act as a Delaware limited liability company named ProKidney IPCo, LLC (“ProKidney IPCo”). As a result of the consummation of the Domestication and the other transactions involved in the Restructuring, the Company and the other former limited partners of

6

PKLP are now members of PK Holdings, and PK Holdings owns all of the subsidiaries that conduct the Company’s business, including ProKidney IPCo.

In connection with the Domestication and the other Restructuring transactions, the Company amended and restated certain of its material agreements, each originally dated July 11, 2022, on substantially similar terms in order to reflect updates to the Company’s corporate structure resulting from the Restructuring. These amended and restated agreements included: (i) an Amended and Restated Tax Receivable Agreement, (ii) an Amended and Restated Lock-Up Agreement, and (iii) an Amended and Restated Exchange Agreement. In addition, on the Domestication Date, the Company, together with the other former limited partners of PKLP entered into the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of PK Holdings to provide for the governance of PK Holdings and reflect the changes to its capital structure resulting from the Restructuring.

After completing the Domestication and other Restructuring transactions, the Company also underwent a series of transactions to streamline its operating subsidiaries from a tax perspective (the “Post-Domestication Reorganization”). The Post-Domestication Reorganization was finalized effective as of September 1, 2025.

References to PK Holdings herein refers to PKLP prior to the Domestication and PK Holdings subsequent to the Domestication. References to ProKidney IPCo. herein refer to ProKidney-KY prior to the Domestication and ProKidney IPCo. subsequent to the Domestication.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company pioneering treatments for CKD. Key components of our business strategy include the following:

•

Obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize, rilparencel as a treatment for patients with CKD and diabetes. We intend to continue to pursue the clinical development of rilparencel through our Phase 3 REGEN-006 trial. We activated the first site for our ongoing REGEN-006 trial (which we also call “PROACT 1”), in the fourth quarter of 2021 with the first Informed Consent Form signed and the first subject randomized into the trial in the first quarter of 2022. In the third quarter of 2025, the FDA confirmed in a Type B meeting that eGFR slope can serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. The FDA also confirmed that PROACT 1 may serve as the confirmatory study to support full approval of rilparencel based on the primary time-to-event composite endpoint specified in the protocol. In addition to PROACT 1, we are also sponsoring a long-term follow-up trial, REGEN-008, for subjects who received rilparencel as part of our trials. This study was launched in the fourth quarter of 2023.

•

Maintain and continually refine our sophisticated internal expertise in manufacturing our products. We have developed and built a manufacturing facility, intended to be operated in compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”), in which we manufacture rilparencel for clinical trials and plan to continue to develop for purposes of the eventual commercial manufacturing process, assuming receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Our current manufacturing facility has the capacity to manufacture enough product for PROACT 1 and is intended to serve as our commercial launch facility. We initiated an expansion of our manufacturing footprint within our existing premises to prepare for the potential commercialization of rilparencel.

•

Discover and develop additional product candidates for the treatment of kidney diseases utilizing our cell therapy approach. Our team has extensive experience in discovery research and deep expertise in kidney disease. While executing its primary mission to develop and commercialize rilparencel, our team expects to investigate additional disease pathways associated with kidney disease, identify key targets for intervention and generate product candidates against these targets. We may also in-license from, collaborate with, or acquire third parties to develop product candidates that we, based on our understanding of kidney diseases and pathways, believe are promising therapeutics.

Kidney Disease Overview

CKD is highly prevalent in the United States and European Union. Based on available U.S. data from the 2018 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, we expect the aggregate CKD population in the United States and European Union to grow from approximately 70 million in 2020 to approximately 80 million in 2030 and approximately 93 million in 2040. The most common causes of CKD among adults are diabetes, hypertension, and glomerular disease. In the United States, it is believed that approximately 3.2 million patients per year suffer from Stage 3b or 4 CKD and over one million of those patients could be eligible for treatment with rilparencel.

Our Approach: Working to Preserve Kidney Function through Autologous Cell Therapy

Autologous cell therapy refers to the prevention or treatment of human disease by administering a person’s own cells that have been expanded, selected and formulated outside the body and subsequently injected into the body of the patient from whom the cells were derived. We believe that our technology has the potential to preserve kidney function by using a patient’s own SRC.

7

Rilparencel is an autologous cell therapy. It includes a homologous cell mixture, SRC prepared from each individual subject’s own kidney biopsy tissue.

Preparing rilparencel begins when a biopsy of the diseased kidney is sent to our laboratory where the kidney cells are expanded and SRC selected. SRC are formulated into a cryopreserved product at a concentration of approximately 100 x 106 cells/mL and shipped frozen to the clinical site where they can be injected into the cortex of the damaged kidney of the patient. Due to one severe bleed that occurred during an early rilparencel injection procedure, we switched to the use of a noncutting needle design for the rilparencel procedure. In non-clinical studies, SRCs injected into the cortex of a diseased kidney were found to distribute from the injection site to throughout the kidney, with localization in the peritubular, juxta-tubular and intratubular regions. To date, clinical studies suggest that treatment with rilparencel in patients with CKD and diabetes may positively impact kidney function, shown by a stabilization in eGFR or attenuations in the rate of eGFR decline. Other improvements observed with non-clinical and clinical SRC treatment include metabolic, as well as filtration benefits.

Rilparencel Tissue Acquisition-to-Injection Process Overview

Mechanism of Action of Rilparencel

SRC, injected into the kidney cortex, are believed to provide a molecular basis for activation of endogenous renal repair mechanisms that are still active in the chronically diseased kidney. Non-clinical studies in multiple animal models of CKD have demonstrated that SRC injected directly into the kidney cortex could effect a reparative response in multiple locations of the nephron through putative juxtacrine and paracrine mechanisms involving direct cell-cell contact and secreted factors, respectively. In animal models of CKD, treatment with SRC preserved kidney function, reduced proteinuria and provided a significant survival benefit. Additionally, there is evidence from non-clinical models suggesting that injected SRC may augment other important kidney functions related to bone and mineral metabolism and hematopoiesis. In animal models of CKD, SRC have been shown to minimize the development of osteoclastic bone resorption, which is characteristically due to secondary hyperparathyroidism in CKD, and improve cellularity in marrow related to red blood cell production.

Our Product Candidate

Rilparencel is currently in Phase 3 development for the treatment of advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. Our Phase 3 study, PROACT 1, is being conducted at approximately 80 clinical sites based in the United States, Mexico and Taiwan. To date, clinical studies in participants with CKD and diabetes suggest that treatment with rilparencel may delay or prevent kidney failure by stabilizing eGFR.

