Graphite Bio, Inc. - Annual Report: 2021 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark one)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

For the transition period from         to      

Commission File Number: 001-40532

GRAPHITE BIO, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

201 Haskins Way, Suite 210

South San Francisco, CA, 94080

(650) 484-0886

(Address, including zip code and telephone number, including area code, of Registrant’s principal executive offices)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).   Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.                                ☐

As of June 30, 2021, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $817.4 million, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market of $30.73 per share.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).   Yes ☐ No ☒

As of March 15, 2022, the registrant had 58,010,823 shares of common stock, $0.00001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement relating to its 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed hereafter are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated.

Table of contents

2

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Form 10-K”), including its section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains express or implied forward-looking statements that are based on our management’s belief and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, these statements relate to future events or our future operational or financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K may include, but are not limited to, statements about:

In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “may,” “should,” “could,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “aims,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. These statements are only predictions. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which are, in some cases, beyond our control and which could materially affect results. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Form 10-K. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, or if our underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect, actual events or results may vary significantly from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. No forward-looking statement is a promise or a guarantee of future performance.

3

The forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K represent our views as of the date of this Form 10-K. We anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause our views to change. However, while we may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we have no current intention of doing so except to the extent required by applicable law. You should therefore not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of this Form 10-K.

This Form 10-K may include statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys, and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys, and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. We have not independently verified the information contained in such sources.

We use various trademarks and trade names in our business, including without limitation our corporate name and logo. All other trademarks or trade names referred to in this Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this Form 10-K may be referred to without the ^® and ^™ symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto.

Summary of Risk Factors

Our business is subject to a number of risks of which you should be aware before making an investment decision. These risks are discussed more fully in the “Risk Factors” section of this Form 10-K. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

4

5

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage, next-generation gene editing company harnessing high-efficiency targeted gene integration to develop a new class of therapies to potentially cure a wide range of serious and life-threatening diseases. We are pioneering a precision gene editing approach to achieve one of medicine’s most elusive goals: to precisely “find & replace” any gene in the genome. Our next-generation gene editing platform allows us to precisely correct mutations, replace entire disease-causing genes with normal genes, or insert new genes into predetermined, safe locations. We believe our approach could enable broad applications to transform human health, including directly correcting mutations, engineering cells to permanently deliver therapeutic proteins, and precisely engineering effector cells to treat or cure a wide range of serious genetic and other diseases, including cancer, autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases.

Our lead product candidate GPH101 is a highly differentiated approach with the potential to directly correct the mutation that causes sickle cell disease (SCD) and restore normal adult hemoglobin (HgbA) expression. Curing sickle cell disease by correcting the disease-causing point mutation to normal is viewed as the gold-standard for curing SCD and has been the dream of treating physicians for generations. In November 2021, we enrolled the first patient in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GPH101. We intend to dose our first patient in the second half of 2022, with initial proof-of-concept data anticipated in 2023. We are also advancing our research programs and pipeline of potential one-time curative therapies for a wide range of genetic and other serious diseases and intend to file an investigational new drug application (IND) for a second program by mid-2024.

Our technology builds on first-generation proven CRISPR technology to achieve high rates of targeted gene integration. Our platform technology includes patent rights and proprietary technology exclusively licensed from The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) and developed in the Stanford laboratories of two of our scientific founders, both pioneers in gene therapy and gene editing: Matthew Porteus, M.D., Ph.D., and Maria Grazia Roncarolo, M.D. Dr. Porteus is considered to be one of the founders of the field of gene editing and was a scientific founder of CRISPR Therapeutics AG. He was the first to demonstrate that an engineered nuclease could be used to correct genes by harnessing precision cellular DNA repair machinery. Dr. Roncarolo is a pioneer in multipotent hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) gene therapy and her work led to the first approved HSC gene therapy product. She established and is Director of the Stanford Center for Definitive and Curative Medicine to treat patients with currently incurable diseases through the development of innovative stem cell- and gene-based therapies. Drs. Porteus and Roncarolo, both practicing physicians, came together with the conviction that targeted gene integration could lead to an entirely new class of potentially curative therapies.

Our approach has broad therapeutic applications and has enabled high-efficiency targeted gene integration in a wide range of primary human cell types. In our initial programs, we apply our approach ex vivo in a patient’s own HSCs which are reinfused after gene integration (autologous HSCT). HSCs are multipotent stem and progenitor cells that can give rise to all cells of the blood and immune system and have proven their curative potential across dozens of diseases as demonstrated by allogenic HSC transplant (allo-HSCT).

Our approach can be thought of as “find & replace,” using CRISPR to find a target gene and homology directed repair (HDR) to replace DNA in the target gene with DNA copied from a template. We create a precise incision in a target gene using a modified, high fidelity CRISPR-based nuclease and then induce conditions in target cells that overwhelmingly favor HDR, a natural and precise cellular DNA repair process. Using a non-integrating AAV6 vector, we deliver a donor DNA template strand to the target gene which is copied via HDR to create a new coding strand. We then apply our HSC biology expertise to optimally engineer and manufacture HSCs, a historically intractable cell type for harnessing HDR. Using our next-generation gene editing approach, we have achieved gene integration efficiencies in excess of expected curative thresholds and demonstrated preclinical proof-of-concept across models of multiple diseases. Beyond GPH101, which leverages our gene correction technology, our pipeline includes multiple programs such as GPH102 for beta-thalassemia and GPH201 for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome (XSCID), which leverage our gene replacement technology; GPH301 for Gaucher disease and an early-stage research program for alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency, which leverage our targeted gene insertion technology; and multiple undisclosed programs in both HSCs and other cell types.

Our approach differs from first generation gene and base editing technologies due to:

6

We are applying our technology in three settings: Gene Correction, Gene Replacement, and Targeted Gene Insertion.

Gene Correction

Our approach is designed to allow us to precisely correct pathogenic genes by directly targeting and correcting the specific disease-causing mutation to restore the normal, wild-type sequence.

We are developing GPH101, our lead product candidate for SCD, which is designed to directly correct the genetic mutation responsible for SCD. The mortality and morbidity associated with SCD, all caused by a single mutation, has made curing SCD a dream of many clinicians. Multiple genetic therapies are in development to address SCD, but due to technical limitations, these therapies are primarily focused on expressing alternate hemoglobin genes such as fetal hemoglobin (HgbF) or a transgenic hemoglobin. Our approach is the first in industry to directly correct the SCD-causing mutation by replacing it with the natural genetic sequence to thereby reduce harmful sickle hemoglobin (HgbS) production and restore normal adult hemoglobin (HgbA) expression. We have optimized our process to correct the majority of HSPCs. Of the remaining cells, which are not corrected, many contain two INDEL sickle globin alleles (knockout alleles). These knockout stem cells are not able to produce sickle red blood cells, and have the effect of increasing the proportion of functional stem cells which have been corrected. This increases our confidence in our ability to exceed the 20% expected curative threshold in patients. Under IND-enabling GMP manufacturing conditions, we can precisely correct the SCD mutation in over 55% of treated cells, which we believe can achieve the threshold required to cure patients (estimated to be engraftment of 20% corrected cells). These treated HSPCs are fully functional and can engraft in vivo in a humanized mouse, and can produce functionally normal red blood cells expressing normal adult hemoglobin ex vivo. Furthermore, we have demonstrated in a mouse model of SCD that our approach significantly increased normal HgbA expression, reduced HgbS production, extended red blood cell (RBC) lifespan from two days in sickle mice to up to 19 days in gene corrected mice, and eliminated RBC sickling. We believe this data supports the curative potential of our approach. In November 2021, we enrolled the first patient in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GPH101. We intend to dose our first patient in the second half of 2022, with initial proof-of-concept data anticipated in 2023.

7

Gene Replacement

Our gene replacement approach is designed to allow us to replace dysfunctional genes with a new normal copy of an entire gene at its normal location in the chromosome. We currently have two gene replacement programs, one for beta-thalassemia and another for XSCID.

Targeted Gene Insertion

Our technology aims to enable the targeted insertion of entire gene cassettes into chosen chromosomal locations. We believe that this could have broad therapeutic applications by allowing for permanent production of therapeutic proteins and enzymes, in specific cell lineages, and from targeted genomic locations. This prevents the variability in gene expression and the potential risk of insertional oncogenesis which are limitations of random gene integration approaches like using lentiviral vectors (LVV). Permanent therapeutic protein production applications of HSC targeted integration include expression of proteins and enzymes in target organs, including the nervous system (CNS) by tissue resident HSC-derived myeloid cells, as well as efficient systemic delivery of secreted proteins in the circulation. Potential applications include enzyme replacement for metabolic disease, CNS delivery of therapeutic proteins, or antibodies for neurodegenerative diseases, and production of plasma proteins for coagulation and complement disorders.

We currently harness two genomic locations for targeted insertion, the CCR5 safe harbor locus and the alpha globin locus:

8

We intend to pursue applications of our technology platform to develop potential therapies for a number of serious diseases. Our high-efficiency gene editing technology has been shown using human cells and/or animal models to be applicable to a broad range of HSC-based indications as well as other tissues, such as airway stem cells (cystic fibrosis), neural stem cells, pluripotent stem cells and keratinocytes (wound healing). We intend to investigate the potential of developing therapies for other diseases based on these findings.

We believe there is the potential for NGTC to expand the number of patients and indications addressable with precision engineered, one-time HSC-based treatments and cures. In addition to our research collaboration with Jasper on JS191, we are evaluating and assessing additional novel conditioning agents and have initiated discovery research efforts to develop antibody-based NGTC candidates.

Our Pipeline

Our Team

Our team is led by executives who have deep experience in drug development and company-building in the biopharmaceutical industry. Josh Lehrer, M.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, previously served as Chief Medical Officer at Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc. (GBT), where he led development for the marketed SCD treatment Oxbryta™ from pre-IND stages through its commercial launch. Prior to GBT, he served in clinical roles at Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) and as a practicing cardiologist at Stanford. Philip Gutry, our Chief Business Officer, previously served as Chief Business Officer at Kronos Bio, Inc. and in senior business development and finance roles at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MPM Capital, and Gilead Sciences, Inc. Jerry Cacia, our Chief Technical Officer, most recently served as Head of Global Technical Development at Roche/Genentech, where he supported a pipeline that included over 80 new molecular entities and more than 100 development projects in various stages, including a number of cell and gene therapies. Jane Grogan, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer, most recently served as Chief Scientific Officer and a member of the executive leadership team at ArsenalBio and has over 15 years of experience at Genentech. Julia Tran, our Chief People Officer, is a three-time executive with more than 20 years of experience in building and growing companies in the biotechnology industry including Amyris, Inc., CV Therapeutics, Inc. and Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and in technology companies including vArmour Networks, SilverTail Systems and most recently Blue Lava where she was a co-founder, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Community Officer. Alethia Young, our newly appointed Chief Financial Officer, effective April 1, 2022, will join the company after more than 20 years in healthcare and biotech equity research and investing, most recently at Cantor Fitzgerald where she served as senior biotechnology analyst and head of research, managing the equity research department covering companies across the biotechnology industry. Christine Garrett,

9

Ph.D., our Chief of Staff and senior vice president, operations, has more than 20 years of biopharmaceutical industry experience leading cross-functional teams comprised of research, development and commercial leaders across various phases of drug development at companies like Bristol Myers Squibb, Leo Pharma, Celgene and Novartis. We are building a broader team that is passionate about our mission of urgently translating groundbreaking science to transform lives.

Our Strategy

We are a next-generation gene editing company harnessing high-efficiency targeted gene integration to develop a new class of therapies to cure a wide range of serious and life-threatening diseases. Our goal is to advance a portfolio of one-time curative therapies which can ultimately be administered in the outpatient setting. The key components of our strategy are as follows:

Current Approaches to Gene Therapy and Gene Editing and Their Limitations

Background on Genetic Disorders

A genetic disorder is a disease caused by an abnormal change in a person’s DNA. Most genetic disorders are caused by a mutation in a single gene (monogenic disorder) which results in deficient or defective protein function. These mutations come in many different forms, including:

Mutations that cause genetic disease can either cause loss of function or a toxic gain of function of an important protein. For example, XSCID is caused by lack of functional IL2RG protein, Gaucher is caused by loss-of-function mutations in the GBA1 gene leading to dysfunctional GCase, and cystic fibrosis is caused by the lack of functional CFTR protein. Examples of toxic gain of function, where mutations can cause a protein to have an abnormal and disease-causing function, include SCD where sickle hemoglobin (HgbS), which has a tendency to polymerize in red blood cells, causes damage to the red blood cells, or Huntington’s disease where the huntingtin proteins injure neurons.

