NASDAQ: STTK

TL1A is the sole known signaling ligand for DR3, and TL1A does not signal through any other receptors. Thus, we believe that the clinical safety profile of TL1A blocking antibodies generated to date in clinical trials conducted by other parties derisks the clinical safety profile for DR3 blockade. The lack of toxicity of SL-325 in our recently completed non-human primate (“NHP”) acute toxicology study also suggests a potentially favorable clinical safety profile. We engineered SL-325 to lack any Fc gamma receptor binding function, and SL-325 has not shown any evidence in our preclinical studies to date of antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity or cellular phagocytosis, which further supports a potentially derisked safety profile. We have demonstrated that SL-325 binds an epitope on DR3 that does not trigger receptor-mediated endocytosis, and the binding of SL-325 to DR3 was shown to be highly durable in our preclinical assays and in our NHP studies. Because DR3 is expressed on circulating, peripheral blood lymphocytes, we are able to directly measure DR3 receptor occupancy (“RO”), and our nonclinical studies suggest that blockade is durable for at least two months as a result of the properties of SL-325 and the stable expression of DR3. In our preclinical studies, including our acute NHP toxicology study, the RO and pharmacokinetic (“PK”) profile of SL-325 suggest extended dosing intervals, which are being further characterized in our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial.

DR3 has a distinct expression pattern from TL1A, and, consequently, blocking the receptor may allow a more complete and durable blockade of the axis, which we believe will translate to improved efficacy in patients with IBD. DR3 and TL1A have distinct expression patterns within the gastrointestinal tract (“GI”) of patients with IBD, including both ulcerative colitis (“UC”) and Crohn’s disease (“CD”). The cells within the GI tract that are capable of expressing TL1A include tissue resident antigen presenting cells and other non-hematopoietic cells. While TL1A is not usually expressed, when antigen presenting cells are exposed to inflammatory signals, a wave of TL1A mRNA expression begins, which peaks within 12 hours and ceases within 24 hours. In contrast, DR3 is stably expressed, primarily by lymphocytes both in the peripheral blood and in tissues. Direct comparison of TL1A and DR3 expression in the GI tracts of patients with IBD shows that TL1A is only upregulated in the actively inflamed areas of the GI tract. In contrast, DR3 is more abundant than TL1A and is upregulated in both actively inflamed parts of the GI tissue and in the adjacent non-inflamed tissue. The absence of TL1A in the non-inflamed areas of the bowel eliminates the mechanism through which TL1A blocking antibodies would be retained in non-inflamed areas of the GI tract. Because inflammation observed in UC and CD can wax and wane in different areas of the bowel over time, stable blockade of DR3 may reduce the spread of inflammation and may contribute to higher rates of clinical and endoscopic remission than what TL1A blocking antibodies have achieved to date.

A source of immunogenicity shared by all TL1A blocking antibodies is the formation of immune complexes between soluble TL1A in the blood and the anti-TL1A antibodies. Binding of soluble TL1A in the blood by anti-TL1A antibodies leads to a significant increase in the concentration of total TL1A in the blood. These immune complexes have contributed to ADA

1

formation in more than 64% of subjects treated with afimkibart, tulisokibart, or duvakitug in third-party clinical trials. A third-party Phase 2 trial testing the efficacy of afimkibart in CD patients demonstrated that ADA caused accelerated clearance of afimkibart, which reduced efficacy in an ADA titer dependent manner. Because DR3 is a membrane-restricted receptor, and SL-325 was engineered to bind an epitope on DR3 that is not found on DcR3, immune complex formation is not expected with SL-325. Data generated from our GLP acute NHP toxicology study, along with in silico assessment of immunogenicity risk, consistently suggest that SL-325 may have single digit ADA rates in humans. Thus, we expect that SL-325 has the potential to demonstrate a best-in-mechanism immunogenicity profile, and we expect that this superior immunogenicity profile alone will lead to improved efficacy as a monotherapy, at both the induction and maintenance time points.

Additionally, there is a high degree of sequence identity between certain third-party anti-TL1A antibodies, including tulisokibart, afimkibart, and duvakitug, and potential third-party combination agents, including vedolizumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, and guselkumab. This overlap in sequence identity introduces a risk that ADAs generated against TL1A antibodies may cross-bind to these potential combination agents and could cause accelerated clearance of both the anti-TL1A antibody and other antibodies included in a coformulation, and that this may impact the efficacy of each agent. Because of this, we believe that SL-325 may allow for improved efficacy in combination with other agents, compared to TL1A targeting antibodies.

We are planning initial clinical development of SL-325 in patients with CD. The clinical success of several TL1A blocking antibodies to date suggests that SL-325 may have monotherapy disease modifying activity early in clinical development. As described above, we believe that targeting DR3 may be more efficacious than targeting TL1A in patients with IBD. We expect to complete enrollment in the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for SL-325 in healthy volunteers in the second quarter of 2026, and initiate our Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with CD in the third quarter of 2026.

We also plan to evaluate SL-325 in other inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases where the DR3/TL1A axis is implicated.