8

The ongoing clinical development program utilizes an image-guided percutaneous injection into the kidney that is conducted using conscious sedation in an outpatient same-day procedure. The procedure appears to be generally well tolerated with the most commonly observed procedure related events including nausea, vomiting, fever, and hematuria with kidney biopsy. Serious adverse events, including injection-related pain, kidney-related events such as hematoma, renal vascular events, eGFR decline and acute kidney injury, have also been reported. Other serious adverse events, including acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, end stage kidney disease, and coronary artery disease have been reported and are generally associated with the co-morbidities of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background and Unmet Need

Chronic Kidney Disease

CKD is characterized by progressive disease that, without therapeutic intervention, can worsen until the afflicted person reaches end-stage kidney disease (“ESKD”) or dies. CKD patients have progressive damage and loss of kidney function as evidenced by decreased eGFR and / or increased excretion of urinary albumin and as observed through laboratory testing. The global adult prevalence of CKD is estimated to be 10% with ranges of 8-16% in various populations. CKD is often associated with considerable comorbidities, such as diabetes, and is often accompanied by adverse outcomes due to underlying disease states and/or risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, causing an increased risk of mortality. Ninety-seven percent of patients with moderate to severe CKD have asymptomatic disease, and this stage of CKD is associated with a two-to four-fold rise in cardiovascular disease risk, along with a significant increase in all-cause mortality. Only a small proportion of CKD patients progress to ESKD (i.e., Stage 5 disease), but the increasing life expectancy of humans has led to growing numbers of patients with chronic diseases and end-stage organ failure. Even with costly treatments, patients with ESKD experience substantial morbidity and mortality. To survive, ESKD patients require renal replacement therapy (“RRT”) with peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis or kidney transplantation. Preventing or delaying progression of CKD, delaying the onset of medical complications and treating comorbidities are key strategies for CKD management. Approved therapies for patients with CKD have been shown to delay CKD progression in some patients. However, many patients continue to lose kidney function and progress to ESKD.

The major causes of CKD in adults are diabetes and hypertension. Nearly half of all CKD cases arise from diabetes, with or without hypertension. The incidence of CKD continues to increase and is primarily due to the increased worldwide incidence of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Staging and grading of kidney function relies upon eGFR and urine measurement of albumin excretion (“albuminuria”). KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease provides guidelines intended to aid general practitioners and nephrologists in the evaluation, classification, and management of CKD in both adults and children. As set forth below, Figure 1 categorizes the risk of ESKD from “low” to “very high” based on both eGFR measurements, ranging from >90 mL/min/1.73m2 to <30 mL/min/1.73m2, and albuminuria classifications ranging from <30 mg/g to >300 mg/g. Chronic kidney failure occurs when eGFR is < 15 mL/min/1.73m2 for 3 or more months, and is often treated by dialysis or kidney transplantation.

Summary of Classification Estimates for CKD

Treatment of patients with CKD focuses on treating comorbidities (such as diabetes and hypertension) and medical complications, reducing cardiovascular risk, slowing decline of kidney function and preparing for kidney failure or kidney

9

replacement therapy. For many patients, CKD occurs as part of a complex comorbidity cluster including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacological therapy may include the administration of any or all of the following: angiotensin converting enzyme (“ACE”) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (“ARB”), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (“SGLT-2”) inhibitors, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (“nsMRAs”), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (“GLP-1 RA”), insulin and/or other anti-diabetic agents for glycemic control and lipid lowering therapy.

When a patient reaches ESKD, RRT in the form of kidney dialysis or transplantation is generally required to prolong life. The vast majority of dialysis patients in the United States and certain other developed countries receive dialysis primarily in the form of center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis. Dialysis removes toxins that accumulate in the absence of normally functioning kidneys; dialysis also helps to restore fluid and electrolyte balance when kidneys fail. Hemodialysis has been associated with multiple, serious complications as well as interference with quality of life. Although kidney transplantation currently remains the most effective form of RRT for ESKD, there is a chronic shortage of organs. If a patient can secure a kidney for transplantation, long-term immunosuppressive therapy is required to prevent rejection. Use of immunosuppressants results in a higher incidence of infection and, over the long term, some types of cancer. And while xenotransplantation might be a promising alternative approach in the future to bridge the gap between the supply and demand of human organs, tissues, and cells, immunological barriers are limiting factors in clinical xenotransplantation at the current time.

Clinical Development

Our completed clinical trials and currently ongoing clinical trials of rilparencel are summarized below; the name of the product candidate tested in the trials was changed after completion of some of the trials from Neo-Kidney Augment (“NKA”) to REACT or rilparencel.

CKD and Diabetes or CAKUT

Phase 1 Clinical Development (TNG-CL010, TNG-CL011, REGEN-004 and REGEN-015)

TNG-CL010 was an open-label safety and delivery optimization study of rilparencel (formerly known as NKA) conducted in Sweden in subjects with CKD. TNG-CL010 commenced in April 2013 and completed in December 2014. TNG-CL011 was also an open-label safety and delivery optimization study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 2 diabetes and CKD conducted in the United States. TNG-CL011 commenced with first subject enrolled in February 2014 and completed in December 2014.

The primary objective of these trials was to assess the safety and delivery of rilparencel when injected into one kidney. Six subjects from Sweden (TNG-CL010) and one from the United States with CKD and type 2 diabetes, ranging in age from 53-70 years, eGFR levels between 19-34 (average 25 +/- 2, Cystatin C) and iohexol clearance of 15-39 (average 26 +/- 3), were enrolled. One subject with CKD and type 2 diabetes was enrolled in TNG-CL011.

The results from the Phase 1 trials indicate that rilparencel was well tolerated when administered to the kidney, with no adverse events from rilparencel. When the decline of kidney function pre-and post- injection were compared, the subjects receiving rilparencel in this Phase 1 trial had an imputed delay in dialysis of approximately 1.5 years beyond the standard of care based on a reduced rate of decline in eGFR from pre-injection baseline. Cortical thickness increased in the injected kidney from an average of 14 mm at time of injection to approximately 16 mm after one year. Kidney function was preserved following the rilparencel injection by iohexol clearance and based on the subjects’ ACRs. Subjects with a baseline anemia (n = 3 of 7) showed improved hemoglobin levels after rilparencel injection, and the remaining subjects maintained normal levels during the study. Antihypertensive medication was reduced in three of six subjects during the first six months following injection with rilparencel.

The data from TNG-CL011 was accepted by FDA as part of a clinical data package submitted to progress to Phase 2.

Phase 2 Clinical Development

RMCL-001:

RMCL-001 was a Phase 2, open-label safety and efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 2 diabetes. The study commenced in May 2016 and ended in May 2017.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a second rilparencel injection using a minimally invasive percutaneous procedure that was done under conscious sedation as a same-day outpatient procedure. A single subject with an eGFR of 14 ml/min/1.73m2 was enrolled from the Phase 1 study (TNG-CL011) described above. The second dose of rilparencel was manufactured from cryopreserved kidney cells obtained from the Phase 1 kidney biopsy. The subject was administered a dose of 3x106 cells/g-KWest. The subject’s eGFR increased to approximately 20 ml/min/1.73m2 for a period of eight months, after which the subject experienced a precipitous drop in kidney function and began hemodialysis. The study was terminated by the sponsor of the clinical trial after this subject went onto dialysis and resources were diverted to study RMCL-002.