10

Evolution of Genetic Medicines

Genetic medicines have advanced rapidly over the past decade. Initial gene addition approaches have yielded multiple approved products. CRISPR-Cas9 approaches for gene knock-outs are now being translated into the clinic. Base editing builds upon CRISPR-Cas9 and enables targeted editing of certain point mutations.

Figure: Evolution of Genetic Medicines

Gene Addition

In gene addition, a functional copy of a normal gene is introduced into a cell, typically by a non-integrating viral vector, to drive expression of a normal protein. Recently approved therapies use this approach for spinal muscular atrophy and mutation-associated retinal dystrophy. Other approaches use viral vectors, such as retroviruses and LVV, which randomly integrate a therapeutic gene into the genome for permanent expression.

The principal limitations of gene addition approaches are:

Gene Editing

Gene editing approaches using CRISPR-Cas9 or similar CRISPR nuclease-based technologies are in, or will shortly be initiating, clinical development. CRISPR-Cas9 creates double-stranded breaks in DNA which can be repaired in two primary ways: 1) non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) which creates targeted insertions or deletions (INDELs) or 2) HDR, which can precisely replace DNA at the target cut site by copying from a template. When CRISPR was first shown to be a gene editing tool in human cells, the primary goal and most powerful anticipated application was to use CRISPR with HDR to allow precise gene correction, replacement and insertion. However, repair following CRISPR overwhelmingly favors NHEJ, and due to technical challenges and limitations, efficient use of HDR was not possible in human cells. For this reason, current CRISPR nuclease-based technology is being developed using NHEJ to create INDELs that cannot repair genes, but can alter gene expression. Because RNA guides are used to target Cas9 enzyme (or other CRISPR nucleases) to specific DNA sites, gene editing has much higher precision than earlier methods of permanently

11

modifying the genome, such as gene addition by viral vector integration, and reduces the theoretical risks of insertional oncogenesis with these methods.

CRISPR-Cas9 mediated INDEL (insertions or deletion of bases in an organism’s genome) formation is well suited to introducing new mutations that can disrupt and knock out a target gene. Because the vast majority of genetic diseases are caused by a mutation resulting in loss of function of an important protein, CRISPR INDEL approaches to potentially cure genetic diseases generally require an indirect approach to treat disease and are not able to directly correct the disease-causing mutation. For instance, in SCD, emerging approaches in preclinical and clinical development attempt to knock out Bcl11a function in order to induce fetal hemoglobin expression, rather than directly correcting the point mutation in the HBB gene that causes SCD. Three programs using CRISPR INDEL approaches are currently in clinical development, of which one program has provided initial clinical validation for the safety and potential efficacy of using such approaches for autologous cell therapies.

The principal limitations of gene editing using CRISPR-Cas9 are:

Base Editing

Base editing harnesses CRISPR-Cas9 to deliver a deaminase to a target DNA site, resulting in making a single nucleotide change in the target DNA. This is potentially an advance over nuclease only approaches because it allows direct targeting of a subset of mutations that cause genetic disease. To our knowledge, no base editors have entered clinical development.

The principal limitations of base editing are:

Our Next-Generation Gene Editing Approach

Our approach builds on the precision and clinical validation for current gene editing approaches to achieve an entirely new outcome—high-efficiency targeted gene integration. This has the potential to expand the therapeutic opportunities for gene editing beyond conventional gene editing and base editing to enable efficient correction of any type of disease-causing genetic lesion. Beyond gene correction and replacement, this approach is designed to allow the insertion of new therapeutic genes into cells with significantly greater precision and efficiency than existing approaches. We believe this enables broad therapeutic applications ranging from correcting mutations, engineering cells to permanently deliver therapeutic proteins, and precisely engineering effector cells to treat or cure a wide range of serious genetic and other diseases, including cancer, autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases.

Our innovative approach is a new platform technology built using our deep stem cell biology experience and proven CRISPR technology to efficiently harness a high-fidelity DNA repair process called HDR to integrate DNA copied from a DNA template into genes. Our approach can be described as “find & replace.” We employ CRISPR technology to find and cut a target gene and harness HDR to “copy and paste” replacement DNA from a template. We have demonstrated high-efficiency targeted gene integration across numerous cell types and curative potential in multiple animal models.

Our next generation gene editing technology creates a precise incision in a target gene using a modified, high fidelity CRISPR-based nuclease and we then induce conditions in target cells that overwhelmingly favor DNA repair by a mechanism that relies on HDR rather than the less desirable and more error-prone repair mechanism known as non-homologous end joining or NHEJ. HDR repairs DNA using a DNA template and results in high fidelity copying of template DNA into the correction site while reducing the introduction of DNA mutations that occur with first generation NHEJ gene editing approaches. We achieve HDR-mediated repair by using a non-integrating AAV6 viral vector to deliver template DNA (also called donor DNA) to the target gene. The donor DNA contains 400 base pair DNA segments homologous to sequences (homology arms) on either side of the targeted DNA break, and up to 4 kb of new DNA sequences between these homology arms. The cell’s natural DNA repair process uses the homology arms to align the template in the

12

correct location, and then copies and pastes the new DNA into the genome at the targeted gene cleavage site. This process enables correction or replacement of a mutated gene, or insertion of a new therapeutic gene in a precise location.

High Precision CRISPR-Based Nuclease

Our founders discovered that chemically modified guide RNAs can enhance Cas9 activity and subsequently showed that delivering Cas9 as a recombinant protein instead of as mRNA further increased cutting efficiency. These approaches are now widely used and widely considered to be state of the art for gene editing. We have continued to optimize the CRISPR component of our platform and employ an improved Cas9 enzyme with dramatically reduced off-target activity. We employ high fidelity (HiFi) Cas9, which was co-discovered by our founders and for which we have exclusively licensed patent rights from Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (IDT) in certain fields, to reduce off target cutting by 20-fold on average and 30-fold on average for the SCD gene, thus providing potential improved safety. We believe this is a unique advantage for our programs.

Harnessing HDR

Cells naturally have the ability to repair their DNA if damaged. One highly specialized repair pathway is called HDR because the cell uses a homologous template to precisely “copy and paste” DNA sequences to repair a DNA break without introducing errors. Normally, the template used in HDR comes from the sister chromosome. Because of its precision and ability to use a template, harnessing

13

the HDR pathway to achieve therapeutic targeted gene integration has been a long-sought but elusive goal due to its potential to dramatically expand gene editing’s applications and curative potential.

To achieve “find & replace,” as described above, we deliver an optimized, synthetic DNA template via a non-integrating AAV6 viral vector which is transduced into cells. Our founders evaluated various approaches before discovering that AAV6 achieved the most efficient transduction in comparison to nine other AAV serotypes, while optimally preserving stem cell function. Our AAV6 donor DNA template was iteratively optimized to maximize the efficiency of targeted gene integration. No viral genes are present in the template, and the template itself exists only transiently in the target cell population.

Process Optimization

HDR is most active during cell division and is inefficient in slowly dividing cells like HSCs. Achieving HDR at potentially curative efficiency in HSCs has been an elusive and highly sought goal because HSCs are long-term multi-potent stem cells with broad therapeutic potential and potential lifetime durability. We believe this has now been achieved with the development of our platform. In our process, we use clinically validated and standard methods to isolate HSPCs from patients, which are comprised of both slowly dividing HSCs (lower rates of HDR) and more rapidly dividing progenitors (higher rates of HDR). Although edited HSPCs are the standard drug product for any gene edited autologous stem cell therapy, the therapeutic effect comes from the long-term HSCs that are a subset of the cells in the drug product. Harnessing our stem cell biology expertise, we optimized the timing of template delivery and cell culture conditions to improve gene correction frequency from approximately 20% in initial experiments to approximately 70% in

14

human HSPCs in GPH101, our sickle cell program. We believe this gene correction rate in HSPCs ensures that the correction rate in the long-term stem cells can achieve the threshold required to cure patients (estimated to be engraftment of 20% corrected cells).

We believe our technology platform is revolutionary because it brings together proven individual technologies, new discoveries, and systematic process optimization to, for the first time, achieve HDR-mediated targeted gene integration at efficiencies of up to approximately 70% in human HSPCs. We have serially optimized our GMP process to retain high and potentially curative gene correction rates at clinical scale.

Our approach differs from first generation gene and base editing technologies:

15

Key Differentiated Components of Our Technology Platform

Our platform combines two powerful, well-characterized biologic approaches—CRISPR and HDR—with our HSC expertise and know-how to achieve high-efficiency targeted gene integration.

Efficient cutting with a CRISPR-based nuclease is an important first step in our process. Our founders discovered that chemically modified guide RNAs can enhance Cas9 activity and subsequently showed that delivering Cas9 as a recombinant protein instead of as mRNA further increased cutting efficiency. These approaches are now widely used and widely considered to be state of the art for gene editing. We have continued to optimize the CRISPR component of our platform as described below together with additional differentiated and proprietary components in our technology and process:

16

Figure: HiFi Cas9 had an approximately thirty-fold reduction in off-target DNA cleavage compared to wild-type Cas9.

To determine relative transduction efficiencies across AAV serotypes, human primary hematopoietic progenitors were infected with ten AAV serotypes each carrying the green fluorescence protein (GFP) reporter gene. The experiment was designed to determine relative transduction efficiency rather than to maximize transduction. As shown in the figure below, we observed that AAV6 was most efficient in comparison to nine other AAV serotypes. Our founders later discovered that additional optimization and ribonucleoprotein (RNP) electroporation prior to AAV6 transduction further enhanced AAV transduction efficiency.

Figure: AAV transduction of human primary hematopoietic progenitor cells.

17

Figure: Optimization of HSC cell culture conditions led to an increase in the rate of homologous repair and gene insertion.

We have found that each of these optimization steps and our other know-how can contribute to the creation of a highly efficient targeted gene integration process. We have further optimized our process to maintain high levels of efficiency at clinical scale using HSPCs isolated from healthy donors.

Expanding Eligible Patients and Potential Indications: Combining Our High-Efficiency Approach with Advances in Non-Genotoxic HSC Targeted Conditioning (NGTC)

One of our key strategic priorities is to make our potential one-time curative HSC-based therapies available, if approved, to as many appropriate patients as possible. We intend to do this by harnessing industry and internal research advances in non-genotoxic HSC targeted conditioning (NGTC) regimens. We believe the high precision and high efficiency with which we can consistently introduce genes by HDR has the potential to greatly expand the application to treat more patients and address more types of diseases for which gene editing-based therapies are feasible.

A limitation of therapies based on ex vivo genetic manipulation of HSCs is that the patient must be pre-conditioned with non-targeted, genotoxic conditioning agents, to both eliminate the dysfunctional endogenous HSCs and to create room for the modified cells to engraft and expand. This approach is standard for allogeneic bone marrow transplant (e.g., for SCD) and for approved HSC gene therapy products and has safety risks such as transient neutropenia, which necessitates prolonged hospitalization, potential fertility impairment, and the risk of secondary malignancies. These risks may reserve use of ex vivo HSC-based genetic and potentially curative therapies for diseases with limited treatment options, and for the most severely affected patients.  We believe that our efforts in NGTC development could be industry leading and broaden the number of patients who can benefit from gene editing, going beyond those who have the most severe disease. We believe that our ability to generate HSC-based product candidates that contain a high percentage of corrected cells may reduce the need for chemotherapy-based myeloablation by allowing the use of NGTC regimens. This potential advance, as well as harnessing precision gene insertion and using a higher fidelity CRISPR-based nuclease, may further enhance safety and could ultimately expand the types of diseases and patients who could be treated safely and potentially cured with our product candidates.

Applications Enabled by Our Technology

We are applying our next generation gene editing platform in three settings: gene correction, gene replacement and targeted gene insertion.