In addition to SL-325 and SL-425 (a half-life extended version of SL-325), we are developing bispecific antibodies which co-target DR3 and other clinically validated targets in immune mediated and inflammatory diseases. Inhibition of the TL1A/DR3 axis may be mechanistically distinct from the IL-23/IL-23R, IL-17/IL-17R, TSLP/TSLP-R or α4β7/MADCAM-1 axes (as examples). Thus, dual inhibition of the TL1A/DR3 axis with coformulated or bispecific antibodies may provide additive clinical benefit in a variety of immune mediated and inflammatory diseases. As seen with TL1A directed antibodies, two third-party TL1A-directed bispecific antibodies, AMG966 and RO7837195, have also demonstrated nearly 100% ADA formation following a single dose in Phase 1 clinical trials. The mechanism of ADA formation was reported to be secondary to large immune complex formation for AMG966, which we believe is also true for RO7837195. The emerging clinical data from TL1A-directed bispecific antibodies is similar to the prior failure of TNFα-directed bispecific antibodies, which we believe is because both TNFα and TL1A are soluble trimeric proteins found in the blood, and cause immunogenicity secondary to large immune complex formation. We expect that our DR3-directed bispecific antibodies to be less immunogenic than TL1A-directed bispecifics. DR3 may thus provide a differentiated target in a bispecific antibody format, providing advantages over TL1A-directed bispecific antibodies. Additionally, development of bispecific antibodies may enable more efficient clinical development than is expected for multi-antibody coformulations, and may avoid some of the challenges associated with potential immunogenicity in certain coformulations, as described above.

Our Pipeline

Our lead product candidate, SL-325, is a monoclonal antibody that is designed to bind to DR3 and inhibit its interaction with its ligand, TL1A. We have completed an IND-enabling, good laboratory practices (“GLP”) toxicity study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SL-325 in NHPs. We are currently conducting a SAD/MAD Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of SL-325, and to establish the Phase 2 dose and dosing schedule. We expect to complete enrollment in the Phase 1 clinical trial in the second quarter of 2026, and to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial in CD patients in the third quarter of 2026.

In addition to SL-325, we are developing SL-425, a half-life extended version of SL-325. SL-425 is currently being evaluated in an ongoing IND-enabling chronic GLP toxicity study, and clinical trials may be conducted in the future. SL-425 may be further developed alongside SL-325 in distinct indications, or to enable extended dosing during maintenance therapy, if necessary, and the need to develop SL-425 will be informed, in part, by the data from the ongoing SL-325 Phase 1 clinical trial.

We are also developing multiple preclinical DR3-based bispecific antibodies which are designed to inhibit both the DR3/TL1A axis and another biologically relevant target for the treatment of patients with IBD or other immune-mediated indications. We plan to disclose the targets of our lead bispecific product candidate, supporting preclinical data, and expected development timelines in the first half of 2026.

2

The following table highlights our pipeline:

Our Strategy

Our goal is to develop first-in-class immune therapies that improve the quality of life and extend the survival of patients with debilitating and deadly inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases. We plan to achieve this by utilizing our experience in developing TNF receptor agonist and antagonist therapies, our protein design and engineering expertise, and our proven track record of advancing novel biologics into clinical development. Key elements of our strategy include:

•Rapidly advancing SL-325 through clinical development and marketing approval;

•Leveraging our leading position with DR3 blocking antibodies to advance additional bispecific antibody candidates into clinical development;

•Applying our protein engineering and TNF receptor biology expertise to identify, develop, and advance novel biologic compounds in inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases;

•Continuing to augment our internal research and technical operations capabilities;

•Collaborating with leading biopharmaceutical companies;

•Building on our culture of research and development excellence; and

•Deepening our intellectual property portfolio to continue to protect our platform technologies and product candidates.

Our Lead Product Candidate: SL-325

Overview

TL1A (also known as TNFSF15) is a costimulatory ligand in the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, which activates immune responses through binding a single receptor, DR3 (also known as TNFRSF25). TL1A was identified as the ligand for DR3 in 2002, and aberrant activation of DR3 signaling by TL1A has been implicated in a variety of diseases, including UC, CD, hidradenitis suppurativa, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, multiple sclerosis, and other inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases. Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (“SNPs”) in TL1A have been shown to significantly increase the risk of humans developing both UC and CD. This genetic linkage contributed to the selection of IBD for initial clinical trials for TL1A blocking antibodies.

Three different TL1A blocking antibodies have demonstrated an improvement in complete remission rates in third-party randomized, placebo controlled, Phase 2 clinical trials in patients suffering from UC and CD. Each of these antibodies (tulisokibart, duvakitug, and afimkibart) have provided placebo-adjusted clinical remission rates of between 23-28% following induction therapy in patients with UC, in trials that included patients who had previously failed biologic therapies. Although a biomarker selection strategy enriching for patients with SNPs in TL1A has been explored, similar rates of clinical response have been observed in patients lacking such SNPs, suggesting that TL1A mediated activation of DR3 contributes to disease pathology regardless of an inborn genetic predisposition. While these data provide clinical validation of the TL1A/DR3 pathway in IBD, we believe that targeting DR3 will provide for greater and more durable efficacy that is achieved by targeting TL1A.

The placebo-adjusted clinical remission rates observed to date with these TL1A blocking antibodies could surpass the monotherapy clinical remission rates observed with anti-TNFα, anti-IL23 and anti-α4β7 blocking antibodies if confirmed in one

3

or more of the ongoing third-party Phase 3 clinical trials. If confirmed, antibodies targeting the DR3/TL1A signaling pathway could achieve significant commercial penetration in the IBD landscape, which is projected to increase from a $23 billion market in 2023 to a $34 billion market in 2030.

Rationale for Targeting DR3 Instead of TL1A

For certain immune pathways, there is a clear rationale to target either a receptor or ligand because of binding promiscuity. For example, soluble TNFα primarily interacts with TNFR2, whereas TNFR2 can bind lymphotoxin in addition to both soluble and membrane associated TNFα. Other receptor:ligand pairs are selective, including DR3/TL1A, wherein there are no known alternate signaling receptors for TL1A or verified alternate ligands for DR3.