10

RMCL-002:

RMCL-002 was a Phase 2, prospective, randomized, double-arm, deferred treatment, open-label, repeat dose, safety and efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with type 2 diabetes and CKD. The first subject was enrolled in this study in February 2017, and all subjects have completed follow-up. The aggregate number of subjects enrolled in the Phase 2 clinical trial was 83. Upon withdrawal and/or replacement of two subjects, 81 subjects were enrolled as of December 2020, of which 41 subjects were enrolled into the active treatment group and 42 subjects were enrolled into the deferred treatment group.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given six months (+ 4 weeks) apart in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes with eGFRs between 20 and 50 ml/min/1.73m2, with both doses delivered into the biopsied kidney using an outpatient, minimally invasive, percutaneous approach under conscious sedation completed in less than 90 minutes. Patients received two doses of rilparencel of 3x106 cells/g-KWest each.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to the active treatment group and the deferred treatment group (i.e., the control group) following kidney biopsy. Subjects in the active treatment group received their first rilparencel injection as soon as the rilparencel product was manufactured and shipped to the clinical site. After six months (up to four weeks after target date), a second injection was given, as appropriate. In contrast, subjects in the deferred treatment group underwent a 12-month period of observation after kidney biopsy. The deferred treatment group allowed assessment of the rate of change in kidney function and co-morbidities in a nonexposed group compared to the active treatment arm. During this time, they received contemporaneous, standard-of-care therapy for CKD while undergoing follow-up evaluations every three months, similar to subjects in the active treatment group. After 12 months, subjects from the deferred treatment group received up to two rilparencel injections given six months apart (+/- four weeks of the target date), as appropriate. Consequently, the study design included a randomized control group receiving standard-of-care treatment for the first 12 months and a randomized, active treatment group receiving up to two rilparencel injections and follow-up evaluations during the same period of time.

The final results for safety and efficacy were presented at the 61st ERA Congress in May 2024. The rate of progression of kidney function for the active treatment group, assessed via pre-randomized serial measurements of eGFR over 24 months after the last rilparencel injection, was compared to that of the deferred treatment group. In addition, each subject’s baseline rate of eGFR decline, derived from historical and clinical data, was compared to the individual subject’s rate of eGFR decline through 24 months following the final rilparencel injection. Patients were followed for 24 months after their last rilparencel injection in part 1 of the trial. An open label extension portion of the study (part 2) was added in February 2021 to follow all subjects for an additional 3 years. Visits are being conducted at 3-month intervals to provide a total of 5 years (part 1 + part 2) of follow-up after the last rilparencel injection.

Overall, the trial data final results demonstrated rilparencel’s potential for kidney function preservation in patients with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes, with the most notable potential benefit shown in patients who had the highest risk of kidney failure (CKD Stage 4 with moderate to severe albuminuria). The results also indicated a safety profile in line with previously reported data from earlier Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials, with tolerability similar to that of a routine kidney biopsy.

REGEN-003:

REGEN-003 is a completed Phase 2, prospective, open-label, single-arm, safety and tolerability study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 2 diabetes, specifically those with high-risk late Stage 4 CKD. This study enrolled its first patient in March 2018. The early results were published online in January 2023 in the Journal of Blood Purification in a manuscript entitled, “Renal Autologous Cell Therapy (REACT) in Type 2 Diabetes with Late Stage 4 Diabetes-Related Chronic Kidney Disease: Trial Design and Early Analysis” (DOI: doi.org/10.1159/000527582). Clinical study results were submitted to the FDA on September 8, 2023.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given six months apart (up to four weeks after target date) in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes and with eGFRs between 14 and 20 ml/min/1.73m2. Subjects received up to two doses of rilparencel of 3x106 cells/g-KWest each delivered into the biopsied kidney using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach.

This study enrolled a total of ten adults (five men and five women). Following a percutaneous kidney biopsy and ex vivo expansion of SRC that form rilparencel, the rilparencel product was injected into the cortex of the biopsied kidney with CT image guidance. Nine participants received two doses of the rilparencel product at six-month intervals; one participant received only one injection. A six-month observation period pre-trial was required to establish a patient’s “own” baseline and rate of CKD progression. There were no cell product-related serious adverse events reported. Serious renal-linked adverse events related to the rilparencel procedure were reported in three participants, including acute kidney injury, CKD progression, renal arteriovenous fistula and hematomas, each of which required observation without transfusion or angiographic interventions. At the final analysis, median time to dialysis was 19.4 months (interquartile range 13.3-27.9). Two patients (20%) completed the study (24 months after the second injection) without advancing to RRT. One patient died due to complications related to COVID, and an additional

11

subject died due to a myocardial infarction approximately 18 months after enrollment. The results from this study suggest that rilparencel has the potential to delay dialysis in high-risk Stage 4 and Stage 5 CKD patients.

REGEN-007:

In May 2025, we completed our REGEN-007 trial, a multi-center Phase 2 open-label 1:1 randomized two-arm trial of rilparencel in patients with diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR of 20-50 mL/min/1.73m². Full results were presented as a late-breaking clinical trial at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week 2025 and a more complete set of results were published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology in early 2026.

At randomization, patients were assigned to one of two treatment groups using different dosing regimens. Group 1 replicated the dosing schedule of our ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study in which patients receive two scheduled rilparencel injections (one in each kidney), approximately three months apart. Group 2 tested an exploratory dosing regimen to investigate whether disease progression triggers, rather than a time-based trigger, could optimize multiple administrations of rilparencel. In Group 2, patients received a single rilparencel injection in one kidney and a second injection in the contralateral kidney only if triggered by a sustained eGFR decline from baseline of ≥ 20%, and/or an increase of >30% and >30mg/g in the urine albumin to creatinine ratio (“UACR”) from baseline.

The prespecified primary endpoint for REGEN-007 was the difference in annual eGFR slope (calculated using a linear mixed effects model) in the pre-injection period versus the period following the last rilparencel injection. The pre-injection period included all historical eGFR values collected up to 24 months before the screening visit as well as the on-study central laboratory eGFR results prior to first rilparencel injection. The period following the last injection included eGFR values from the last rilparencel injection to the end of study (“EOS”) visit. Median follow-up after the last injection was approximately 18 months in both Group 1 and Group 2.

Fifty-three patients were randomized in the study, of whom 49 patients (mITT population) received at least one rilparencel injection. Four patients did not receive any rilparencel injections. The majority of patients were male (69%), and the mean age was 60 years. At baseline, 38 of 49 patients (78%) had type 2 diabetes mellitus and 11 (22%) had type 1 diabetes. Thirty-nine (80%) patients were receiving an ACEi or an ARB, and 18 (37%) were receiving a SGLT2 inhibitor. At baseline, the mean (SD) eGFR was 33±10 mL/min/1.73m². Notably, the median UACR was higher in Group 1 (792 mg/g) compared to Group 2 (229 mg/g).

In Group 1 (n=24), kidney function stabilized after receiving rilparencel. The annual decline in eGFR slope improved by 78% from -5.8 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period to -1.3 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection. This 4.6 mL/min/1.73m² per year difference was statistically significant (p<0.001) and clinically meaningful. Among Group 1 patients, 15 of 24 (63%) met key Phase 3 PROACT 1 inclusion criteria. In this subgroup, treatment with rilparencel resulted in a 5.5 mL/min/1.73m² improvement in the annual decline in eGFR slope. This 85% improvement was statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

In Group 2 (n=25), the annual change in kidney function as measured by eGFR slope was -3.4 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period versus -1.7 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection, resulting in an improvement of 50%, or 1.7 mL/min/1.73m² per year. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.085) but suggests evidence of a dose response. Out of the 25 patients in Group 2, 15 (60%) met the re-dosing trigger and received a second rilparencel injection. The median time between the first and second injections in these 15 patients was approximately 11 months.