18

Our Product Candidates

Gene Correction: GPH101 for the Treatment of SCD

Overview of GPH101

Our lead product candidate, GPH101, is a next generation gene-edited autologous HSC product candidate that is designed to directly correct the mutation responsible for SCD. The mortality and morbidity associated with SCD, all caused by a single mutation, has made curing SCD by direct gene correction a dream of many clinicians. Indeed, multiple genetic therapies are in development to address SCD, but due to technical limitations of other approaches, these therapies are primarily focused on expressing alternate hemoglobin genes such as fetal hemoglobin or a transgenic hemoglobin. Our approach is the first in industry to directly correct the SCD-causing mutation to restore normal adult hemoglobin expression. In November 2021, we enrolled the first patient in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GPH101. We intend to dose our first patient in the second half of 2022, with initial proof-of-concept data anticipated in 2023.

Overview of Sickle Cell Disease

SCD is caused by a single nucleotide substitution in the gene encoding the beta subunit of hemoglobin (Hb), resulting in the production of sickle hemoglobin (HgbS). SCD is an autosomal recessive disease, meaning individuals with SCD have two copies of the mutated beta-globin gene. HgbS polymerizes in red blood cells to form rigid rod-like structures, damaging cell membranes and causing red blood cells to take on a characteristic sickle shape ultimately resulting in hemolytic anemia (destruction of red blood cells) and vaso-occlusion (blockages in blood vessels), the two major pathophysiologic features of SCD. The anemia and vaso-occlusion cause severe symptoms, serious morbidity including multiple organ damage, and shortened lifespan.

SCD is the most common monogenic blood disorder with an estimated global incidence of over 300,000 births annually. Population estimates suggest that there are approximately 100,000 persons living with SCD in the United States with an additional 67,000 people living with the disease in the European Union. The global prevalence of the disease is estimated to be about 20-25 million. Unaffected biological parents of individuals with SCD have sickle cell trait. Sickle cell trait is the benign carrier status (one copy of normal and one copy of mutated beta-globin) of SCD present in over 100 million people worldwide.

SCD is a serious and life-threatening disease. Quality of life is often poor and life expectancy is reduced by 20-30 years. Patients experience severe, often daily symptoms of pain and fatigue, suffer from acute painful episodes often requiring hospitalization, and are at risk for serious complications and organ damage including stroke, silent cerebral infarction, osteonecrosis, renal failure, pulmonary hypertension and cardiomyopathy.

Sickle Cell Disease—Available Treatments and Unmet Needs

There are four available therapies approved by the FDA for SCD treatment: hydroxyurea, L-glutamine, and Adakveo^™ (crizanlizumab) to reduce the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs), and Oxbryta^™ (voxelotor) to increase hemoglobin levels and reduce hemolysis. These therapies require lifelong usage and may in some cases reduce but do not eliminate SCD’s serious symptoms or complications. None of these therapies have been shown to prevent pain or organ damage, or to increase survival. Chronic blood transfusion therapy is another treatment option for some SCD patients. While transfusion therapy has a role in decreasing risk of stroke, a dreaded SCD complication, it has significant side effects including iron overload. Despite advancements in current care, progressive organ damage continues to cause early mortality and severe morbidity.

19

Allo-HSCT remains the only curative therapy for SCD and is considered the gold-standard for potentially curative therapies. The HSCT procedure ablates the patient’s endogenous HSCs that produce sickle red blood cells and replaces them with normal HSCs, typically from a matched sibling donor with sickle trait. HSCT is considered curative because donor cells contain at least one corrected copy of the beta-globin gene and produce normal adult HgbA yielding normal red blood cells, thereby preventing disease complications. HSCT with donor sickle trait cells has been shown to be curative because every red blood cell contains approximately 55% HgbA protein and 45% HgbS protein and does not sickle. In patients who have been cured by HSCT, this results in the elimination of VOCs and prevention of the progressive organ damage that leads to shortened lifespan. HSCT is the only therapy for SCD proven to have an impact on VOCs, organ damage and mortality. However, HSCT is rarely used due to the difficulty in finding a matched donor (as low as 16-19%), safety risks, including graft-versus-host-disease, and need for long-term immunosuppression.

Despite HSCT’s limitations (including approximately 90% of African Americans not having an available matched sibling donor, and the need for life-long immunosuppression), more than 150 HSCT procedures are performed in the United States annually. We believe this indicates substantial underlying demand for curative options, which is driven by SCD’s severity and the limitations of other current treatment options.

Sickle Cell Disease—Emerging Curative Treatments and Potential Limitations

Gene therapy and gene editing approaches are attractive alternatives to HSCT because a patient’s own cells (autologous cells) are genetically modified and therefore do not face the high risk of rejection or graft-versus-host disease associated with allo-HSCTs. However, it is unclear whether gene therapy (gene addition) and gene editing (HgbF induction) approaches currently in the clinic can achieve long term benefits similar to allo-HSCT, which directly replaces stem cells with HbSS genotype with normal (HbAA) or sickle trait (HbAS) stem cells from a matched sibling donor.

Gene addition approaches coopt a LVV to semi-randomly integrate a modified gene for non-sickling beta (or gamma) hemoglobin into the genome, leaving the disease-causing sickle globin gene intact. Results from these trials are promising and demonstrate that patients treated using this approach have reduced VOC incidence, significant hemoglobin increases and reduction in hemolysis. However, the random insertion of newly introduced genes raises safety concerns for a potential increased risk of tumorigenesis. Use of viruses such as LVV to insert genes also results in a high variability in the number of gene copies that are inserted into the genome. This leads to variable expression levels of transgenic hemoglobin such that a significant proportion of red blood cells may not be protected. Finally, LVVs have a biologic preference for integrating into the introns of actively expressed genes, which could cause long-term perturbations of HSC function that may take years to manifest themselves.

A different, yet indirect, approach uses CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to reduce or eliminate the suppression of HgbF expression, thereby increasing HgbF levels. As with LVV gene addition, this approach also leaves the disease-causing sickle mutation intact. The rationale for this approach is that rare patients with naturally occurring elevated HgbF levels may have reduced or minimal SCD symptoms. Data available on three treated patients suggests that this HgbF induction also reduces the rate of VOCs and results in significant hemoglobin increases and reduction in hemolysis. HgbF serves to transfer oxygen from the maternal blood stream to the fetus because it has a higher oxygen affinity compared to adult hemoglobin. HgbF is normally expressed only in the fetus and replaced by HgbA within one year of birth. Due to its abnormally elevated oxygen affinity for adults, prolonged elevated HgbF expression may result in adverse physiological consequences. Additionally, HgbF has not been shown to have an impact on end organ damage, which is the main cause of early mortality in patients with SCD.

Therefore, we believe that current gene editing and gene addition approaches, while promising, stop short of correcting the underlying disease-causing mutation and addressing all of the complications associated with the disease, which remains the ultimate goal of a curative therapy for SCD.

Our Solution: GPH101

GPH101 is the first targeted genetic therapy in clinical development that is designed to efficiently and precisely correct the disease-causing gene, simultaneously eliminating HgbS production and restoring normal HgbA expression. At the DNA level, we believe this is the first approach in the industry that seeks to convert an SCD genotype (two genes with sickle mutations, HbSS) to a normal genotype (at least one normal beta-globin gene). By correcting the SCD-causing mutation, our next-generation gene editing approach has the

20

potential to overcome a major limitation of current gene addition and gene editing approaches that take an indirect approach. Our goal with GPH101 is to replace a sufficient quantity of a patient’s HSCs with gene corrected cells to definitively cure SCD.

Figure: GPH101 removes the mutated region of HbS and replaces it with that of a normal hemoglobin gene.

In order for this approach to be curative in patients, it is not necessary to correct all sickle globin genes nor to correct all HSPCs. Because sickle cell trait individuals have benign SCD carrier status, correcting one out of the two sickle globin genes in a cell is sufficient to correct that cell. Furthermore, to cure the disease, it is not necessary to correct all SCD HSPCs. In patients who received allo-HSCT from a matched sibling donor with sickle trait—long-term, persistent mixed donor chimerism where only 20% of HSCs have normal hemoglobin resulted in cures, and clinical benefits were observed with as low as 5% corrected cells. Per the figure below, we have shown under IND-enabling GMP manufacturing conditions that we can achieve correction (meaning one or more corrected copies of the sickle globin gene) in over 55% of treated HSPCs, which we believe to be well above the predicted curative threshold.

Figure: We have shown that under IND-enabling GMP manufacturing conditions, we can achieve HbS gene correction above the predicted threshold required for cure.

We believe that GPH101 has the potential to be the optimal curative approach, because it is designed to directly correct the mutation responsible for SCD and restore normal biology by eliminating HgbS production and restoring HgbA expression. Based on existing allo-HSCT data, this supports GPH101’s potential to address the complications associated with the disease and provide a definitive cure.

Preclinical Validation

We have used both healthy donor and sickle cell disease patient-derived hematopoietic stem cells in our preclinical studies. Although correction of the sickle mutation requires sickle hematopoietic stem cells, we can also perform the same process on cells from healthy donors because the DNA template introduces additional silent (no change to amino acid coding sequence) nucleotide changes by HDR. Overall, our data highlight that HBB (beta-globin) gene correction is equivalent in healthy donor as well as sickle cell disease patient-derived hematopoietic stem cells.

21

We have taken three experimental approaches to generate preclinical proof of concept data for GPH101. The first approach evaluates HDR efficiency in HSPCs from healthy donors subsequently measuring both the frequencies of HBB allele editing in the bulk population and edited cell HBB genotypes (e.g., the percentage of cells with at least one corrected allele). The second approach corrects the HbS gene in HSPCs isolated from patients, then measures the function of treated cells both ex vivo and in a humanized mouse model. The third approach corrects the HbS mutation in HSCs from a sickle mouse model and assesses corrected cells’ ability to modify the disease.

In experimental approach 1, illustrated in the left panel of the figure below, HSPCs were isolated from healthy donors. We then used CRISPR to target HBB alleles and then introduced silent mutations by HDR from the AAV6-delivered donor DNA template, a process equivalent to the intended process for clinical samples. In these healthy donor cells, HDR modified HBB alleles are equivalent to corrected alleles, and unchanged alleles are equivalent to sickle alleles. Over 40% of HBB alleles were corrected, approximately 40% had INDELs, and approximately 20% of HBB alleles remained unchanged. We anticipate from this experiment that creating INDELs in the HbS gene may be beneficial to SCD patients because INDELs may prevent sickle hemoglobin expression through knockout of the HbS gene, and stem cells containing biallelic sickle globin INDELs will not be able to produce sickle RBCs. To understand the impact of corrected and INDEL alleles on stem and progenitor cell genotype, and on the probability of achieving the predicted curative threshold of 20% corrected cells, we next genotyped individual stem and progenitor cell colonies. Results are shown in the right panel of the figure below. We observed that 40% of corrected alleles translated into 56% of stem cells being the equivalent of corrected (monoallelic or biallelic HDR), 23% are equivalent of sickle (unchanged), and 21% are knockout (INDEL/INDEL). Because knockout stem cells do not make functional RBCs, the proportion of functional corrected stem cells is approximately 70% (56% corrected colonies divided by 79% colonies that can make normal adult hemoglobin), which is well above the expected curative threshold of 20%. Thus, our approach of both knocking out the disease-causing mutation and applying subsequent gene correction to restore the HbA gene has the potential to lead to higher than anticipated cell correction rates and increases our confidence in the ability to exceed the expected curative threshold.

SCD Patient Derived HSPCs

In experimental approach 2, HSPCs were isolated from SCD patients and edited utilizing a process similar to the intended process for clinical samples, as illustrated below in the left panel of figure below. Due to our optimized process, over 60% of HbS alleles were corrected, approximately 20% had INDELs and only approximately 10% of HbS alleles remained intact. We believe that the INDELs may be beneficial to SCD patients since INDELs prevent expression of sickle hemoglobin from the uncorrected intact HbS genes.