There are significant differences in the tissue localization and expression pattern of TL1A and DR3, which suggest that blocking DR3 may provide more potent inhibition of TL1A mediated DR3 signaling than blocking TL1A. TL1A is an inducible inflammatory ligand mainly expressed by tissue-resident antigen presenting cells, but also endothelial cells. In the absence of inflammation, TL1A is generally not expressed. When innate immune signals, such as bacterial proteins or immune complexes, are present, transcription of TL1A is rapidly induced, peaking within 12 hours and ceasing within approximately 24 hours. This pulse of transcription leads to a wave of TL1A protein expression on the cell membrane, which is then subsequently self-regulated through the presence of a membrane-proximal protease cleavage site, which liberates the extracellular domain from the membrane, thereby limiting its immune stimulatory potential. The cleaved extracellular domain of TL1A can be measured in the blood, and retains the ability to activate DR3. In addition, humans evolved a soluble decoy receptor, DcR3, to neutralize and facilitate degradation of this cleaved TL1A. This pattern of expression explains the relative absence of TL1A on cells found in the blood, and presence of TL1A at sites of active inflammation, but not adjacent non-inflamed tissue.

Whereas TL1A is a short-lived, inducible ligand, DR3 is stably and constitutively expressed, primarily by antigen-experienced lymphocytes. In patients with UC and CD, DR3 is known to be more abundant than TL1A, and to be evenly upregulated both within actively inflamed tissue and the adjacent uninflamed tissue. Complete suppression of TL1A signaling with current TL1A blocking antibodies may be challenging because these antibodies must maintain high local concentrations within tissues by passive diffusion in order to immediately neutralize newly expressed TL1A given the locally high abundance of DR3. In contrast, achieving complete suppression of DR3 signaling may present a lesser challenge due to the stable expression of DR3 by lymphocytes found both in the peripheral blood and throughout the gastrointestinal tract of patients with UC and CD. Given this, we believe that targeting DR3, instead of TL1A, may allow for a more complete and durable blockade of the DR3/TL1A axis, leading to greater efficacy in patients with UC and CD.

One of the natural mechanisms whereby soluble TL1A is degraded is through binding to human protein decoy receptor 3 (“DcR3”). DcR3 neutralizes soluble TL1A, Fas ligand and LIGHT, which all induce a proinflammatory immune response. The extracellular domain of TL1A can be cleaved by specific proteases, leading to release of trimeric TL1A from the surface of immune cells. This soluble form of TL1A can be detected in human blood, where it can then bind to and be degraded by DcR3. Thus, it is desirable to block DR3, but not DcR3, to preserve the natural anti-inflammatory role of DcR3. SL-325 binds to DR3 but not to DcR3.

Another potential advantage of targeting DR3 instead of TL1A relates to the expected immunogenicity profile of each of these agents. High rates of immunogenicity have been observed with current TL1A blocking antibodies in clinical trials. A source of this immunogenicity includes the binding and stabilization of soluble TL1A, leading to substantial increases in the serum concentration of total TL1A in patients following treatment with TL1A blocking antibodies. These immune complexes between anti-TL1A antibodies and soluble TL1A are likely a cause of anti-drug antibody formation in patients, shared by all anti-TL1A antibodies. Because DR3 is a membrane-restricted receptor, and SL-325 was engineered to bind an epitope on DR3 that is not found on DcR3, immune complex formation is not expected with SL-325. Thus, we expect that SL-325 has the potential to demonstrate a best-in-mechanism immunogenicity profile.

We believe that this potential best-in-mechanism immunogenicity profile may translate to improved efficacy. Recent publications have reported that the serum concentration of afimkibart decreases as the concentration of ADA increases. These data demonstrate that ADA are capable of accelerating clearance of TL1A blocking antibodies. In addition, patients whose ADA concentrations remained low had approximately 50% better efficacy than patients whose ADA concentrations were highest. Some ADA are “neutralizing”, indicating that the ADA directly interfere with the ability of an anti-TL1A antibody to bind TL1A. Other ADA are “non-neutralizing”, indicating that the ADA bind to epitopes of the anti-TL1A antibodies that do not directly interfere with TL1A binding. However, it has been shown that both neutralizing and non-neutralizing ADA can reduce efficacy for monoclonal antibodies, such as anti-TNFa antibodies.

SL-325 Antibody Attributes

We believe that an ideal DR3 blocking antibody should possess the following attributes:

•Very high affinity binding to DR3;

4

•Binds to an epitope that is not shared with DcR3;

•Binds to an epitope that does not cause receptor mediated endocytosis of DR3 from the cell surface;

•Directly interferes with the binding of a TL1A trimer to a DR3 trimer; and

•Directly interferes with TL1A mediated trimerization of DR3.

We developed SL-325 with these attributes in mind. SL-325 specifically binds to human DR3 with a 1.3 picomolar affinity and a slow off-rate. Our preclinical studies demonstrate that SL-325 does not cause internalization of DR3, and the combination of a slow off-rate and lack of receptor mediated endocytosis suggests that SL-325 may achieve durable binding to DR3 in vivo. The epitope on DR3 bound by SL-325 is not shared with DcR3, and no binding of SL-325 to DcR3 has been observed. This suggests that DcR3 will retain the ability to neutralize and facilitate degradation of soluble TL1A even after patients are treated with SL-325. The design of SL-325 is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1—SL-325 Overview

Preclinical potency assays have demonstrated that SL-325 prevents both the trimer-to-trimer interaction between TL1A and DR3, and the trimerization of DR3 in response to TL1A. Additionally, SL-325 was engineered to lack Fcγ receptor binding to eliminate the potential for antibody mediated cellular cytotoxicity or antibody mediated cellular phagocytosis of DR3 expressing cells.