No rilparencel-related serious adverse events were observed across all patients in the study who received at least one rilparencel injection (n=49). The overall study safety profile was consistent with previously reported study results and comparable to a kidney biopsy.

REGEN-015

Multi-dose study REGEN-015 was a planned Phase 1 open-label study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The intended purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of supplemental rilparencel injections in participants who have previously received rilparencel treatment. No patient received rilparencel and the study was closed in 2024.

REGEN-004

REGEN-004 is a completed Phase 1, prospective, open-label, single-arm, safety, tolerability, and early efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD from CAKUT.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given six months (up to four weeks after target date) apart and delivered into the biopsied kidney using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach that can be delivered under conscious sedation in less than 90 minutes in patients with CKD with eGFRs between 14 and 50 ml/min/1.73m2 due to CAKUT. Five subjects were enrolled in this trial. Subjects received two doses of rilparencel of 3x106 cells/g-KWest.

12

All five subjects received their first injection, and four subjects received both injections. The trial concluded in January 2023 with the last patient, last visit. Small mean decreases from baseline in eGFR were noted at almost all time points during the study.

Results show that the estimated rate (standard error) of eGFR decline was -0.4 (2.28) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year during the Pre-Injection Period, -2.1 (1.35) mL/min/1.73m2 per year during the Post-Second Injection Period, and -1.4 (0.93) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year during the Post-Injection Period.

Final results of this study were reported to the FDA in December 2023. We are not pursuing this indication further at this time.

Phase 3 Clinical Development

Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) designation for rilparencel was granted by the FDA on October 28, 2021. As contemplated by the RMAT designation and as directed by the FDA, we requested a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Type B meeting with the FDA to review the status of preclinical data, clinical development activities and manufacturing of rilparencel and to discuss the planned clinical program intended to support approval of the product candidate. The FDA provided detailed written responses to our questions included in the meeting request, and the Type B meeting was held in March 2022 which informed our original Phase 3 trial design and endpoints. Since this original meeting with the FDA, we have held additional Type B meetings, which have further guided rilparencel’s registrational trial strategy. In 2024, we completed a comprehensive internal and external review to determine the optimal path to bring rilparencel to patients in the U.S. with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes – a market where there is high unmet clinical and economic need. An important conclusion of this review, which was later confirmed by the FDA in a Type B meeting, was that eGFR slope in patients from the ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study can serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a BLA submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. Thus, REGEN-016 (PROACT 2), which was focused on enrollment outside the U.S., was discontinued.

In a Type B meeting held in July 2025, the FDA confirmed that the slope of eGFR in patients from the ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study could serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a BLA submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. The FDA also confirmed that PROACT 1 may serve as the confirmatory study to support full approval of rilparencel based on the primary time-to-event composite endpoint specified in the protocol. We will continue to maintain our ongoing dialogue with the FDA under rilparencel’s RMAT designation.

REGEN-006/PROACT 1 trial:

REGEN-006 (PROACT 1) is an ongoing Phase 3, randomized, blinded, bi-lateral kidney dosing, sham controlled arm, efficacy and safety study of rilparencel in subjects with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. The related study protocol has been amended to focus on a subset of patients with Stage 4 CKD (eGFR between 20 and 30 mL/min/1.73m2) and late Stage 3b CKD (eGFR between 30 and 35 mL/min/1.73m2 with accompanying albuminuria UACR between 300 and 5000 mg/g). This study is being conducted in clinical centers in the United States, Mexico, and Taiwan.

The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given three months apart and delivered into both kidneys using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. Targeted enrollment is approximately 470 patients. Subjects will be randomized (1:1) to the treatment group and the sham control group prior to kidney biopsy. Subjects in the treatment group will receive two injections of rilparencel of 3x106 cells/g-KWest.

Each of the subjects in the treatment group will receive the first rilparencel injection within about 14 weeks following kidney biopsy. After three months it is intended that a second dose be given into the contralateral kidney. In contrast, subjects in the control group will receive two sham injections, the first of which will be administered 14 weeks following sham biopsy, and the second of which will be administered three months after the first sham injection. All subjects will continue in the study until the trial end date is announced and an end of study visit is completed.

The surrogate endpoint to support a potential accelerated approval of rilparencel is annualized eGFR slope. The efficacy analysis set is expected to contain approximately 360 patients and will include all patients with at least 6 months of follow-up after first injection.

The primary composite endpoint to support a potential confirmatory approval is the time from first injection to the earliest of:

•

at least 40% reduction in eGFR, using the 2021 CKD-EPI serum creatinine equation, sustained for 30 days;

•

eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73m² using the 2021 CKD-EPI serum creatinine equation, sustained for 30 days and/or chronic dialysis, and/or renal transplant; or

•

renal or cardiovascular death.

13

We anticipate topline data readout of the surrogate endpoint (eGFR slope) in the second quarter of 2027 and anticipate topline data readout of the confirmatory endpoint (composite time-to-event) in the second half of 2029.

Discontinuation of REGEN-016/PROACT 2:

REGEN-016 (PROACT 2) was a planned Phase 3, randomized, blinded, sham control arm, bi-lateral kidney dosing, efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with Stages 3b and 4 CKD and type 2 diabetes (specifically eGFR between 20 ml and 44 mL/min/1.73m2 with moderate to severe albuminuria (UACR between 300 and 5,000 mg/g)). In 2024, we completed a comprehensive internal and external review to determine the optimal path to bring rilparencel to patients in the U.S. with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes – a market where there is high unmet clinical and economic need. An important conclusion of this review, which was later confirmed by the FDA in a Type B meeting, was that eGFR slope in patients from the ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study can serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a BLA submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. Thus, REGEN-016 (PROACT 2), which was focused on enrollment outside the U.S., was discontinued.

REGEN-008

REGEN-008 is an ongoing, prospective, open-label, observational, long term follow up master protocol study of rilparencel in subjects with diabetes and CKD who were previously enrolled and treated with rilparencel. There are two sub-studies under the REGEN-008 master protocol:

REGEN-008 sub-study 1 is a multi-center, prospective, non-interventional, long-term observational extension study of participants who were enrolled and dosed in previous interventional clinical studies with the prior, fresh, rilparencel formulation. Participants will be monitored for up to five years.

REGEN-008 sub-study 2 is intended to follow study participants previously treated with the cryopreserved formulation of rilparencel. Participants will be followed for up to an additional five years for this study from completion of previous protocol End of Study Visit.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid technological advancement, significant competition, and an emphasis on intellectual property. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including developers of tubular and glomerular cell drug modulators, e.g., SGLT2 inhibitors, antifibrosis medications, e.g., MRAs, glucose-dependent insulin release stimulators, e.g., GLP-1 RAs, induced pluripotent cells, other autologous mesenchymal stem cells and mechanical renal assist devices such as implantable and wearable renal dialysis machines, and advances in peritoneal dialysis and home dialysis. Cell-based clinical trials by other companies are underway globally with umbilical, adipose and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells for CKD. Early-phase human induced pluripotent stem cell therapies for kidney diseases are ongoing in Japan.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with current therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of any of our product candidates will include efficacy, safety profile, dosing, cost, effectiveness of promotional support and intellectual property protection. With respect specifically to rilparencel, we expect the key competitive factors affecting its success, if approved, will include the intended patient population, the relative convenience of dosing and administration, and efficacy.