22

Next, these edited HSPCs were differentiated into red blood cells ex vivo and their hemoglobin expression was measured. As illustrated in the middle panel of the figure below, analysis of HgbA and HgbS expression (subtracting background HgbF levels) showed over 90% normal hemoglobin A and only approximately 10% sickle hemoglobin. We believe this result was better than expected for sickle trait, where red blood cells contain 55% HgbA protein and 45% HgbS protein, because INDEL formation in uncorrected sickle alleles eliminated most HgbS expression. As illustrated in the right panel of the figure below, when transplanted into immunodepleted NSG mice, these cells engrafted in a long-term (16 weeks), stable fashion with approximately 30% of sickle alleles corrected. This translates into approximately 40% of the long-term HSCs being corrected by containing at least one corrected sickle allele, double the expected curative threshold in humans. We can measure corrected alleles more directly than corrected cells; the curative threshold based on corrected alleles is anticipated to be approximately 15% because the percent of cells that have at least one corrected allele is approximately 1.3 times higher than the percent of corrected alleles. Possible reasons for the approximately two-fold difference in gene correction between the infused HSPCs (approximately 70%) and the HSCs engrafted in the mice (approximately 35%) include that long term engrafting HSCs have lower efficiency HDR than progenitor cells that comprise the majority of HSPCs; that this is a feature specific to the mouse model; or that the gene correction process impairs functionality of some of the HSCs. Regardless of the explanation, the 30% gene correction seen in vivo in engrafting HSCs is predicted to be curative in humans.

Figure: GPH101 created from SCD patients predominantly expressed normal hemoglobin and led to stable engraftment in immunodeficient mice

Mouse SCD Model (Townes Model)

The Townes model of SCD is a transgenic mouse model in which the mouse hemoglobin locus is replaced with human HbA and HbS genes. These mice express sickle cell hemoglobin and exhibit many of the symptoms of human SCD including red blood cell sickling and short red blood cell half-life. In this experimental approach HSCs were isolated from sickle mice and edited utilizing the same process as the process for human HSPCs. As illustrated in the left panel of the figure below, we observed that approximately 20% of sickle alleles were corrected in the mouse HSCs, likely because of processes that were optimized for human and not mouse HSCs. Given the estimated curative threshold in humans of 20% HSCs, we predicted that mice achieving 20% or greater correction of engrafted cells (15% of alleles) would show substantial benefit of disease features. As illustrated in the center panel of the figure below, all mice with greater than 15% allele correction showed a profile of hemoglobin expression consistent with a potential cure with over 55% HgbA protein (same HgbA level as sickle trait). Furthermore, red blood cells from gene-corrected mice had a half-life that was approximately

23

ten-fold longer than SCD mice. As illustrated in the right panel of the figure below, we observed that these gene-corrected red blood cells were resistant to sickling.

Figure: Gene correction in a humanized SCD mouse model resulted in over 70% normal hemoglobin expression leading to reduced red blood cell sickling.

GPH101 Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial Design

In November 2021, we initiated a Phase 1/2 open label clinical trial of GPH101 in approximately 15 patients with severe SCD. The primary objective of this trial is to assess safety. Secondary objectives of the trial are to evaluate engraftment success, gene correction rates, total hemoglobin, hemoglobin A and S, effect on clinical events such as VOCs and exploratory endpoints that could generate initial evidence of GPH101’s ability to restore red blood cell health and have an impact on end organ damage.

Gene Replacement: GPH102 for the Treatment of Beta-Thalassemia and GPH201 for the Treatment of XSCID

GPH102 for the Treatment of Beta-Thalassemia

Beta-thalassemia is a genetic disorder characterized by reduced production of beta-globin, a protein that forms functional, oxygen-carrying hemoglobin with alpha-globin (HbA, a2b2). In its most severe form, beta-thalassemia is caused by mutations in both alleles of the HBB gene. These patients fail to produce functional beta-globin, resulting in severe anemia. More than 300 beta-thalassemia mutations are known; most are small nucleotide insertions, substitutions, or deletions within or directly adjacent to the HBB gene.

The most common treatment for beta-thalassemia is chronic blood transfusions. Transfusion-dependent patients typically receive transfusions every two to four weeks. Chronic administration of blood often leads to elevated levels of iron in the body, which can cause organ damage over a relatively short period of time. Patients are often given iron chelators, or medicines to reduce iron levels in the blood, which are associated with their own significant toxicities. In developing countries, where chronic transfusions are not available, most patients die in early childhood. A treatment for anemia in adult patients with transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia, Reblozyl (luspatercept-aamt), received FDA approval in 2019. While Reblozyl significantly reduced transfusion burden, it did not eliminate the need for transfusions. The only known curative therapy for beta-thalassemia is allo-HSCT, but utilization is limited by lack of matched and willing donors and need for lifelong immunosuppression. As with SCD, evidence suggests that allo-HSCT can be curative if 20% or more normal donor cells engraft.

GPH102 leverages our platform, replacing the HBB gene via HDR to achieve a normal or beta-thalassemia trait genotype with the goal of restoring HgbA expression to levels similar to healthy individuals. Alternative genetic therapies are in clinical development to address beta-thalassemia, but in general due to technical limitations, these potential therapies are indirect and are focused on expressing alternate hemoglobin genes such as fetal hemoglobin (HgbF) or a transgenic hemoglobin without correcting the underlying genetic lesions. The principal limitations of HgbF upregulation are currently understood to be that (1) its abnormally elevated oxygen affinity may result in adverse physiological consequences in adults and (2) individual RBCs require sufficient levels of beta or beta-like globin to prevent hemolysis. It is currently unclear whether indirect approaches such as HgbF upregulation can achieve this, especially in the most severe b0/b0 genotype. The principal limitations of transgenic hemoglobin addition approaches are currently understood to be that: (1) the LVV that delivers the transgenic gene may have a biologic preference for integrating into the introns of actively expressed genes, which could cause long-term perturbations of HSC function that may take years to manifest themselves and (2) transgenic beta-globin levels are variable between RBCs (due to variable vector copy number and integration site). Additionally, some RBCs may express insufficient transgenic beta-globin to be protective, especially in the most severe b0/b0 genotype.

24

Our GPH102 program synergizes with our GPH101 program in SCD because they utilize a similar approach aimed at uniquely restoring normal genotypes in a complementary benign hematology patient population. Additionally, they use identical gRNA and HiFi Cas9 gene editing components, with only the donor DNA template differing to achieve the desired outcome. We believe that these factors could speed the development of GPH102. We intend to file an IND for GPH102 by mid-2024, pending feedback from health authorities.

GPH201 for the Treatment of XSCID

GPH201 is an investigational next generation gene-edited autologous HSC product candidate for the treatment of XSCID. XSCID is a rare, life-threatening disease where multiple mutations in a single gene prevent the formation of multiple interleukin receptors resulting in defects in immune cell formation. As a consequence, severe, persistent, or recurrent early-onset infections are the hallmark of XSCID. Without treatment, infants with XSCID usually do not live beyond one year of age. Allogeneic HSCT that results in functional reconstitution of the immune system is the only curative treatment for XSCID, but the procedure has limitations including identification of an HLA matched sibling donor as well as potential complications of GvHD and subsequent poor immune reconstitution. An effective targeted genetic therapy would need to replace a large portion of the IL2RG gene in order to be effective across XSCID patients with different IL2RG mutations. The goal of GPH201 is to replace a sufficient quantity of a patient’s HSCs with gene edited cells to eliminate the symptoms of, and potentially cure, XSCID. We intend to work with an academic partner to develop GPH201.

In preclinical studies assessing GPH201’s gene replacement efficiency, we modified HSCs from healthy males using our GPH201 process. As illustrated in the figures below, we observed an overall mean IL2RG gene replacement efficiency of approximately 45% in healthy donor-derived HSPCs. These HSCs were then engrafted in bone marrow of immunodeficient mice, where approximately 30% gene replacement was observed, indicative of long-term curative potential. We believe this level of gene replacement is well in excess of the estimated 1-5% curative threshold.

Figure: The IL2RG gene was replaced in approximately 45% of treated HSPCs from healthy donors

To assess the potential of GPH201 to restore the ability of progenitor cells to differentiate into T cells and NK cells, we isolated HSPCs from an XSCID patient with subsequent replacement of the IL2RG gene, achieving approximately 40% gene replacement efficiency, as illustrated in the figure at left below. Upon differentiating these cells in vitro, as illustrated in the figure at right below, treated HSPCs from the XSCID patient had an approximately nine-fold increase in cells that formed T cells, B cells, and NK cells than untreated control cells.

25

Figure: IL2RG gene replacement in XSCID patient HSPCs led to significant increase in T cell and NK cell formation

As a result of the selective advantage of progenitor and effector cells that express normal IL2RG, it is estimated that only 1-5% of genetically corrected HSCs would be needed to reconstitute immunity in XSCID patients. This selective advantage is highlighted by reports that rare XSCID patients have had a somatic reversion in a single precursor cell that led to reconstitution of their immune system for years. Based on the editing efficiency we have demonstrated and the low number of genetically corrected HSCs needed to potentially cure the disease, we believe that GPH201 can be curative and could be combined with a novel, safer and targeted bone marrow conditioning approach.

We have partnered with Jasper Therapeutics to assess GPH201 combined with targeted conditioning using JSP191, an anti-CD117 monoclonal antibody and without the use of chemotherapeutic myeloablation. Clinical data has shown that JSP191 has the potential to lead to successful engraftment in allo-HSCT for XSCID. Although XSCID is an ultra-orphan indication with a small number of severely affected patients, we believe GPH201 could address an important unmet need, and data from this program (potentially in combination with JSP191) could be informative to our platform and pipeline.

Targeted Gene Insertion with Therapeutic Protein Production (CCR5 Safe Harbor Locus): GPH301 for the Treatment of Gaucher Disease

Our GPH301 product candidate is a next generation gene-edited autologous HSC product candidate from our CCR5 locus technology for the treatment of Gaucher disease, an autosomal recessive genetic disorder caused by mutations in the GBA gene which encodes GCase. GCase is an enzyme responsible for degrading glucocerebroside, a cell membrane building block, into glucose and lipids within lysosomes of cells. In patients with Gaucher disease, lack of GCase leads to accumulation of glucocerebroside in macrophages resulting in inflammation that impacts the liver, spleen and bone marrow.

Gaucher disease is the most common inherited lysosomal storage disease and is classified into three types: Type 1 disease is associated with hematologic abnormalities, enlargement of the liver and spleen and skeletal defects, which severely impact quality of life; Type 2 disease causes life-threatening neurological dysfunction in infants, who often die within the first few weeks of life; and Type 3 disease causes severe neurological complications in addition to all the symptoms associated with Type 1 disease, resulting in reduced lifespan. There are approximately 6,000 patients with Gaucher disease in the United States. 90% of Gaucher patients in the United States and Europe are classified as Type 1.

Gaucher disease is currently treated by enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), which is recombinant GCase. All of the approved ERTs are administered as biweekly infusions. Long term ERT for Gaucher disease results in lower levels of anemia, reduced bone pain, and reductions in spleen and liver enlargement, but is not curative. An alternate method of treating Gaucher disease is to block the synthesis of glucocerebroside with inhibitors rather than to accelerate its breakdown with ERT. Approved products in this category include miglustat and eliglustat. These products are not generally as effective as ERT and have significant safety risks. HSCT is the only treatment that can provide a definitive cure for Gaucher disease and is considered prior to the onset of neurologic symptoms.

With GPH301, we are inserting a functional copy of the gene for glucocerebrosidase (GCase) into the chromosomal location of the CCR5 gene. This locus is known as a safe harbor both because of the lack of serious deleterious effects in humans with CCR5

26

mutations and because the expression of genes inserted there can be precisely controlled by regulatory elements inserted together with the gene of interest. We include the CD68S promoter in the inserted gene cassette which we believe provides two advantages: 1) targeting GCase expression specifically to the disease-causing cell in Gaucher (and avoiding expression in HSCs which could affect stem cell function) and 2) macrophage expression takes advantage of the ability of gene corrected macrophages to cross the blood brain barrier and address the neuropathic manifestation of Type 3 Gaucher Disease. The goal of GPH301 is to replace a sufficient quantity of a patient’s HSCs with gene edited cells to drive GCase expression in a patient’s macrophages and reverse the accumulation of unprocessed glucocerebroside. Data from Gaucher patients with mixed donor chimerism and from mouse models support that less than 10% corrected HSCs could be curative.