SL-325 was designed to fundamentally address the therapeutic and DR3/TL1A axis limitations of TL1A blocking antibodies. As a potentially first-in-class DR3 blocking antibody, we believe SL-325 has the desired attributes, demonstrated by our nonclinical studies, necessary to move into clinical development. SL-325 is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial and may emerge as a best-in-mechanism inhibitor of the DR3/TL1A axis due to SL-325’s potential to provide a more complete and durable blockade of DR3 signaling than is achievable with TL1A blocking antibodies, and with a best-in-mechanism immunogenicity profile.

Preclinical Experience

GLP Non-Human Primate Studies

We conducted an acute, IND-enabling GLP toxicology study with SL-325 in NHPs, evaluating safety, tolerability, PK, and immunogenicity. These data were shared at the 20th Congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization on February 20, 2025.

Naïve cynomolgus macaques each received three doses of intravenous SL-325 (vehicle, 1 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg or 100 mg/kg dose groups), with each dose administered two weeks apart. No infusion related reactions, changes in serum chemistry values, or evidence of other toxicities or organ dysfunction (by gross or histopathology) were observed. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level from this GLP toxicology study was determined to be the top dose administered dose of 100 mg/kg. As shown in Figure 2 below, full and durable DR3 RO was observed in peripheral blood lymphocytes at doses of 1 mg/kg or higher within two hours of infusion, throughout the 14-day inter-dose interval (all dose groups), and for the 28-day interval for the animals in

5

the recovery group (100 mg/kg dose level). Following administration of SL-325, we observed no proliferation or activation of DR3 expressing CD4+ or Treg cells, confirming a lack of agonism of DR3.

Figure 2—SL-325 Receptor Occupancy in NHP Study

PK data collected in the NHP study was used to generate a population PK model to predict SL-325 exposure in humans at different dose levels and dosing intervals. Data collected from our GLP NHP study suggest that 1 µg/mL trough concentrations are required to maintain full RO on peripheral blood lymphocytes. Population PK models suggest that 1 µg/mL trough concentrations are likely to be exceeded if SL-325 is administered at the 3 mg/kg dose level, every eight weeks during the maintenance phase of treatment. We are further characterizing the PK profile in humans in our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial, which will further inform on the dose and dosing schedule to be advanced into Phase 2 clinical trials. Our goal is to select a dose and dosing schedule that maintains SL-325 concentrations in human peripheral blood which exceeds the threshold required to maintain full DR3 receptor occupancy both in peripheral blood and within affected tissues. We believe that SL-325 can achieve Q4W dosing during induction, and maintenance dosing no more frequently than once monthly.

In summary, our in vitro functional activity and GLP NHP toxicology study results indicate SL-325 is a high-affinity DR3 blocking antibody, with no evidence of toxicity or residual agonism in cynomolgus macaques. Additional data gathered from the NHP study suggests that full DR3 RO was maintained when the serum concentration of SL-325 remained above approximately 1 µg/mL, and when combined with SL-325’s PK profile, we believe are supportive of prolonged dosing intervals in human patients.

We are also currently conducting a six-month, chronic GLP toxicology study of SL-325 (and SL-425) in NHPs, evaluating safety, tolerability, PK, and immunogenicity. We expect to complete the study in the first quarter of 2026, and we plan to share the data in the second quarter of 2026. To date, both SL-325 and SL-425 have been well tolerated, with no drug-related adverse events or infusion-related reactions observed. SL-425 has demonstrated the expected half-life extension in comparison to SL-325. As was the case in our acute GLP toxicology studies, no evidence of DR3 agonism has been observed in any animal at any dose at any time. This study has enabled extended observation periods for the durability of DR3 occupancy, and durable binding has been observed for at least 71 days. Both SL-325 and SL-425 have demonstrated a favorable immunogenicity profile following repeated dosing in the chronic toxicology study, similar to the prior profile of SL-325 observed in the acute toxicology study.

Preclinical In-Vitro Characterization

We characterized the DR3 binding and antagonistic properties of SL-325 in a series of in vitro assays and these data were presented in a poster at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2025 Annual Meeting on February 7, 2025.

Clinical Development

Phase 1 Clinical Trial in Healthy Volunteers

We are currently conducting a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAD/MAD Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of SL-325, and to establish the Phase 2 dose and dosing schedule.

6

In this Phase 1 clinical trial, we plan to evaluate up to six escalating dose levels of SL-325 in the SAD portion of the trial, and up to three dose levels of SL-325 in the MAD portion of the trial. We plan to enroll a total of approximately 72 healthy volunteers. Each cohort will be randomized, with six volunteers receiving SL-325 and two volunteers receiving placebo. Volunteers in the MAD portion of the trial will receive three doses, administered on days 1, 15, and 29. Figure 3 below illustrates a design schema of this Phase 1 clinical trial.

Figure 3—SL-325 SAD and MAD Phase 1 Clinical Trial Design

Phase 2 Clinical Development Plans and Strategy

Upon completion of our Phase 1 clinical trial, we plan to initiate a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating SL-325 in patients with CD. We plan to evaluate two dose levels of SL-325 versus placebo, and will provide additional details of the clinical trial design in the second quarter of 2026. We anticipate initiating this clinical trial in the third quarter of 2026.

Research Programs

We maintain a strong research organization that has developed a diverse pipeline of preclinical compounds. One of our guiding principles for considering additional pipeline candidates is a preference for compounds that we expect to have monotherapy activity early in clinical development.