Many other companies working on medications for controlling CKD, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and marketing than we do. We believe that our principal competitors include developers of SGLT2 inhibitors, including canagliflozin (marketed as Invokana® by companies including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), dapagliflozin (marketed under the brand names Farxiga® and Forxiga® by companies including AstraZeneca plc and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company), and empagliflozin (marketed as Jardiance® by companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company), and MRAs, which are small-molecule therapies recently approved to lower risks of CKD progression, notably finerenone (marketed as Kerendia® by companies including Bayer AG). Most recently, GLP-1 RAs, originally approved for type 2 diabetes and obesity, have been associated with lowering all-cause mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes, advanced-stage CKD and ESKD, including semaglutide (marketed under the brand names Ozempic®, Rybelsus® and Wegovy® by Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (marketed under the brand name Mounjaro® by Eli Lilly and Company). In January 2025, the FDA approved Ozempic® to reduce the risk of kidney disease worsening, kidney failure, and death from cardiovascular disease in adults with type 2 diabetes and CKD. Future collaborations, mergers and acquisitions may result in further resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors.

Our commercial potential could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may

14

develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or make our development more complicated. These competitors may also vie for a similar pool of qualified scientific and management talent, sites and patient populations for clinical trials, as well as for technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Supply and Manufacturing

We believe that over the last 20 years we have developed our manufacturing technology for chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (“CMC”). In doing so, we have established a considerable intellectual property estate, combined with extensive manufacturing know-how, to enable us to manufacture rilparencel with consistent quality.

With support from high level manufacturing and regulatory expertise, our internal manufacturing capabilities have enabled us to progress rapidly through our clinical trials. We believe that our current manufacturing capacities enable us to provide sufficient quantities of clinical trial material to supply our clinical trials. The manufacturing facilities located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and the quality systems are intended to be compliant with global quality standards. It typically takes approximately 12 weeks to produce the clinical rilparencel products.

An audit in 2023 by the Company’s contracted Qualified Person (“QP”) to evaluate our readiness for release and distribution of rilparencel in the EU identified certain deficiencies in the documentation of the quality management systems to be addressed prior to release and distribution of product for EU clinical sites. Manufacturing was subsequently paused while we optimized our capabilities to meet EU and global standards for our Phase 3 program. Of note, no safety events necessitated this pause. After undergoing a thorough remediation process in the first half of 2024, we resumed manufacturing for U.S. and non-European clinical study sites in June 2024, and in July 2024, we received the QP Declaration of Equivalence to European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) standards. We believe the work done during the remediation has positioned the Company well to continue manufacturing under global standards for our Phase 3 program and we are well prepared for a transition to commercial manufacturing.

Our bioprocesses have been reviewed by the FDA and EMA and validation activities are ongoing in anticipation of being commercial-ready for the potential launch of rilparencel. We plan to continue to expand our manufacturing capacity to prepare for the potential commercialization of rilparencel.

We intend to improve bioprocess development to further reduce manufacturing costs of the commercial rilparencel product, assuming receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Further, similar to our Phase 3 study, our final commercial rilparencel product is planned to be a cryopreserved formulation, which we expect will reduce manufacturing costs compared to our prior fresh rilparencel formulation. We expect to leverage bulk purchasing to actively negotiate pricing of materials to further drive cost reductions. However, there can be no assurance that the manufacturing costs for our Phase 3 trials will actually be lower when we manufacture rilparencel at commercial scale. A number of factors may contribute to an inability to achieve these cost reductions, including cost overruns or inefficiencies in the supply chain and any failure to improve the formulation or bioprocessing of rilparencel in a manner that results in lower costs.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. For example, we have or are pursuing patents covering the composition of matter for each of our product candidates and we generally pursue patent protection covering methods-of-use for each clinical trial. We may also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we expect to benefit, where appropriate, from statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe and other countries that provide a period of clinical data exclusivity to compensate for the time required for regulatory approval of our products.

We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy as we develop new technologies and product candidates. We plan to file additional patent applications based on our intellectual property strategies where appropriate, including where we seek to adapt to competition or to improve business opportunities. Further, we plan to file patent applications, as we consider appropriate under the circumstances, to protect new technologies that we develop.

To cover our proprietary technologies, proprietary cell-based rilparencel product and related methods, such as methods of use, we have filed patent applications representing 21 patent families. As of December 31, 2025, our patent estate, which is solely owned, included 454 total issued patents or pending patent applications with 14 issued U.S. patents, 14 pending U.S.

15

non-provisional patent applications, four pending Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications, 272 issued foreign patents and 150 pending foreign patent applications in various foreign jurisdictions.

Specifically, our patent family with claims directed to cells formulated in rilparencel, implantable constructs, and methods of using the same to, for example, treat kidney disease, includes 37 issued patents and six pending patent applications. Patents in this family have been issued in ten jurisdictions, including the United States (three issued patents), Europe (two issued patents, each separately validated in seven countries), China (two issued patents), Japan (three issued patents), and South Korea (four issued patents). Issued patents and any further patents that may be issued from this family’s six pending applications are expected to expire in 2029 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

We also own two patent families directed to our rilparencel formulations and methods of preparing the formulations. Across these families, we have 28 issued patents in eleven jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe (validated in 11 countries), China, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. We also have four patent applications that are pending in jurisdictions, including Europe, Canada and Australia. Patents across these two patent families, including any patents that may be issued from the pending applications, are expected to expire between 2031 and 2038, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Additionally, we own two patent families with claims directed to quality control methods for ensuring that renal cells for formulation in rilparencel, prepared by our proprietary methods, have phenotypic and functional profiles indicative of therapeutic activity. Within the first patent family, we have 82 issued patents in various jurisdictions, including the United States (three issued patents), Europe (three issued patents, a first of which has been validated in 21 countries, a second of which has been validated in 20 countries, and a third of which has been validated in 13 countries), China (two issued patents), Japan (two issued patents), South Korea (four issued patents), Hong Kong (four issued patents), Australia (three issued patents), and New Zealand (two issued patents). We also have nine patent applications in this family that are pending in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Australia, China, and South Korea. Issued patents, and any further patents that may be issued from this family’s nine pending applications, are expected to expire in 2033 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. Our second patent family includes a PCT and a Taiwanese patent application. Any patents that issue as a result of having filed these applications are expected to expire in 2045 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

We further own three patent families directed to methods of improving kidney function and/or in treating kidney disease, e.g., chronic kidney disease with diabetes or chronic kidney disease resulting from a congenital anomaly. Across these families, we have nine issued patents, including three U.S. patents and 38 pending patent applications filed in 16 jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Hong Kong, China, Korea, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Canada, and Mexico. Our issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2037 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. Patents across all three patent families, if issued, are expected to expire between 2036 and 2042, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

In addition, we plan to file additional applications on aspects of our innovations that may have patent terms that extend beyond these dates.