In preclinical studies assessing the efficiency of our targeted gene insertion process, we isolated HSCs from healthy donors using our GPH301 process. As illustrated in the left panel of the figure below, we were able to achieve efficient gene insertion as demonstrated by approximately 35% of the targeted CCR5 alleles containing a GCase insertion. As illustrated in the center panel of the figure below, the edited, engrafted cells contain more than 10% alleles with the insertion, which corresponds to more than 15% of the cells, which is above the predicted threshold (5%-10%) for patients to achieve a cure. As predicted, because of our use of the CD68S promoter, GCase expression was restricted to monocytes and macrophages. As illustrated in the right panel of the figure below, GCase expression was two-fold higher in edited versus unedited healthy donor cells in both in vitro cultures and in cells isolated from a humanized mouse model after engraftment. We believe that this preclinical data strongly supports the curative potential of GPH301.

Figure: Insertion of the GBA gene in the CCR5 safe harbor led to the expression of GCase in monocytes.

We believe proof of concept in Gaucher disease could accelerate development of a CCR5 safe harbor protein production pipeline given there are significant synergies and regulatory efficiencies because these programs would use the same RNA guide and preclinical safety assessment. However, we believe that advancing GPH301 for Gaucher disease is best maximized by developing non-genotoxic conditioning (NGTC) regimens alongside this program, and we are assessing a strategy and timeline for GPH301 to enter the clinic with NGTC.

Future Targeted Gene Insertion with Therapeutic Protein Production (CCR5 Safe Harbor) Opportunities

We plan to pursue indications beyond Gaucher disease using our CCR5 locus technology for tissue-based protein expression, including for CNS protein delivery. Inserting different genes into this locus using the same sgRNA, integration site and homology arms enables us to rapidly expand into other diseases.

Our founders have published animal or in vitro data using the CCR5 safe harbor approach in several indications, including mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I), a severe metabolic disease characterized by buildup of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) due to a deficiency of alpha-L iduraonidase (IDUA), an enzyme responsible for degradation of GAGs in lysosomes. Without IDUA, GAGs accumulate in the body leading to developmental delays, enlarged organs, neurologic damage which may lead to cognitive decline, and early death. MPS I is treated primarily by chronically administered ERT, for which CNS efficacy is limited because ERT does not cross the blood-brain barrier. The only curative treatment for MPS I is allo-HSCT which is rarely used because of the lack of matched donors and immune complications.

To assess the efficiency of our targeted gene insertion process, we isolated HSPCs from healthy donors using a process similar to that of GPH301. As illustrated in the left panel of the figure below, we were able to achieve efficient gene insertion as demonstrated by approximately 45% of the targeted CCR5 alleles containing a phosphoglycerate kinase promoter (PGK)-IDUA insertion. While we have not optimized gene insertion for IDUA in engrafted cells, targeted cells successfully engraft in immunodepleted mice, and as illustrated in the center panel of the figure below, the edited, engrafted cells contain more than 5% alleles with the insertion, which corresponds to approximately 7% of cells. To study the IDUA enzyme activity contribution in cells containing the PGK-IDUA gene insertion, a pure

27

population of targeted cells was measured in vitro in macrophages. Approximately 30-fold higher IDUA activity was observed versus healthy donors, as illustrated in the right panel of the figure below. We then transplanted the PGK-IDUA human HSPCs into IDUA knockout mice (an MPS I animal model) to assess in vivo IDUA activity. The serum IDUA activity in the transplanted mice was an average of approximately 3% of normal activity versus 0.05% activity in IDUA knockout mice (0.8% activity or higher is expected for clinical benefit based on patients with mild disease). Overall, these data highlight that the CCR5 safe harbor locus is a modular therapeutic protein production platform that has broad applicability for treating genetic diseases, including other lysosomal storage disorders.

Future Opportunities in Targeted Gene Insertion with Therapeutic Protein Production: Alpha Globin Locus

For certain therapeutic applications, we believe there is an advantage to precisely inserting a gene into a location in the chromosome where we can utilize a native cell promoter that can lead to high level and lineage specific expression. One such locus is the alpha globin (HBA1) locus, in which the endogenous alpha-globin promoter can be used to express inserted genes in red blood cells or red blood cell precursors to drive therapeutic protein production. This is an attractive approach because the very high rate of red blood cell formation (200 billion produced each day), coupled with the strength of the alpha globin promoter (280 million hemoglobin molecules per red blood cell) could allow for production of normal levels of therapeutic protein with modest HSC engraftment targets (<10%) which may be achievable with non-genotoxic HSC targeted bone marrow conditioning regimens. We believe this could dramatically improve the benefit risk of product candidates as potential one-time HSC cures.

A number of blood diseases could potentially be cured or treated by one-time infusion of HSPCs with targeted gene insertion into the alpha globin locus. In preclinical studies, we observed a targeted insertion of a full HBB gene (which encodes the beta-globin protein) into the HBA1 locus at an approximately 40% rate in human beta-thalassemia patient-derived HSPCs, as shown in the figure at left below. Following the insertion of the HBB gene into the HBA1 locus, transplantation of these patient-derived cells into an immunodeficient mouse model resulted in long-term engraftment, as shown in the center figure below. Following differentiation of HSPCs into red blood cells, the beta globin-to-alpha globin expression ratio was approximately equivalent to the levels observed in patients with beta-thalassemia trait, as shown in the figure at right below. This targeted gene insertion approach, which explores inserting

28

the HBB gene into the HBA1 locus as a method to potentially treat beta-thalassemia, is different from the gene replacement approach used for our GPH102 program, which replaces the HBB gene via HDR to achieve a normal or beta-thalassemia trait genotype.

Figure: Targeted gene insertion of the HBA1 gene led to efficient gene insertion and expression in a mouse model

Given high rates of protein production from our gene-targeted cells, we believe that clinically relevant therapeutics can be developed with this approach that require only modest rates of engraftment and would not require standard myeloablative conditioning. We believe that this has the potential to expand the applicability of our targeted gene insertion technology to indications for which risks of random gene integration and chemotherapeutic myeloablative conditioning would be unacceptable.

We are currently advancing an early-stage research program leveraging this approach for the treatment of alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency, a severe inherited genetic disorder that affects approximately 60,000 people in the United States and can cause progressive lung and liver disease. AAT is caused by a genetic mutation in the SERAPINA1 gene, which causes the liver to produce insufficient amounts of AAT protein needed to protect the lungs so they can work normally. We believe we can offer a differentiated approach to treat AAT deficiency by using targeted gene insertion to permanently increase AAT protein production. This approach has the potential to permanently normalize circulating plasma levels of AAT with a one-time treatment, in combination with mild conditioning, and avoid potential issues of durability, immunogenicity or liver toxicity with liver-targeted approaches. We expect to provide updates about this program as it progresses through discovery research efforts.

Other Future Opportunities for Targeted Gene Integration in Other Cell Types and Indications

We intend to pursue applications of our technology platform to develop potential therapies for a number of other genetic diseases including diseases involving the hematopoietic system and other lysosomal storage diseases. We believe that our targeted gene insertion technology, through its ability to lead to the controlled expression of any gene, also has potential to treat diseases outside of monogenic diseases such as the ability to integrate genes to produce next generation CAR effector therapies or myeloid cell therapies for autoimmune disease or oncology. Our high-efficiency gene editing technology has been shown using human cells and/or animal models to be applicable to a broad range of HSC-based indications (e.g., MPS I and Krabbe) as well as other tissues, such as airway stem cells (cystic fibrosis), neural stem cells, pluripotent stem cells and keratinocytes (wound healing). We intend to investigate the potential of developing therapies for other diseases based on these findings.

29

Manufacturing

We currently have no commercial manufacturing capabilities. For our initial clinical programs, we intend to use qualified third-party contract manufacturing organizations with relevant manufacturing experience in genetic medicines. We have established manufacturing processes for GPH101 and have established relationships with third-party manufacturers with capabilities to manufacture the necessary Drug Substance and Drug Product in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). We plan to continue to rely on qualified third-party organizations to produce or process bulk compounds, formulated compounds, viral vectors or engineered cells for IND-supporting activities and early-stage clinical trials. We expect that commercial quantities of any compound, vector, or engineered cells that we may seek to develop will be manufactured in facilities and by processes that comply with cGMP and relevant health authority regulations. At the appropriate time in the product development process, we will determine whether to establish our own manufacturing facilities or continue to rely on third parties to manufacture commercial quantities of any products that we may successfully develop. Outside of the United States and Europe, where appropriate, we may elect in the future to utilize strategic partners, distributors or contract sales forces to assist in the commercialization of our products. In certain instances, we may consider building our own commercial infrastructure.

As product candidates advance through our pipeline, our commercial plans may change. In particular, some of our research programs target potentially larger indications. Clinical outcomes, the size of the development programs, the size of the target market, and the availability of commercial manufacturing infrastructure will influence our manufacturing strategies in the United States, Europe and the rest of the world.

Competition

The gene therapy and gene editing fields are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, development experience, and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we currently face, and will continue to face, competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. For any products that we may ultimately commercialize, not only will we compete with any existing therapies and those therapies currently in development, but we will also have to compete

30

with new therapies that may become available in the future. Key competitive factors affecting the commercial success of our gene therapies are likely to be efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience, price and reimbursement.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that utilize technologies encompassing genomic medicines to create therapies, including gene editing and gene therapy. There are several other companies advancing gene editing and gene therapy product candidates in preclinical or clinical development in sickle cell disease, including Beam Therapeutics Inc., bluebird bio, Inc., Cellectis SA, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., and Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. Companies advancing gene editing and gene therapy programs in beta-thalassemia include bluebird bio, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. and Edigene Inc. Companies advancing gene therapy programs in XSCID include Mustang Bio, Inc. Companies advancing gene therapy programs in Gaucher disease include AVROBio, Inc. and Freeline Therapeutics Holdings plc. Companies advancing gene editing and gene therapy programs in preclinical development for AAT deficiency include Beam Therapeutics Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Krystal Biotech Inc., Apic Bio Inc., and LogicBio Therapeutics Inc. Companies combining CRISPR with HDR (homology directed repair) include CRISPR Therapeutics AG, which, for oncology applications, inserts a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) construct into the TCR alpha constant (TRAC) locus in T-cells using HDR. Additionally, an academic collaboration between the University of California, San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles is seeking to correct the sickle cell mutation using CRISPR followed by delivery of a single-stranded oligonucleotide DNA donor to potentially harness HDR. Because these competitors, as well as other companies and research institutions, hold numerous patents in this field, it is possible that these or other third parties could allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. For more information regarding competition and intellectual property, please see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we may be in obtaining FDA approval for drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ products may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any product we may commercialize and may render our gene therapies obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our gene therapies. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our gene therapies non-competitive or obsolete.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our platform technology, our programs, and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating any valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, exclusively licensing and filing patent applications related to our platform technology, existing and planned programs, and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available. Notwithstanding these efforts, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we have licensed or filed or may license or file in the future, and we cannot be sure that any patents we have licensed or patents that may be licensed or granted to us in the future will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Our wholly owned and our in-licensed patent applications cover various aspects of our genome editing platform and proprietary components, as well as our programs directed to genome modification using chemically modified guide RNAs. We intend to continue to pursue, when possible, additional patent protection, including composition of matter, method of use, and process claims, directed to each component of our platform technology and the programs in our portfolio. We also have one option to license patent applications relating to stable genomic integration in primary cells with CRISPR-Cas and AAV, HSC insertion in alpha globin loci, and HDR correction of IL2RG for treatment of XSCID as well as a second option to license patent applications relating to gene integration in a safe harbor locus CCR5 to correct metabolic diseases, treatment and correction of immunodeficiency conditions, treatment of cystic fibrosis, and treatment of diseases relating via targeting and correcting the alpha globin locus. We also intend to expand and extend our genome editing platform by obtaining rights to additional components and technologies through one or more licenses from third parties.