DR3 Bispecific Antibodies

In addition to SL-325 and SL-425, we are developing a series of bispecific antibodies targeting DR3 and other clinically validated targets. The future of biologic therapy for both UC and CD is widely believed to include blockade of multiple inflammatory pathways, and the mechanism of DR3/TL1A inhibition is known to be non-redundant with the mechanism of other clinically validated targets.

Several attempts have been made to develop bispecific antibodies targeting TL1A, including a TL1A and TNFα blocking antibody known as AMG966. As discussed above, TL1A blocking antibodies stabilize serum TL1A as a result of immune complex formation between soluble TL1A and anti-TL1A antibodies. These immune complexes are believed to contribute to the high rates of ADA formation with TL1A blocking monoclonal antibodies. In the case of AMG966, the bispecific antibody was shown to stabilize both soluble TL1A and TNFα, which led to large immune complex formation and the rapid development of high-titer neutralizing ADA responses in patients treated in a third-party Phase 1 clinical trial. AMG966 was discontinued as a result of this immunogenicity. A second TL1A directed bispecific antibody, RO7837195, targets TL1A and IL-23 p40. This antibody was also tested in a third-party Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers. Like AMG966, RO7837195 also induced ADA in nearly 100% of treated subjects after a single dose, and most of these ADA were also neutralizing. These two clinical trials suggest high rates of ADA may be unavoidable for TL1A-directed bispecific antibodies. The emerging clinical data for TL1A-directed bispecific antibodies is similar to the prior failure of multiple TNFα-directed bispecific antibodies. Both TNFα and TL1A are soluble trimeric proteins, and binding of bispecific antibodies to these proteins is known to cause large immune complex formation which results in the formation of ADA in nearly all treated subjects. Because DR3 is a membrane-restricted target, immune complex formation is not expected either for SL-325, SL-425, or DR3 directed bispecific antibodies.

7

Manufacturing and Supply

By working with third-party vendors to conduct activities in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”), we have invested significant resources to identify and scale up a suitable manufacturing process for our product candidates, including SL-325. Currently, SL-325 is produced by mammalian cell lines commonly used in the manufacture of monoclonal antibodies, including Chinese hamster ovary cells.

We manufacture bulk drug substance (“BDS”) for SL-325 utilizing the services of a single third-party contract manufacturer, Kemwell Biopharma Private Limited (“Kemwell”), with whom we maintain a master service agreement, pursuant to which Kemwell manufactures BDS on a per project basis. We may terminate the master services agreement at any time for convenience in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Either party may also terminate the master services agreement with respect to an uncured breach by the other party in accordance with the terms of the agreement. This agreement includes confidentiality and intellectual property provisions to protect our proprietary rights related to our product candidates.

We expect to continue to devote significant resources to process development and optimization of the manufacture of our product candidates, including SL-325, SL-425, and potential DR3-based bispecific antibodies.

All of our product candidates are manufactured from a master cell bank of that protein’s production cell line. We have or intend to have one master cell bank for each product candidate that was or will be produced and tested in accordance with cGMP and applicable regulations. Each master cell bank is or will be stored in two independent locations, and we intend to produce working cell banks for each product candidate later in product development. It is possible that we could lose multiple cell banks from multiple locations and have our manufacturing severely impacted by the need to replace the cell banks. However, we believe we have adequate backup should any particular cell bank be lost in a catastrophic event.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for the research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization of therapies for immune-mediated diseases, including IBD. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that develop therapies for immune-mediated diseases. There are many other companies that have commercialized or are developing therapies for immune-mediated diseases, including large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, such as Abbvie, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Teva and Takeda.

With respect to our lead product candidate, SL-325, we are aware of other clinical-stage therapeutics that target the TL1A/DR3 axis, including, but not limited to, the following TL1A targeting antibodies: duvakitug in development by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., ABBV-701/FG-M701 in development by Abbvie/FutureGen Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd., afimkibart in development by Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, SPY002 and SPY072 in development by Spyre Therapeutics, Inc., tulisokibart in development by Merck & Co., Inc., and XmAb942 in development by Xencor, Inc. ABS-101 was another half-life extended TL1A blocking antibody previously in development by Absci Corporation. We are not aware of any companies with publicly disclosed DR3 targeted blocking antibodies.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and manufacturing capacity and enrolling subjects for our clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We could see a reduction or elimination of our commercial opportunity 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 any products that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain U.S. Federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or foreign 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 or our collaborators are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their

8

efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics, if required, the level of biosimilar or generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance our proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that we consider commercially important to the development of our business, including by seeking, maintaining, and defending U.S. and foreign patent rights, including patents covering our platform technologies, product candidates, and methods of using the same, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in our field. Additionally, we intend to rely on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity and market exclusivity, among others, as well as patent term extensions, where available.

Our future commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions, and know-how related to our business, including our platform technologies and product candidates, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular our patents rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating, or violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like ours are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing, or those we will file or license from others, will grant us patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any granted patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors.

In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is granted, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our products will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby limiting the protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Information Technology” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property.

For any individual patent, the term depends on the applicable law in the country in which the patent is granted. In most countries where we have filed patent applications or in-licensed patents and patent applications, patents have a term of 20 years from the application filing date or earliest claimed nonprovisional priority date. In the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the application filing date or earliest claimed nonprovisional priority date, but may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent that expires earlier. The term of a U.S. patent may also be lengthened by a Patent Term Adjustment in order to address administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“U.S. PTO”) in granting a patent.