The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In the countries in which we currently file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application, which serves as a priority application. However, the term of a U.S. patent may be extended to compensate for the time required to obtain regulatory approval to sell a medicine (a patent term extension) or by delays encountered during patent prosecution that are caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) (referred to as patent term adjustment). For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved medicines of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the medicine is under regulatory review and diligence during the review process. Patent term extensions cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent covering an approved medicine or its method of use may be extended. A similar kind of patent extension, referred to as a Supplementary Protection Certificate, is available in Europe. Legal frameworks are also available in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent. We currently intend to seek patent term extensions on any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where we have a qualifying patent and the extension is available; however there is no guarantee that the applicable regulatory authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. Further, even if our patent is extended, the patent, including the extended portion of the patent, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction in the United States or a foreign country.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to obtain and maintain a proprietary position on our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims on these pending patents and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties, may not result in the issuance of patents. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be

16

allowed or enforced in our patents. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize products with similar mechanisms of action and duplicate our methods of treatments or strategies without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a therapeutic product we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our products can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our clinical candidates. The area of patent and other intellectual property rights in pharmaceuticals is an evolving one with many risks and uncertainties, and third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our clinical candidates.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to obtain and maintain our proprietary position for our product candidates and technology will depend on our success in enforcing the claims that have been granted or may grant. However, any of our patents, including patents that we may rely on to protect our market for approved therapeutics, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction. Alternatively, we may decide that it is in our interest to settle a litigation in a manner that affects the term or enforceability of our patent. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that have been or may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents.

Trade secrets

In addition to patents, we may rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Government regulation

In the United States, biological products, including cell-based regenerative therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”), the Public Health Service Act (the “PHS Act”) and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, clinical trial, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. Each clinical trial protocol for a cell-based therapy product must be reviewed by the FDA. FDA approval must be obtained before the marketing of any biological product in the United States. 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 and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals.

Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene or cell-based therapies, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional laws and regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state legislatures, agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive laws and regulations or interpretations of existing laws or regulations, or claims that our product candidates are unsafe or pose a hazard, could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

U.S. biological products development process

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

•

completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”), and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations;

•

submission to the FDA of an application for an investigational new drug (“IND”) application which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

17

•

approval of the protocol and related documentation by an investigational review board (“IRB”) or ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each clinical trial may be initiated;

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to applicable IND regulations, good clinical practices, or Good Clinical Practices (“GCPs”) and other clinical-trial related regulation, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational biological product for each proposed indication;

•

submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for marketing approval that includes sufficient evidence of establishing the safety, purity, and potency of the proposed biological product for each proposed indication, including from results of non-clinical testing and clinical trials;

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality, potency and purity and, if applicable, compliance with the FDA’s current Good Tissue Practices (“cGTPs”) for the use of human cellular and tissue products;

•

potential FDA inspection of the non-clinical study and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GLPs and GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data submitted in support of the BLA;

•

review of the product candidate by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;

•

payment of user fees for FDA review of the BLA (unless a fee waiver applies); and

•

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

Preclinical Testing

Before testing any biological product candidate, including a cell-based regenerative therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of a product candidate’s biological characteristics, chemistry, toxicity, stability and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, 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. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. In December 2022, Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and the Public Health Service Act to specify that nonclinical testing for drugs and biologics may, but is not required to, include in vivo animal testing. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill nonclinical testing requirements by completing various in vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems), in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or nonhuman biology-based tests (e.g., bioprinting), or in vivo animal tests.

The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLP. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after an IND for an investigational drug candidate is submitted to the FDA and human clinical trials have been initiated.

Human clinical trials in support of a BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators and in accordance with GCP requirements and protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Study subjects must sign an informed consent form before participating in a clinical trial. There are also requirements governing the reporting of on-going clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries.

An IND provides an exemption from the FD&C Act that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and is also a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any biologic product candidate that is not the subject of an approved BLA. In support of a request for an IND, an applicant must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. 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, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before 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. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA issues a notice expressly authorizing the proposed trial to proceed or raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. If FDA raises concerns or places the trial on clinical hold, the IND sponsor and the agency must resolve any outstanding concerns before the proposed trials can begin.

As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Following commencement of a clinical trial, 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

18

investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. 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.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensing. In particular, such studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an IRB or independent ethics committee (an “IEC”) and informed consent from subjects and must meet other clinical trial requirements, such as sufficient patient population size and statistical powering. The FDA must be able to validate the data through an onsite inspection, if deemed necessary by the FDA.

An IRB or IEC 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 or IEC must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB or IEC must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB or IEC must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB or IEC 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.

Some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a Data Safety Monitoring Board (“DSMB”). This group provides authorization as to 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 study.

Information about certain clinical trials, including details of the protocol and eventually study results, also must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on the ClinicalTrials.gov data registry. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. Both NIH and FDA have brought enforcement actions against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

•

Phase 1. The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. In the case of some product candidates for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product candidate may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.

•

Phase 2. The product candidate is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.

•

Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product candidate and provide, if appropriate, an adequate basis for approval and product labeling. These trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing.

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

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

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, the responsible IRBs and the

19

investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, 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 within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of such information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all.

Human cell-based products administered directly into kidney tissue are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, purity and potency of human cell-based therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must 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 PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control 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 things, 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 candidate, 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 studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity, potency and efficacy of the investigational product for its proposed indication or indications to the satisfaction of the FDA. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended (“PDUFA”), each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for registered biological product manufacturers. 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.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA conducts an initial review to determine if the BLA is substantially complete before the FDA 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 reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure, potent and effective for its proposed indication or indications and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMPs to ensure the continued safety, purity and potency of such product.

Under the performance goals and policies implemented by the FDA under PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA targets 10 months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended due to FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For a cell-based therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the cGTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (“HCT/ Ps”), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the cGTP requirements is to ensure that HCT/Ps are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require

20

tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through appropriate screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, cGTP 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.

Additionally, the FDA may refer any BLA, including applications for novel biologic candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the medicine outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the medicine or biological product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.

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

The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things whether the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may choose to either resubmit the BLA addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. In September 2025, the FDA began publishing CRLs, with trade secret and confidential commercial information redacted, soon after issuing them to the respective sponsors, breaking with long standing agency tradition of publishing CRLs with approval documentation after the product is approved. If and when the deficiencies described in a CRL have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval from the FDA, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance

21

programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast Track, RMAT, Priority Review Designations and Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, RMAT designation, priority review, and the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development or FDA review of medicines and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs do not change the standards for approval but may help expedite the development or approval process.

To be eligible for fast-track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a new medicine or biological product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the NDA or BLA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA. In addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging from the clinical trial process.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), enacted in December 2016, Congress amended the FD&C Act to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, or RMATs, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineered products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Rilparencel has received RMAT designation from the FDA. RMAT designation does not include HCT/Ps regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies that are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A sponsor may request that FDA designate a medicine as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the medicine meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the medicine has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.

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

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

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, none of these programs change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Accelerated approval pathway

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval from the FDA and may be approved on

22

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

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

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

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the medicine’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw approval of the medicine. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under the act’s amendments to the FDCA, FDA may require the sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports are published on FDA’s website. The amendments also give FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product.