As of March 7, 2022, we owned two provisional patent applications. One provisional patent application relates to various aspects of treating beta-thalassemia, including specific gene cassettes and sequences for targeted insertion into particular locations in the HBB gene, gene editing components and compositions thereof for editing the HBB gene, and methods of using such compositions for modifying a patient’s cells and other gene therapies. If issued as a U.S. patent, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent would be expected to expire in 2042, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. A second provisional patent application relates to methods to genetically engineer hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells for the expression of therapeutic proteins, including related gene editing components and therapeutic compositions and methods. If issued as a U.S. patent, and if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, the U.S. patent would be expected to expire in 2042, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

31

As of March 7, 2022, we in-licensed one allowed U.S. patent application, issued patents in Europe and China, and pending patent applications in Australia, Canada, China, Japan and South Korea directed to methods of genome modification using chemically modified guide RNA in primary cells from Stanford. The in-licensed patent applications, which are jointly owned by Stanford and Agilent, also relate to methods of using such genome modifications for therapeutic indications such as SCD and thalassemia. Our current in-licensed patents and patent applications from Stanford, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire 2036, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. The in-licensed European patent is currently subject to an opposition proceeding at the European Patent Office (EPO) Opposition Division, initiated by multiple opponents.

As of March 7, 2022, we in-licensed two U.S. patents, two U.S. patent applications, and patent applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and South Korea directed to compositions involving high-fidelity nucleases, gene editing systems using mutant Cas9 nucleases, and improved methods of gene editing thereof from IDT. Our current in-licensed patent and patent applications from IDT, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire in 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

For more information regarding our licensed patent applications, please see the sections titled “Our Material Agreements” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies from country to country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment (PTA) which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened (e.g., if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent having an earlier expiration date). In some instances, such a PTA may result in a U.S. patent term extending beyond 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application related to the U.S. patent. Patent term extensions (PTE) under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, are also possible for patents that cover an FDA-approved drug as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a PTE of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the PTE is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug, a method for using it, or a method of manufacturing it, may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if our products receive regulatory approval, we may be eligible to apply for PTEs on patents covering such products, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such PTE should be granted, and if granted, the length of such PTE. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and confidential information to develop and maintain our proprietary position and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have implemented measures to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Our Material Agreements

Exclusive License Agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

In December 2020, we entered into an exclusive license agreement (the License Agreement), with The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford), pursuant to which Stanford granted us a worldwide license to specified technology and patent rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize human prophylactic and therapeutic products. Other than with respect to specified, broadly applicable assays and procedures and subject to retained rights by Stanford, the license is exclusive with respect to human prophylactic and therapeutic products for the treatment of SCD, XSCID and beta thalassemia. The license is non-exclusive with respect to those broadly applicable assays and procedures and with respect to all human prophylactic and therapeutic products other than for the treatment of SCD, XSCID and beta thalassemia.

To date, pursuant to the License Agreement, we have paid an upfront license fee to Stanford of $50.0 thousand and issued to Stanford and its designees an aggregate of approximately 0.6 million shares of our common stock. We are obligated to pay Stanford an annual license maintenance fee on each anniversary of the effective date of the License Agreement. The annual license maintenance fee initially is $5.0 thousand and will increase to $50.0 thousand in three increments over the first seven anniversaries of the effective date

32

of the License Agreement. After the first commercial sale of a product falling within the scope of the license (Licensed Product), the annual license maintenance fee is $200.0 thousand.

In May 2021, we issued 640,861 shares of our common stock in connection with the License Agreement. Subsequently, in June 2021, related to the License Agreement, we repurchased 624,845 shares of our common stock from investors and founders.

We are required to share with Stanford a portion of any non-royalty income we receive from sublicensing the licensed patent rights or technology, subject to specified exclusions. With respect to sublicenses granted to products for the treatment of SCD, XSCID and beta thalassemia, the portion of sublicense income we must share with Stanford varies by indication and declines from between a mid-teens to a second quartile double-digit percentage prior to the filing of an IND to between a high single-digit to very low double-digit percentage upon achievement of a specified clinical milestone. With respect to sublicenses granted under the licensed technology rights and not licensed patent rights, the portion of sublicense income shared with Stanford declines from between a mid single-digit and very low double-digit percentage prior to the filing of an IND to a low single-digit percentage after filing of an IND.

We are obligated to make payments to Stanford with respect to each Licensed Product of up to an aggregate of $12.8 million upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones. Such amounts are payable only once upon the first occurrence of a particular milestone event with respect to each Licensed Product and only once with respect to each new indication covered by any of the Licensed Products.

We also are obligated to pay Stanford low single-digit royalties based on worldwide annual net sales of any Licensed Product, subject to specified reductions. We will be obligated to continue to pay royalties on a Licensed Product-by-Licensed Product and country-by-country basis, until the latest of (i) the expiration of the last valid claim under the licensed patents that covers the sale or manufacture of such Licensed Product in such country, (ii) the expiration of any period of regulatory exclusivity with respect to such Licensed Product in such country or (iii) the expiration of ten years after the first commercial sale of such Licensed Product in such country.

The term of the License Agreement expires on the later of (i) the expiration of the last patent or abandonment of the last patent application within the license patent rights or (ii) the expiration of all royalty terms with respect to Licensed Products. The License Agreement may be terminated by us at will or by Stanford if we remain in breach of the License Agreement following a cure period to remedy the breach.

We are required to use diligent efforts to manufacture, market and sell Licensed Products for the treatment of each of SCD, XSCID and beta thalassemia. In addition, we are required to achieve specified milestones by specified dates with respect to Licensed Products for the treatment of each of SCD, XSCID and beta thalassemia. If we fail to satisfy our diligence obligations, Stanford may terminate the License Agreement for our breach. For more details on the License Agreement, please see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

Option Agreements with Stanford

First Option Agreement

In January 2021, we entered into an option agreement (the “First Option Agreement”) with Stanford, pursuant to which Stanford granted us the right to obtain a license to specified patent rights relating to human prophylactic and therapeutic products. The option may be extended to specified technology at a later date and upon our agreement with Stanford. We may exercise the option in whole or in part to obtain a license under one or more of the optioned patent rights. Subject to retained rights by Stanford, the license is exclusive with respect to human prophylactic and therapeutic products for the treatment of SCD, XSCID and beta thalassemia and non-exclusive with respect to all other human prophylactic and therapeutic products.

Pursuant to the First Option Agreement, we agreed to grant Stanford 132,137 shares of our common stock if we exercise the option and execute and deliver an amendment to the License Agreement that incorporates the optioned patent rights and any optioned technology. Other than such shares of our common stock and a license execution fee of $10.0 thousand if we exercise the option with respect to a particular optioned patent right, no additional payments have been or will be made by us to Stanford under the First Option Agreement or upon the execution of an amendment to the License Agreement that incorporates the optioned patent rights and any optioned technology. The terms of the License Agreement will apply to any Licensed Products falling within the patent rights and technology licensed by us upon exercise of the option.

The term of the First Option Agreement expires 18 months after its effective date, subject to our right to extend such expiration date by up to an additional one-year periods upon notice to Stanford and by another additional one year upon the reasonable agreement of Stanford. The First Option Agreement will terminate if the License Agreement terminates. The First Option Agreement also may be terminated by us at will.

Second Option Agreement

In April 2021, we entered into another option agreement (the “Second Option Agreement”) with Stanford, pursuant to which Stanford granted us the exclusive right to obtain a license to specified patent rights relating to human prophylactic and therapeutic products. The option may be extended to specified technology at a later date and upon our agreement with Stanford. We may exercise the option in whole or in part to obtain a license under one or more of the optioned patent rights, subject to a specified waiting period

33

with respect to certain specified patent rights. Subject to retained rights by Stanford and in the case of specified patent rights, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the license will be exclusive with respect to human prophylactic and therapeutic products for the treatment of Gaucher Disease, other diseases treated through insertion of a construct into the CCR5 locus, and diseases treated through insertion of a construct into the alpha globin locus. The license is non-exclusive with respect to all other human prophylactic and therapeutic products.

Pursuant to the Second Option Agreement, we agreed to pay Stanford option fees in an aggregate amount of $30.0 thousand over the term of the option. If we exercise the option with respect to a particular optioned patent right, Stanford and we would negotiate in good faith the terms of a license agreement or an amendment to the License Agreement that incorporates the optioned patent rights and any optioned technology. The terms of the license agreement or amendment could include additional payments to Stanford in excess of those set forth in the License Agreement.

The term of the Second Option Agreement expires 12 months after its effective date, subject to our right to extend such expiration date by two additional one-year periods upon notice to and the reasonable agreement of Stanford. The Second Option Agreement may be terminated by us at will or by Stanford if we remain in breach of the Second Option Agreement following a cure period to remedy the breach. The Second Option Agreement also will terminate automatically in the event of a filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against us.

We are required to use diligent efforts to conduct research on potential commercial applications of the optioned patents and any optioned technology. In addition, we are required to use reasonable efforts to achieve specified milestones during the term of the Second Option Agreement with respect to products incorporating two of therapeutic approaches covered by the optioned patent rights. Our diligence obligations are subject to good faith discussions regarding their modification upon any extension of the term of the Second Option Agreement by us. If we fail to satisfy our diligence obligations Stanford may terminate the Second Option Agreement for our breach.

License Agreement with Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc.

In June 2021, we entered into a License Agreement (IDT License Agreement) with Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (IDT). Pursuant to the IDT License Agreement, IDT granted to us and our affiliates a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable license to research and develop products incorporating HiFi Cas9 protein variants for use in human therapeutic applications for SCD, XSCID and Gaucher disease (the Field) and a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license to commercialize such products in the Field. We were also granted the right to expand the licensed Field to include human therapeutic applications in the additional fields of beta thalassemia disorder and lysosomal storage disorders upon the payment of an exercise fee in the amount of $0.5 million per additional field or $1.0 million for both additional fields.

We are solely responsible for the development, manufacture, regulatory approval and commercialization of the products in the Field and are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve certain regulatory and commercial milestones with respect to licensed products.

In the event we do not achieve the applicable milestones within a specified time period, then, except with respect to the field of human therapeutic applications for SCD for which we had previously filed an IND, the exclusive license granted to us described above will immediately convert to a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable license, and all sublicenses granted by us to any sublicensees will immediately terminate.

In consideration of the licenses and rights granted to us under the IDT License Agreement, we agreed to pay to IDT an upfront payment in the amount of $3.0 million and up to $5.3 million (or $8.8 million if we expand the Field as described above to include both the beta thalassemia and lysosomal storage disorders fields) in total regulatory milestone payments. Each regulatory milestone payment is payable once on an indication-by-indication basis. In addition, we have agreed to pay IDT a low single-digit royalty on the net sales of products, subject to reductions in specified circumstances, and a low double digit percentage payment for certain sublicense revenue, which is also subject to reduction in the event a sublicense includes other patent rights that are not patents licensed from IDT. As of December 31, 2021, we have not achieved any of the regulatory milestones and have only paid the upfront license payment of $3.0 million.

The IDT License Agreement remains in effect on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis until the expiration of the royalty term for such product in such jurisdiction. We and IDT each have the right to terminate the IDT License Agreement for the other party’s material breach of its obligations under the IDT License Agreement, subject to specified rights to cure. Additionally, we may terminate the IDT License Agreement for any reason.

Our current in-licensed patent and patent applications from IDT, if the appropriate maintenance fees are paid, are expected to expire in 2037, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions.

The IDT License Agreement includes customary representations and warranties by each party as are customarily found in transactions of this nature, including as to the licensed intellectual property. The IDT License Agreement also provides for certain mutual indemnities for breaches of representations, warranties and covenants.

34

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.

U.S. Biologics Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates biological products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and their implementing regulations. Biological products are also subject to other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. 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. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval or subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, license suspension or revocation, refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical trials, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of untitled or warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations or penalties.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through the Biologics License Application (BLA), process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before biological product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Preclinical and Clinical Development

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, a sponsor 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. 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. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance, or other issues affecting the integrity of the trial. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial and, once begun, issues may arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

35

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight at the local level as set forth in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines). Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, 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. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and 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 or ethics committing at or servicing each site at which the clinical trial will be conducted must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative. 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. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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

When these phases overlap or are combined, the trials may be referred to as Phase 1/2 or Phase 2/3.

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. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and further document clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the 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.

36

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical study investigators. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the biologic, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

The FDA, the sponsor or the IRB or may suspend a clinical study at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, if the trial is being overseen by a data safety monitoring board or committee, this group may recommend halting the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or on other grounds, such as interim data suggesting a lack of efficacy.