In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic may be eligible for Patent Term Extension in order to restore the period of a patent term lost during the premarket FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a Patent Term Extension of up to five years beyond the natural expiration of the patent (but the total patent term, including the extension period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval). The term extension period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of a clinical investigation involving human beings is begun and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. PTO reviews and approves the application for any Patent Term Extension in consultation with the FDA. In the future, we may decide to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to extend its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant biologics license application.

We generally file patent applications directed to our key technologies and programs in an effort to secure our intellectual property positions. As of February 20, 2026, we own two issued U.S. patents, four pending international patent applications, filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and one pending non-provisional patent application, filed in the United States, that relate to DR3. We also own or exclusively license other patents and patent applications related to other technologies and

9

programs, including legacy programs. Patent prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the U.S. PTO and other patent offices may be significantly revised before issuance, if granted at all.

Government Regulation

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

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-marketing may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications from the sponsor, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our company and our products or product candidates.

U.S. Biologics Regulation

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

•completion of preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies performed in accordance with the FDA’s current GLP regulation;

•submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made;

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

•manufacture of the proposed biologic candidate in accordance with cGMPs;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements to establish the safety, purity and potency of the proposed biologic product candidate for its intended purpose;

•preparation of and submission to the FDA of a biologics license application (“BLA”), after completion of all pivotal clinical trials;

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

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

•satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls

10

are adequate to preserve the biological product’s continued safety, purity and potency, and of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with GCPs; and

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

Preclinical and Clinical Development

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

In addition to the IND submission process, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials and clinical study results to public registries.

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

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

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

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

11

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

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

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated and sponsored by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

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

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

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

12

requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

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

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

Expedited Development and Review Programs

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

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

In 2017, the FDA established a new regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation as part of its implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act (“the Cures Act”). The RMAT designation program is intended to fulfill the Cures Act requirement that the FDA facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of, any drug that meets the following criteria: (i) the drug qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (ii) the drug is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (iii) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides all the benefits of breakthrough therapy designation, including more frequent meetings with the

13

FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. When appropriate, the FDA can permit fulfillment of post-approval requirements for an RMAT that has received accelerated approval through: the submission of clinical evidence, preclinical studies, clinical trials, patient registries or other sources of real world evidence such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory datasets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with the therapy prior to approval.

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

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

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

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

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

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

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

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

14

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. After a BLA is approved for a biological product, the product also may be subject to official lot release. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, and potency or effectiveness of biologics. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved BLA. Biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

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

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to

15

or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA. The FDA has issued guidance documents intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe the FDA’s interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCIA.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

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

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

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

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

Patent Term Extension

In the United States, after a BLA is approved, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory process. The allowable patent term extension is typically calculated as one-half the time between, the latter of the effective date of an IND and issue date of the patent for which extension is sought, and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between BLA submission date and the BLA approval date up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue licensure with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of product licensure. Only one patent applicable to a licensed biological product is eligible for extension and only those claims covering the product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process,

16

failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Some, but not all, foreign jurisdictions possess patent term extension or other additional patent exclusivity mechanisms that may be more or less stringent and comprehensive than those of the United States.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are also subject to additional similar U.S. state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, which, in some cases, differ from each other in significant ways, and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we

17

may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Data Privacy and Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

18

Additionally, our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be subject to laws and evolving regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, controlling for data bias, and anti-discrimination.

Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow it to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on its investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological product for which we obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any product, if approved, depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement, if any, for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding whether to cover any of our product candidates, if approved, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

•a covered benefit under its health plan;

•safe, effective and medically necessary;

•cost-effective; and

•neither experimental nor investigational.

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

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

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. The IRA provides CMS with significant new authorities intended to curb drug costs and to encourage market competition. For the first time, CMS will be able to directly negotiate prescription drug prices and to cap out-of-pocket costs. Each year, CMS will select and negotiate a preset number of high-spend drugs and biologics that are covered under Medicare Part B and Part D that do not have generic or biosimilar competition. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs subject to price negotiations. These price negotiations occurred in 2024. In January 2025, CMS announced a

19

list of 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. The IRA also provides a new “inflation rebate” covering Medicare patients that took effect in 2023 and is intended to counter certain price increases in prescriptions drugs. The inflation rebate provision requires drug manufacturers to pay a rebate to the federal government if the price for a drug or biologic under Medicare Part B and Part D increases faster than the rate of inflation. To support biosimilar competition, beginning in October 2022, qualifying biosimilars may receive a Medicare Part B payment increase for a period of five years. Separately, if a biologic drug for which no biosimilar exists delays a biosimilar’s market entry beyond two years, CMS will be authorized to subject the biologics manufacturer to price negotiations intended to ensure fair competition. Notwithstanding these provisions, the IRA’s impact on commercialization and competition remains largely uncertain. In addition, net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we may commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.

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

Healthcare Reform

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

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

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including automatic aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of on average 2% per fiscal year as part of the federal budget sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional action is taken by Congress. In addition, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Medicare Act (as amended by the ACA) to increase the point-of-sale discounts that manufacturers must agree to offer under the Medicare Part D coverage discount program from 50% to 70% off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state

20

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

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

Individual states in the U.S. have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for its drugs or put pressure on its drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other Government Regulation Outside of the United States

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

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

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

Regulation in the European Union

European Data Laws

The processing of personal data, including health-related personal data, in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) is mainly governed by the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”), and related data protection laws in individual EEA countries. In the United Kingdom, the processing of personal data is mainly governed by the GDPR as incorporated into UK law pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “UK GDPR”). The

21

GDPR and UK GDPR impose a number of strict obligations and requirements for the processing, including collecting, analyzing and transferring, of personal data of individuals in the EEA or in the UK, in particular with respect to health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR and UK GDPR include requirements relating to the legal basis of the processing (such as consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates), the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data, the personal data breaches which may have to be notified to the national data protection authorities and data subjects, the measures to be taken when engaging processors, and obligations relating to the security and confidentiality of the personal data. EEA countries may also impose additional requirements in relation to the processing of health, genetic and biometric data through their national legislation.