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

Post-approval requirements

Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. We must comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP and cGTP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biologics and HCT/Ps are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, as well as applicable foreign counterparts, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by such governmental authorities for compliance with cGMPs, cGTPs and other laws and regulations. Accordingly, we must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Future inspections by governmental authorities may identify compliance issues at our facilities that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, the discovery of conditions that violate these rules, including failure to conform to cGMPs or cGTPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a

23

product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including voluntary recall and regulatory sanctions as described below.

Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products, include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet, as well as the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”). Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or a BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

Once an approval or clearance of a medicine is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market 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, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•

fines, warning letters or other enforcement-related letters or clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials;

•

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

•

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

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and

•

consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment, or exclusion from federal health care programs; or mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, which sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of pharmaceutical distributors by the states. Furthermore, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (the “DSCSA”) was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription medicines distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA mandates resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers. The DSCSA also replaced certain provisions from the PDMA pertaining to wholesale distribution of prescription drugs with a more comprehensive statutory scheme, requiring uniform national standards for wholesale distribution and, for the first time, for third-party logistics providers. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

24

U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. In addition, a patent can only be extended once and only for a single product. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our patents, if and as applicable, to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

A biological product may also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a Written Request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies.

Reference product exclusivity for biological products

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (the “BPCIA”). The BPCIA amended the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars, and numerous biosimilars have been approved in Europe. The FDA has also issued several guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and approving biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars.

A biosimilar product is defined as one that is highly similar to a reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and for which 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. An interchangeable product is a biosimilar product that can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. The FDA approved the first interchangeable biosimilars, including an interchangeable monoclonal antibody biosimilar, in 2021.

The biosimilar applicant must demonstrate that the product is biosimilar based on data from (1) analytical studies showing that the biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference product; (2) animal studies (including toxicity); and (3) one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. In addition, the applicant must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the conditions of use on the label, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity and potency.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the first approved interchangeable biologic product will be granted an exclusivity period of up to one year after it is first commercially marketed. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the PHSA in order to permit multiple interchangeable products approved on the same day to receive and benefit from this one-year exclusivity period. If pediatric studies are performed and accepted by the FDA as responsive to a Written Request, the 12-year exclusivity period will be extended for an additional six months. In addition, the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a supplement for the reference product for a subsequent application filed by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the reference product (or licensor, predecessor in interest or other related

25

entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

The BPCIA is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, various government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

Additional regulation

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

Furthermore, some countries have enacted or are considering enacting legal restrictions on the import or export of human genetic materials, cells or tissues. For example, in China, the Ministry of Science and Technology (“MOST”) and the former Ministry of Health in June 1998 jointly established the Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources in China. In July 2015, the MOST issued the Service Guide for the Examination and Approval of Sampling, Collecting, Trading, Exporting Human Genetic Resources, which provides that foreign entities that collect and use patients’ human genetic resources in clinical trials shall be required to file for an advance approval with the Human Genetic Resources Administration Office (“HGRAO”) through its online system.

In October 2017, the MOST issued the Circular on Optimizing the Administrative Examination and Approval of Human Genetic Resources, which simplified the approval process for collecting and using human genetic resources for the purpose of seeking marketing authorization of medicines in China.

In May 2019, the State Council of China issued the Regulation on the Administration of Human Genetic Resources (the “HGR Regulation”), which stipulates the approval requirements pertinent to research collaborations between Chinese and foreign-owned entities. Pursuant to this new rule, a new filing system (as opposed to the advance approval approach originally in place) is put in place for international clinical trials using Chinese patients’ biospecimens at clinical study sites without involving the export of such biospecimens outside of China. A notification filing that specifies the type, quantity and usage of the biospecimens, among others, with the HGRAO is required before conducting such clinical trials. The collection, use, and outbound transfer of Chinese patients’ biospecimens in international collaboration for basic scientific research involving export are still subject to the advance approval of the HGRAO.

In October 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the China Biosecurity Law, which became effective on April 15, 2021. The China Biosecurity Law reaffirms the regulatory requirements stipulated by the HGR Regulation while potentially increasing the administrative fines significantly in cases in which foreign entities are alleged to have collected, preserved or exported Chinese human genetic resources.

U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. Under the FCPA, it is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity. In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Justice to pause initiation of new FCPA investigations and enforcement during a 180-day review period (subject to extension) and to issue updated guidelines though the FCPA remains in force and foreign anti-corruption laws continue to apply. However, it is unclear how this presidential directive may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in particular.

26

Government regulation outside of the United States

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

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Post-approval controls

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include the following:

•

The holder of a marketing authorization must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”).

•

All new marketing authorization applications must include a risk management plan (“RMP”), describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the marketing authorization. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies. RMPs and PSURs are routinely available to third parties requesting access, subject to limited redactions.

•

All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”), and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited.

Other health care laws and compliance requirements

If our product candidates are approved in the United States, we will have to comply with various U.S. federal and state laws, rules and regulations pertaining to health care fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback laws and false claims laws, rules and regulations. Violations of the fraud and abuse laws are punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. These laws include:

•

the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”), which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order, arrangement or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal health care program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs; a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the AKS or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (the “FCA”) or federal civil money penalties statute;

•

the federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the FCA, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health care programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payers if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery;

27

•

the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (beneficiary inducement law), which prohibits, among other things, the offering or giving of remuneration, which includes, without limitation, any transfer of items or services for free or for less than fair market value (with limited exceptions), to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular supplier of items or services reimbursable by a federal or state governmental program;

•

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, health care benefits, items or services relating to health care matters; similar to the AKS, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

•

the federal transparency requirements under the ACA, including the provision commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and its implementing regulations, which requires applicable manufacturers of medicines, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under the Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified nurse midwives and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family; and

•

the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws and regulations pertaining to our financial relationships and interactions with foreign government officials, which prohibit U.S. companies and their employees, officers, and representatives from paying, offering to pay, promising, or authorizing the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official (including, potentially, healthcare professionals in countries in which we operate or may sell our products), government staff member, political party, or political candidate to obtain or retain business or to otherwise seek favorable treatment.

Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the health care laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the AKS and FCA, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving health care items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement, we could be subject to penalties.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the U.S. government under the FCA as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing health care fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable health care laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations, including our arrangements with physicians and other health care providers are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. The approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also subject us to foreign equivalents of the health care laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

If any of the physicians or other health care providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded health care programs, which may also adversely affect our business.

28

The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of these laws have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain a robust system to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and reporting requirements increases the possibility that a health care company may violate one or more of the requirements. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable health care laws and regulations will involve substantial cost.

Data Privacy and Security

There are federal, state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information and personal information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and apply simultaneously, thus complicating compliance efforts.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, strengthens and expands requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information; and requires notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information.

HITECH strengthened and expanded HIPAA and increased penalties for violations. Under HITECH, regulated entities are subject to enforcement by the federal government and by state Attorneys General, who were given authority to enforce HIPAA under HITECH. Many state laws also impose privacy protections even more stringent than HIPAA and data security requirements applicable to information beyond health care information (for example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”)). These state laws create an additional level of enforcement and may require additional reporting in the event of breach. Most of the health care providers in the United States with whom we collaborate to develop and test our products must comply with HIPAA and applicable state law. We may not be directly subject to these laws, however, we must structure our activities in compliance with these laws to ensure that we can access and use health information to support our research, development and other activities. Our failure to comply with these privacy and security laws or a breach of health information or personal data could prompt enforcement against our health care provider partners, create third party liability for our company and/or cause significant financial or reputational harm to our company.