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product candidate’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies, which is adjusted on an annual basis. The FDA has sixty days from the applicant’s submission of a BLA to either issue a refusal to file letter or accept the BLA for filing, indicating that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or decide that the data is insufficient for approval, and may require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies before it accepts the filing.

Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, 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 be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate is safe, pure and potent for its intended use, and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, and purity. The FDA may convene an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, to provide clinical insight on applications which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy and to review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured to determine whether the facilities comply with cGMPs. 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 audit data from clinical trials to ensure 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 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 manufactured, 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 indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the 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, which may include the potential requirement for additional clinical studies and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to preclinical studies and manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application or request a hearing. Even if such data and information is submitted, 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 a particular indication(s) and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings

37

or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the BLA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct post-market testing or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved products. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), to assure 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. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. 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 product candidates that meet certain criteria. Specifically, product candidates are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and nonclinical or clinical 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. A sponsor may request fast track designation of a product candidate concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND, and the FDA must determine if the product candidate qualifies for such designation within 60 day of receipt of the sponsor’s request. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for frequent interactions with the FDA 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.

A product candidate 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 candidate can receive breakthrough therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and 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. A sponsor may request that a product candidate be designated as a breakthrough therapy concurrently with, or at any time after, the submission of an IND, and the FDA must determine if the product candidate qualifies for breakthrough therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. The benefits of breakthrough therapy 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 and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress amended the FDCA to create an expedited development program for RMATs, which include cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Gene therapies, including genetically modified cells that lead to a sustained effect on cells or tissues may meet the definition of a RMAT. The RMAT program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of RMATs, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A sponsor may request that FDA designate a product candidate as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A new drug application or a BLA for a RMAT may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A RMAT that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.

Any marketing application for a product candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate 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 candidate is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition compared to available therapies. 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. The FDA will attempt to direct additional

38

resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

Additionally, product candidates 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 candidate generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies and demonstrates 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 trials to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA will require post-marketing restrictions as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the product, such as restricting distribution to certain facilities or physicians with special training or experience or conditioning distribution on the performance of specified medical procedures. The limitations imposed would be commensurate with the specific safety concerns presented by the product. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation, priority review and accelerated approval 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, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a biological product candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or 200,000 or more than 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 product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that product. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process.

If a product candidate 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 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 from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or if the holder of the orphan 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 drug was designated. Orphan exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different product for the same disease or condition, or the same product 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 exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan 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.

Pediatric Trials and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDCA requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (PSP), within sixty days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Sponsors who conduct studies of their product candidate in children are eligible for pediatric exclusivity. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which attaches to the twelve-year exclusivity period for reference

39

biologics, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Priority Review Vouchers

Under the FDCA, as amended, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biologics that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects 200,000 or more in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biologic application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a priority review voucher (PRV). A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its NDA or BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its NDA or BLA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program until September 30, 2024, with the potential for PRVs to be granted until September 30, 2026.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims or changes of the site of manufacture, 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.

The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. Biological product 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 organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. 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. BLA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute products manufactured, processed or tested by them. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. 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:

40

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biological products. 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. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling. 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 a manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration

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

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The ACA includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. This amendment to the PHSA attempts to minimize duplicative testing. 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, can be 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. 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.

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. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. This does not include a supplement for the biological product or a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device, or strength, unless that change is a modification to the structure of the biological product and such modification changes its safety, purity, or potency. 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.

Foreign Regulation

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

41

country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products in Europe

Clinical Trial Approval

In the European Union, our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.

In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, (Regulation) which to replaced the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (Directive) on January 31, 2022. The transitory provisions of the Regulation offer sponsors the possibility to choose between the requirements of the Directive and the Regulation if the request for authorization of a clinical trial is submitted in the year after the Regulation became applicable. If the sponsor chooses to submit under the Directive, the clinical trial continues to be governed by the Directive until three years after the Regulation became applicable. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years after the Regulation became applicable, the Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial. The Clinical Trials Regulation entered into application on January 31, 2022.

The new Regulation is directly applicable in all EU Member States (and so does not require national implementing legislation in each Member State), and aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical studies in the EU, for instance by providing for a streamlined application procedure via a single point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical study applications.

Marketing Authorization

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product in the EU ,an applicant must submit a marketing authorization application, either under the centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure).

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EU, and in the additional Member States of the European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products ( gene therapy, somatic-cell therapy and tissue-engineered products) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interests of public health.

Specifically, the grant of a marketing authorization in the EU for products based on genes, tissues or cells, such as gene therapy or somatic-cell therapy medicinal products, is governed in part by Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 lays down specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of ATMPs. Manufacturers of ATMPs must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies, which provides an opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of each ATMP subject to marketing authorization application which is sent for final approval to the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). The CHMP recommendation is then sent to the European Commission, which adopts a decision on whether to grant a marketing authorization which is binding in all Member States. Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application is 210 days from receipt of a valid application, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a marketing authorization application considerably beyond 210 days. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the timeframe of 210 days for assessment will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops), but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the EU, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized marketing authorizations (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January 1, 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain marketing authorization. A separate application will, however, still be required.

42

European Union Data and Marketing Exclusivity

In the EU, innovative medicinal products (including both small molecules and biological medicinal products) approved on the basis of a complete independent data package, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU, for a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar medicinal product can be placed on the EU market until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, however, another company could nevertheless also market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on an application with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

European Union Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

In the EU, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan designation to promote the development of products that: (1) are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions; (2) either (i) such condition affects no more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, (ii) or where it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicine, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development ; and (3)there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU or if a method exists, the product would be of a significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following marketing approval for the orphan product. This period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the orphan designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. During the period of market exclusivity, a marketing authorization may only be granted to a “similar medicinal product” for the same therapeutic indication if: (i) a second applicant can establish that its product, although similar to the authorized product, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized product consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing authorization. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained

In case an authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) which consists of the EU Member States, plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

43

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

In June 2016, the electorate in the UK voted in favor of leaving the EU (commonly referred to as “Brexit”) , and the UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. There was a transition period during which EU pharmaceutical laws continued to apply to the UK, which expired on December 31, 2020. However, the EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement (the “TCA”), which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework will continue to apply in Northern Ireland). The regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore broadly aligns with current EU regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge in future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such drug products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, government authorities, private managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical drug products and medical services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Such payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We or our collaborators may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. Moreover, the process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the drug product. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

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

The marketability of any product candidates for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Healthcare providers, including physicians, and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates that we may develop for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and customers may implicate broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including certain laws and regulations applicable only if we have marketed products, include the following:

44

Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, track and report gifts, compensation and other remuneration made to physicians and other healthcare providers, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain

45

physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

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 European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to also induce or reward improper performance generally is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the United Kingdom. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the United Kingdom despite its departure from the EU.

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

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been and continue to be ongoing efforts to implement legislative and regulatory changes regarding the healthcare system. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and applying new payment methodologies.

Within the United States, the federal government and individual states have aggressively pursued healthcare reform, as evidenced by the passing of the ACA and the ongoing efforts to modify or repeal that legislation. The ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and contains a number of provisions that affect coverage and reimbursement of drug products and/or that could potentially reduce the demand for pharmaceutical products such as increasing drug rebates under state Medicaid programs for brand name prescription drugs and extending those rebates to Medicaid managed care and assessing a fee on manufacturers and importers of brand name prescription drugs reimbursed under certain government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Modifications have been implemented under the previous presidential administration and additional modifications or repeal may occur.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, Congressional and executive challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted, for example:

46

Furthermore, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several congressional inquiries and proposed legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs HHS to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates would have been be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021 CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

At the state level, legislatures have also been increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2021, we had 69 full-time employees, including 23 with Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards.

47

Corporate History and Information

We were incorporated in Ontario, Canada on June 1, 2017, as Longbow Therapeutics Inc. and were reincorporated in the State of Delaware in October 2019. In February 2020, we changed our name to Integral Medicines, Inc. and in August 2020, we changed our name to Graphite Bio, Inc. Research and development of our initial technology ceased at the end of 2018 and we did not have any significant operations or any research and development activities in 2019. We began our current research and development activities and operations in 2020.

Our principal executive office is located at 201 Haskins Way, Suite 210, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and our telephone number is (650) 484-0886. Our website address is https://graphitebio.com/. We do not incorporate the information on or accessible through our website into this Form 10-K, and you should not consider any information on, or that can be accessed through, our website as part of this Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference.

We use various trademarks and trade names in our business, including without limitation our corporate name and logo. All other trademarks or trade names referred to in this Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this Form 10-K may be referred to without the ^® and ^™ symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto.

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

We qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, as amended (JOBS Act). As an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of specified reduced disclosure and other requirements that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include, but are not limited to:

We may take advantage of these exemptions until such time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest to occur of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenues of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) December 31, 2026; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (iv) the last day of the fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these exemptions. We have taken advantage of reduced reporting requirements in this Form 10-K . Accordingly, the information contained herein may be different from the information you receive from other public companies in which you hold stock. We have elected to use this extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until the earlier of the date we (1) are no longer an emerging growth company or (2) affirmatively and irrevocably opt out of the extended transition period provided in the JOBS Act. As a result, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates.

48

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

This Form 10-K contains forward-looking information based on our current expectations. Because our business is subject to many risks and our actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of us, this section includes a discussion of important factors that could affect our business, operating results, financial condition and the trading price of our common stock. You should carefully consider these risk factors, together with all of the other information included in this Form 10-K as well as our other publicly available filings with the SEC.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position, Limited Operating History and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception, we expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant net losses, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and have financed our operations principally through the net proceeds raised in our initial public offering and private placements of our redeemable convertible preferred stock. Our net loss for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 was $70.8 million and $68.4 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $141.4 million. We expect to continue to incur significant and increasing losses for the foreseeable future. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

To date, we have not successfully completed a clinical trial for any product candidate. We have only one product candidate in clinical development and expect that it will be many years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization, if approved. To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including identifying product candidates, completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of product candidates, obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing, and selling those products for which we may obtain marketing approval, obtaining market acceptance for such products and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenue in an amount sufficient to achieve profitability. All of our programs are currently only in the discovery, preclinical testing or early clinical development stage. We commenced our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GPH101 in SCD in November 2021. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing gene therapy and gene editing product candidates, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if ever. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and our stock price and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain and fund our research and development efforts, expand our business, or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

49

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the performance of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We are an early-stage company. We were founded in 2017 and commenced operations in 2020. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and developing our platform and technology, identifying potential product candidates, establishing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, undertaking preclinical studies and preparing for clinical trials. Other than GPH101, which is in early clinical development, all of our research programs are still in the preclinical or research stage of development, and their risk of failure is high. We have not demonstrated an ability to initiate or successfully complete any clinical trials, including large-scale, pivotal clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Typically, it takes about 10 to 15 years to develop a new product from the time it is discovered to when it is available for treating patients. Consequently, any predictions you make about the likelihood of our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

Our limited operating history, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving gene editing field, may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and industry and predict our future performance. Our very short history as an operating company makes any assessment of the likelihood of our future success and viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by very early stage companies in rapidly evolving fields. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer.

In addition, as a new business, we may encounter other unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other known and unknown factors. We will need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition. If we do not adequately address these risks and difficulties or successfully make such a transition, our business will suffer.

We have never generated revenue from product sales, may never generate any revenue from product sales and may never become profitable.

Our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability, if ever, depends on our ability, alone or with collaborative partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, our current product candidates and any product candidates we may identify for development. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for the next several years, if ever.

Even if one or more of the product candidates we develop are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or other regulatory authorities to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved product candidates, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, we would be forced to delay, reduce, or terminate our research and product development programs, future commercialization efforts or other operations.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception, and we expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we identify, continue the research and development of, initiate and conduct clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution are not the responsibility of a collaborator. Other unanticipated costs may also arise. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our research and product development programs, future commercialization efforts or other operations.

As of December 31, 2021, our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash were $378.7 million. We expect that these funds will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the fourth quarter of 2024. However, our operating plan may change as a result of factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek funding sooner than planned. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

50

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. We have no committed sources of additional capital and, if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives. Without sufficient funding, our license agreements and any future collaboration agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment or other obligations under such agreements.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends, and possibly other restrictions.