In addition, the GDPR imposes specific restrictions on the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EEA that are not considered by the European Commission (“EC”) to provide an adequate level of data protection. Appropriate safeguards are required to enable such transfers. Among the appropriate safeguards that can be used, the data exporter may use the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”). When relying on the appropriate safeguards, data exporters, with the assistance of the data importers, are also required to conduct a transfer risk assessment to verify if anything in the law and/or practices of the third country may impinge on the effectiveness of the safeguards in the context of the transfer at stake and, if so, to identify and adopt supplementary measures that are necessary to bring the level of protection of the data transferred to the EU standard of essential equivalence. Where no supplementary measure is suitable, the data exporter should avoid, suspend or terminate the transfer. With regard to the transfer of data from the EEA to the United States, on July 10, 2023, the EC adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. On the basis of the new adequacy decision, personal data can flow from the EEA to U.S. companies participating in the framework.

With regard to the transfer of data from the EEA to the UK, based on the EC’s adequacy decision of June 28, 2021 and subsequent renewals, personal data may continue to flow freely from the EEA to the UK on the basis that the UK is deemed to provide an adequate level of data protection until December 27, 2031. The adequacy decisions will automatically expire unless renewed.

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

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

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR or UK GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA countries may result in significant monetary fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or £17.5 million (as applicable), 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover (for higher-tier infringements). This is enforced by ICO and is entirely separate from fines under EU GDPR. In addition, violations of national laws can trigger additional, administrative penalties, investigations, corrective orders, temporary or definitive bans, and, in some jurisdictions, and a number of criminal offenses for organizations and, in certain cases, their directors and officers, as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose personal data was processed.

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

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

Drug and Biologic Development Process

Regardless of where they are conducted, all clinical trials included in applications for marketing authorization (“MA”) for human medicines in the EU/EEA must have been carried out in accordance with EU regulations. This means that clinical

22

trials conducted in the EU/EEA have to comply with EU clinical trial legislation but also that clinical trials conducted outside the EU/EEA have to comply with ethical principles equivalent to those set out in the EEA, including adhering to international good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The conduct of clinical trials in the EU is governed by the CTR, which entered into force on January 31, 2022. The CTR replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, (“Clinical Trials Directive”) and introduced a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU.

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

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

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

Drug Marketing Authorization

In the EEA, after completion of all required clinical testing, pharmaceutical products may only be placed on the market after obtaining a MA. To obtain an MA of a drug under European Union regulatory systems, an applicant can submit an MAA through, amongst others, a centralized or decentralized procedure.

To be used or sold in the UK, a drug must have an effective MA granted by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916), as amended. MA applications are submitted electronically via the MHRA Submissions Portal. Under the MHRA’s national assessment procedure, the MHRA generally aims to reach a decision within 210 “clock-on” days, excluding any “clock-stops” while the applicant prepares responses to MHRA questions.

On August 30, 2023, the MHRA published detailed guidance on its recently announced new International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”) for MAAs. The IRP applies since January 1, 2024 and replaces existing EU reliance procedures to apply for authorizations from seven international regulators (e.g. Health Canada, Swiss Medic, FDA, EMA, among others). The IRP allows medicinal products approved in other jurisdictions that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update a MA in the UK. Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA that is issued by the EC following the scientific assessment of the application by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) that is valid for all EU Member States as well as in the three additional EEA Member States (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein). The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific medicinal products, including for medicines developed by means of certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, or tissue engineered medicines) and medicinal products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases (HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases). For medicinal products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA before May 20, 2004 and

23

indicated for the treatment of other diseases, medicinal products that constitute significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovations or for which the grant of a MA through the centralized procedure would be in the interest of public health at EU level, an applicant may voluntarily submit an application for a MA through the centralized procedure.

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

Decentralized Authorization Procedure

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

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

Risk Management Plan

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

MA Validity Period

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may subsequently be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the EC or the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with only one additional five-year renewal. Applications for renewal must be made to the EMA at least nine months before the five-year period expires. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

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

On the other hand, for the EU, in the case the drug has been marketed in the UK, the placing on the UK market before the end of the period starting when the UK left the EU on January 31, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020 (the “Brexit

24

Transition Period”) will be taken into account. If, after the end of the Brexit Transition Period, the drug is not placed on any other market of the remaining member states of the EU, the three year period will start running from the last date the drug was placed on the UK market before the end of the Brexit Transition Period.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

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

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

Exceptional Circumstances/Conditional Approval

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

Data and Market Exclusivity

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

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

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

Products may not be granted data exclusivity since there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to include a NCE. Even if a compound is considered to be a NCE and the MA applicant is able to gain the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the medicinal product

25

if such company can complete a full MAA with their own complete database of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical studies and clinical trials and obtain MA of its product.

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

The current drafts envisage:

•a shortening of the periods of data exclusivity from eight to six years (with transferrable vouchers for an additional year of market protection as an incentive for the development of new antibiotics),

•earlier regulatory guidance and extension of market exclusivity for orphan medicines (depending on certain conditions),

•four-year data exclusivity for additional indications of existing products, and

•rules governing the availability of products (including shortage prevention plans and some supply obligations for manufacturers).