Numerous other countries have, or are developing, laws governing the collection, use and transmission of personal data as well. For example, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted a comprehensive general data privacy framework called the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"), which went into effect in 2018 and implemented a broad data protection framework that expanded the scope of EU data protection law, and applies to entities located inside and outside of the EU that process, or control the processing of, personal data relating to individuals located in the EU, including clinical trial data. Also in China, the Personal Information Protection Law, which took effect on November 1, 2021, introduced stringent protection requirements for processing personal information, which are in many ways akin to the requirements of the GDPR. We also continue to see other jurisdictions proposing and enacting data localization laws. Evolving legal, contractual, and other privacy and data protection obligations, could impose significant limitations, require changes to our business, or restrict our collection, use, storage or processing of personal data, which may increase our compliance expenses and make our business more costly or less efficient to conduct. In addition, any such changes could impact our ability to develop an adequate marketing strategy and pursue our growth strategy effectively, or even prevent us from providing our products in jurisdictions in which we receive marketing authorization, or potentially cause us to incur liability in an effort to comply, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Complying with these numerous, complex and often evolving requirements is expensive and difficult, and suspected and actual failure to comply, whether by us, our service providers, CROs, business partners or other third parties, or any inadvertent or unauthorized access to or use or disclosure of data that we store or handle as part of operating our business, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is an emerging and rapidly evolving technology. We currently evaluate and monitor potential uses of AI that may present business opportunities to support our business operations and overall business strategy. At the same time, the use, development, and deployment of AI are subject to evolving laws, regulations, and regulatory guidance in the jurisdictions in which we operate.

In the United States, federal and state authorities have adopted, and continue to consider, laws and regulations governing AI, including in jurisdictions where we operate. These requirements are intended to address risks associated with AI, including potential bias, discrimination, privacy, transparency, and accountability concerns, and may impose compliance obligations, increase our costs, and affect our business operations and strategy.

In addition, the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (the “AI Act”), which entered into force on August 1, 2024 and is being implemented in phases, establishes a regulatory framework governing AI systems, including requirements for certain high-risk

29

uses and restrictions on specified applications. The AI Act may apply to entities that develop, deploy, or use AI systems in the European Union and provides for significant penalties for non-compliance, including fines of up to €35 million or up to 7% of total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is greater.

As regulatory frameworks, industry standards, and AI technologies continue to evolve, we will continue to monitor developments in AI to assess potential business opportunities as well as associated risks.

Health care reform

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

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of therapeutics have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic and biosimilar products for branded prescription medicines, respectively. In recent years, the U.S. Congress has considered reductions in Medicare reimbursement levels for medicines and biologics administered by physicians. CMS, the agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, also has authority to revise reimbursement rates and to implement coverage restrictions for most drugs and biologics. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products we may market in the future. While Medicare regulations apply only to pharmaceutical benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from federal legislation or regulation may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

The ACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, was enacted in 2010 and substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers, and impose additional health policy reforms. With regard to biopharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for therapeutics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription medicines, created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, and expanded the 340B drug discount program. As another example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive health care provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of medicines and biological products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price, to the DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties.

Legislative and regulatory changes under the ACA remain possible, but it is unknown what form any such changes or any law would take and how or whether it may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in the future. We expect that changes or additions to the ACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry in the United States.

30

In addition, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which biopharmaceutical manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to medicine pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of medicines under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Notably, on December 20, 2019, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 became law (P.L. 116-94) and included a piece of bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 (the “CREATES Act”). The CREATES Act was enacted to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers had improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic and biosimilar product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic and biosimilar product developers need samples of a reference product to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic and biosimilar products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic or biosimilar product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Although lawsuits have been filed under the CREATES Act since its enactment, those lawsuits have settled privately; therefore to date no federal court has reviewed or opined on the statutory language and there continues to be uncertainty regarding the scope and application of the law.

In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) became law. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. For example, a manufacturer of a drug or biological product covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if the drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a product by product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, CMS will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single-source Part D drugs, including biologics that have been on the market for 13 years, without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs, including biologics that have been on the market for 13 years, starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities announcing the first round of negotiated “maximum fair prices” for the first 10 drug products in August 2024, which will become applicable for payment year 2026. The second round of negotiated prices for 15 drug products was announced in November 2025, and CMS published the next group of drug products selected for negotiation in January 2026. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.

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

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

At the state level in the United States, legislatures have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, in recent years, several states have formed prescription drug affordability boards (“PDABs”). Much like the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, these PDABs have attempted to implement upper payment limits (“UPLs”) on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. In August 2023,

31

Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits. Furthermore, in December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers and other members of the healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional federal, state, and foreign 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 limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures.

Coverage and reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any cell-based regenerative therapies for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any cell-based therapies for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from payors. Payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers who prescribe such treatments generally rely on these third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the treatment and other associated health care costs. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a medicine, device or biologic product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a payor not to cover our cell-based therapies could reduce physician utilization of our products, if they are approved, and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development and manufacturing costs.

In addition, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. Furthermore, recent U.S. federal actions include initiatives incorporating “most favored nation” (international reference pricing) concepts for certain prescription drugs, as well as agency testing of new payment models that could tie Medicare reimbursement or manufacturer rebates to prices in specified reference countries.

Additionally, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process.

Payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive evidence generation studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of such a product, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. If payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to current standards of care, they may not cover the product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to cover its costs or make a profit.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed with the government authority. Furthermore, some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of a particular therapy to current standards of care as part of so-called health technology assessments in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Additionally, there may be a need for activities to secure reimbursement for procedures associated with products administered in a hospital setting under the diagnosis-related group system, whereby a billing code may not exist or may be currently insufficient to cover the cost of the procedure. In other instances, countries may monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions in the form of treatment policies. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures.

32

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, ProKidney had 231 full-time employees. This included 71 in research and development, 120 in manufacturing, operations, quality control and quality assurance, and 40 in general and administrative functions. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Information About Our Executive Officers and Directors

Name

Position

Executive Officers

Bruce Culleton, M.D.

Chief Executive Officer and Director

James Coulston, CPA

Chief Financial Officer

Todd C. Girolamo

Chief Legal Officer

Darin J. Weber, Ph.D.

Chief Regulatory Officer

Non-Employee Directors

Pablo Legorreta

Chairman of the Board, Director

William F. Doyle

Lead Independent Director

Jennifer Fox

Director

José Ignacio Jimenez Santos

Director

Alan M. Lotvin, M.D.

Director

Brian J.G. Pereira, M.D.

Director

Uma Sinha, Ph.D.

Director

Information Available on the Internet

Our internet address is https://www.prokidney.com. We use our website as a routine channel for distribution of information that may be material to investors, including news releases, financial information, presentations and corporate governance information. This Annual Report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, are available to you free of charge through the Investors section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials have been electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. We include our web site address in this Annual Report only as an inactive textual reference. Information contained in or connected to our website does not constitute a part of, and is not incorporated by reference in, this report or our other filings with the SEC.