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

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

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

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

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

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

26

medicines in rare diseases. Separately, the MHRA has stated that it is considering updating its licensing framework for orphan medicines, with a draft framework expected by spring 2026.

Pediatric Development

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

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

PRIME Designation

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

Post-Approval Regulation

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

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

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

27

These pharmacovigilance rules can impose on holders of MAs the obligation to conduct a labor intensive collection of data regarding the risks and benefits of marketed medicinal products and to engage in ongoing assessments of those risks and benefits, including the possible requirement to conduct additional clinical studies or post-authorization safety studies to obtain further information on a medicine’s safety, or to measure the effectiveness of risk-management measures, which may be time consuming and expensive and could impact our profitability. MA holders must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of Periodic Safety Update Reports (“PSURs”) in relation to medicinal products for which they hold MAs. The EMA reviews PSURs for medicinal products authorized through the centralized procedure. If the EMA has concerns that the risk benefit profile of a product has varied, it can adopt an opinion advising that the existing MA for the product be suspended, withdrawn or varied. The agency can advise that the MA holder be obliged to conduct post-authorization Phase IV safety studies. If the EC agrees with the opinion, it can adopt a decision varying the existing MA. Failure by the MA holder to fulfill the obligations for which the EC’s decision provides can undermine the ongoing validity of the MA.

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

The manufacturing process for pharmaceutical products in the EU is highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations.

Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC (repealed by Directive 2017/1572 on January 31, 2022), Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”). These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU. Amendments or replacements of at least Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 are part of the reform proposal for European pharmaceutical legislation. Similarly, the distribution of pharmaceutical products into and within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU Member States. The manufacturer or importer must have a qualified person who is responsible for certifying that each batch of product has been manufactured in accordance with GMP, before releasing the product for commercial distribution in the EU or for use in a clinical trial. Manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic inspections by the competent authorities for compliance with GMP.

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

Sales and Marketing Regulations

The advertising and promotion of our products is also subject to EU laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other national legislation of individual EU Member States may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products and may differ from one country to another. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s SmPC as approved by the competent regulatory authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the MA granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved SmPC and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on its promotional activities with healthcare professionals. EU regulation with regards to dispensing, sale and purchase of medicines has generally been preserved in the UK following Brexit, through the Human Medicines Regulations. However, organizations wishing to sell medicines online need to register with the MHRA. Following Brexit, the requirements to display the common logo no longer apply to UK-based online sellers, except for those established in Northern Ireland.

Anti-Corruption Legislation

In the EU, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct both at EU level and in the individual

28

EU Member States. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of the EU Member States. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States also must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians must often be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his/her regulatory professional organization, and/or the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the individual EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

In the UK, the pharmaceutical sector is recognized as being particularly vulnerable to corrupt practices, some of which fall within the scope of the Bribery Act 2010. Due to the Bribery Act 2010’s far-reaching territorial application, the potential penalized act does not have to occur in the UK to become within its scope. If the act or omission does not take place in the UK, but the person’s act or omission would constitute an offense if carried out there and the person has a close connection with the UK, an offense will still have been committed.

The Bribery Act 2010 is comprised of four offenses that cover (i) individuals, companies and partnerships that give, promise or offer bribes, (ii) individuals, companies and partnerships that request, agree to receive or accept bribes, (iii) individuals, companies and partnerships that bribe foreign public officials and (iv) companies and partnerships that fail to prevent persons acting on their behalf from paying bribes. The penalties imposed under the Bribery Act 2010 depend on the offense committed, harm and culpability and penalties range from unlimited fines to imprisonment for a maximum term of ten years and in some cases both.

Regulations in the UK and Other Markets

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

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

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with 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.

Additional Regulation

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

29

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2025, we employed 40 full-time employees at two locations in the United States, in Austin, TX and Durham, NC.

We may hire additional employees in 2026 and beyond with a focus on increasing expertise and bandwidth in clinical research and development, in-house process development and manufacturing, and clinical operations to support potential later-stage clinical trials. We continue to evaluate business needs and opportunities, with a hiring philosophy that seeks to balance in-house expertise with outsourced services, and management of overall operating expense. Currently, we outsource clinical trial work to clinical research organizations and drug manufacturing to contract manufacturers.

Drug development is a complex endeavor which requires deep expertise and experience across a broad array of disciplines. Pharmaceutical companies compete for a limited number of highly qualified applicants to fill specialized positions. To attract these applicants to the Company, we offer a total rewards package consisting of a base salary and cash target bonus targeting the 25th to 75th percentile of market based on geography, a competitive benefit package and equity compensation for full-time employees. Bonus opportunity and equity compensation increase as a percentage of total compensation based on level of responsibility.

We believe our management team has the experience necessary to effectively execute our strategy and advance our product and technology leadership. A large majority of our employees have obtained advanced degrees in their professions. We support our employees’ further development with individualized development plans, mentoring, coaching, group training and conference attendance.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in May 2016. Our corporate offices are located at 500 W. 5th Street, Suite 1200, Austin, Texas 78701 and 21 Alexandria Way, Suite 200, Durham, North Carolina 27713 and our telephone number is (512) 900-4690. Our website address is www.shattucklabs.com. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is for convenience only and the information on the referenced website does not constitute a part of nor is incorporated by reference into this report.

Our reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), including our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, are accessible through our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are filed electronically with, or otherwise furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). These SEC reports can be accessed through the “Investors” section of our website.