If we raise funds through additional collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs, or product candidates we develop, or we may have to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us and/or that may reduce the value of our common stock. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our stockholders or us. We cannot predict whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or decided, which could result in an increase in our, or our stockholders’, tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize increases in our tax liability.

Our ability to use our U.S. net operating loss carryforwards and certain other U.S. tax attributes may be limited.

As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards of $57.3 million and $10.8 million, respectively, (which are not subject to expiration) and state net operating loss carryforwards of $0.0 million (which begin to expire in various amounts in 2039). Our ability to use our U.S. federal and state net operating losses to offset potential future taxable income and reduce income taxes that would otherwise be due is dependent upon our generation of future taxable income, and we cannot predict with certainty when, or whether, we will generate sufficient taxable income to use all of our net operating losses.

51

Under current law, unused U.S. federal net operating losses generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 are not subject to expiration and may be carried forward indefinitely. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, however, the deductibility of such U.S. federal net operating losses is limited to 80% of our taxable income in such taxable years. In addition, both our current and our future unused U.S. federal net operating losses and tax credits may be subject to limitation under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) if we undergo an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period. We may have experienced such ownership changes in the past, and we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of our equity offerings or subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside our control. Our net operating losses and tax credits may also be impaired or restricted under state law.

We face risks related to health epidemics, pandemics and other widespread outbreaks of contagious disease, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which could significantly disrupt our operations, impact our financial results or otherwise adversely impact our business.

Significant outbreaks of contagious diseases, and other adverse public health developments, could have a material impact on our business operations and operating results. The continued spread of COVID-19, including the emergence of subsequent variants like the Omicron variant, which began to spread around the time that our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GPH101 initially opened for enrollment, has affected segments of the global economy as well as our operations. For example, COVID-19 impacted clinical trial site resourcing, staffing and operations, resulting in longer timeframes than initially anticipated for participant screening and enrollment. In particular, treatment of the first patient in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GPH101 was delayed due to screen failure as a result of a prospective participant becoming infected with COVID-19. As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or similar public health crises that may arise, we may experience further disruptions that could adversely impact our operations, research and development, including preclinical studies, clinical trials and manufacturing activities, including:

The trading prices for biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we may face similar volatility in our stock price.

We cannot predict the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively affected, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, our results of operations and prospects.

For additional information regarding the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on our Company, see the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations— Business Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic.”

Risks Related to Discovery, Development, and Commercialization

We are very early in our development efforts. Other than GPH101, which is in early clinical development, all of our product candidates are still in preclinical development or earlier stages and it will be many years before we or our collaborators commercialize a product candidate, if ever. If we are unable to advance our product candidates through preclinical and clinical development, obtain

52

regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are very early in our development efforts and have focused our research and development efforts to date on gene editing technology, identifying our initial targeted disease indications and our initial product candidates. We have not achieved preclinical proof of concept for the majority of our programs and there is no guarantee that we will achieve it for any of these programs. Our future success depends heavily on the successful development of our gene editing product candidates. To date, we have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in building our gene editing platform, and the identification and preclinical development of our current product candidates. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur.

Commencing clinical trials in the United States is also subject to acceptance by the FDA of our INDs, and finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA and other regulatory authorities. In the event that the FDA requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other FDA requests, the start of our clinical trials may be delayed. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from these regulatory authorities, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence our clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect. There are equivalent processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications in other countries, including in Europe.

Commercialization of our product candidates will require additional preclinical and clinical development; regulatory and marketing approval in multiple jurisdictions, including by the FDA and the EMA; obtaining manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise; building of a commercial organization; and significant marketing efforts. The success of product candidates we identify and develop will depend on many factors, including the following:

Additionally, we may be required to change the prioritization of our research and development programs from time to time for a variety of reasons, including our determination that another of our existing or future product candidates has greater potential for clinical development, regulatory approval, or commercialization, including potentially greater therapeutic benefit, a more favorable safety or efficacy profile, a more consistent or more cost effective manufacturing process, or more a favorable commercial profile, including greater market acceptance or commercial potential, or more advantageous intellectual property position. Any shift in our research and development priorities could result in a delay in clinical development, or we may fail to prioritize programs that may ultimately have the greatest potential for technical or commercial success.

If we do not successfully complete one or more of the activities necessary to achieve regulatory approvals for our product candidates in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Our gene editing technology is not approved for human therapeutic use. The approaches we are taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics may never lead to marketable products.

We are focused on developing curative medicines utilizing the CRISPR gene editing technology. CRISPR-based gene editing technologies are relatively new and their therapeutic utility is largely unproven. Our successful development of products will require

53

solving a number of issues, including developing or obtaining technologies to safely deliver a therapeutic agent into target cells within the human body or engineer human cells while outside of the body such that the modified cells can have a therapeutic effect when delivered to the patient, optimizing the efficacy and specificity of such products, and ensuring and demonstrating the therapeutic selectivity, efficacy, potency, purity and safety of such products. There can be no assurance we will be successful in solving any or all of these issues. Indeed, no gene editing cell therapy has been approved in the United States, the European Union (EU), other countries or other key jurisdictions. Accordingly, the potential to successfully obtain approval for any of our CRISPR technology-based therapies remains unproven.

Our future success also is highly dependent on the successful development of CRISPR-based gene editing technologies and therapeutic applications for the indications on which we have focused our ongoing research and development efforts. We may decide to alter or abandon these programs as new data become available and we gain experience in developing CRISPR-based therapeutics. We cannot be sure that our gene editing technologies will yield satisfactory products that are safe and effective, sufficiently pure or potent, manufacturable, scalable or profitable in our selected indications.

We are subject to additional development challenges and risks due to the novel nature of our gene editing technology.

Because our technology potentially involves gene editing across multiple cell and tissue types, we are subject to many of the challenges and risks that other gene editing therapeutics and gene therapies face, including:

Further, because our ex vivo product candidates involve editing human cells and then delivering modified cells to patients, we are subject to many of the challenges and risks that engineered cell therapies face. For example, clinical trials using engineered cell-based gene therapies may require unique products to be created for each patient and such individualistic manufacturing may be both inefficient and cost-prohibitive.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify and develop potential product candidates. If these efforts are unsuccessful, we may never become a commercial stage company or generate any revenues.

The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop, and commercialize product candidates based on our gene editing platform. Our research programs may fail to identify potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons: our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates; our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects in preclinical in vitro experiments or animal model studies; they may not show promising signals of therapeutic effect in such experiments or studies; or they may have other characteristics that may make the product candidates impractical to manufacture, unmarketable, or unlikely to receive marketing approval.

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our research or development efforts for a program or programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial, and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful, which would be costly and time-consuming.

If serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics are identified with respect to our product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our clinical development or commercialization of those product candidates.

To date, we have not completed the evaluation of any product candidates in human clinical trials. It is impossible to predict when or if any product candidates we develop, including our product candidates, GPH101, GPH102, GPH201 and GPH301, will ultimately prove safe in humans. In the genomic medicine field, there have been several significant adverse events from gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia and death. There can be no assurance that our gene editing technologies will not cause severe or undesirable side effects.

54

A significant potential risk in any gene editing product is that the edit will be “off-target” and cause serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics. For example, off-target cuts could lead to disruption of a gene or a genetic regulatory sequence at an unintended site in the DNA. We cannot be certain that off-target editing will not occur in any of our clinical studies. There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene editing therapy due to the potential for persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. If any adverse events or side effects are caused by any product candidate we develop and test, the administration process or related procedures, our clinical trials could be delayed, suspended or terminated.

Viral vectors, including AAV, which are relatively new approaches used for disease treatment, also have known side effects, and for which additional risks could develop in the future. In past clinical trials that were conducted by others with certain viral vectors, significant side effects were caused by gene therapy treatments, including reported cases of myelodysplasia, leukemia and death. Other potential side effects could include an immunologic reaction and insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth or division results in uncontrolled cell division, which could potentially enhance the risk of cancer. If the vectors we use demonstrate a similar side effect, or other adverse events, we may be required to halt or delay further clinical development of any potential product candidates.

Furthermore, the FDA has stated that lentiviral vectors, which are used in certain gene integration approaches, possess characteristics that may pose high risks of delayed adverse events. Such delayed adverse events may also occur in other viral vectors, including AAV vectors. In addition to side effects and adverse events caused by our product candidates, the conditioning, administration process or related procedures which may be used to condition a patient for gene therapy treatment also can cause adverse side effects and adverse events. A gene therapy patient is generally administered cytotoxic drugs to remove stem cells from the bone marrow to create sufficient space in the bone marrow for the modified stem cells to engraft and produce new cells. This procedure compromises the patient’s immune system, and conditioning regimens have been associated with adverse events in clinical trial participants.

If any product candidates we develop are associated with serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe, or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Many product candidates, including gene therapy product candidates, that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further clinical development of the product candidates.

If we are unable to demonstrate that any of the above adverse events were caused by factors other than our product candidate, the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, any product candidates we are able to develop for any or all targeted indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that all future serious adverse events are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any product candidate we may develop, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to identify and develop product candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, result of operations, and prospects.

Additionally, if we successfully develop a product candidate and it receives marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweighs the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients, a communication plan to health care practitioners, extensive patient monitoring, or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive, and more costly than what is typical for the industry. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product candidate that we develop, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of any of our product candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials given the limited number of patients who have the diseases for which our product candidates may be developed. If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our clinical development activities and our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for any product candidates we identify or develop if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA, the EMA or other analogous

55

regulatory authorities outside the United States, or as needed to provide appropriate statistical power for a given trial. Enrollment may be particularly challenging for some of the rare genetically defined diseases we are targeting in our most advanced programs. In addition, if patients are unwilling to participate in our gene editing trials because of negative publicity from adverse events related to the biotechnology, gene therapy, or gene editing fields, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, clinical trials in competing products, or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed. Moreover, some of our competitors may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that would treat the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates.

Patient enrollment is also affected by other factors, including:

In addition, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has affected, and may continue to affect, the timing of our planned clinical trials. The recent surge of the Omicron variant, which began around the same time we initially opened our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GPH101 for enrollment, has impacted site resourcing, staffing and operations, resulting in longer timeframes than initially anticipated for participant screening and enrollment. In particular, the treatment of the first patient in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial was delayed due to a prospective participant becoming infected with COVID-19. We may continue to be adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, as the global healthcare community responded to the fluctuations in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, many hospitals, including those operating as clinical trial sites for other ongoing trials, temporarily paused elective procedures, which included dosing of new patients with investigational products. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic may cause delays in data collection and monitoring activities, which may present data integrity challenges or require modifications to our planned clinical trial protocols.

In addition, our ability to successfully initiate, enroll, and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our Company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. If we or our collaborators have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit, or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

56

If we are unable to successfully identify patients who are likely to benefit from therapy with our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, we may not realize the full commercial potential of any products we may develop.

Our success may depend, in part, on our ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from therapy with our product candidates, which requires those potential patients to have their DNA analyzed for the presence or absence of a particular sequence. If we, or any third parties that we engage to assist us, are unable to successfully identify such patients, or experience delays in doing so, then:

As a result of these factors, we may be unable to successfully develop and realize the commercial potential of our product candidates, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of our product candidates. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, product candidates we develop, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Any product candidates we develop and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, import, export, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third parties to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the biological product candidate’s safety, purity, and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of extensive information about the product manufacturing process, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical, or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for those product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications among many potential options. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing, or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

57

Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate we may develop in the United States or any other jurisdiction, and any such approval may be for a more narrow indication than we seek.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if our product candidates meet their safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials, and the review process.

Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a REMS. These regulatory authorities may require labeling that includes precautions or contraindications with respect to conditions of use, or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Marketing approval by the FDA in the United States, if obtained, does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product candidate testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking regulatory approval outside the United States could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process involves all of the risks associated with FDA approval. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be unrealized.

Our product candidates may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any of our product candidates will depend upon its degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. Ethical, social, and legal concerns about genetic medicines generally and gene editing technologies specifically could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the marketing of our product candidates. Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

58

Even if any of our product candidates obtain regulatory approval, such products may not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate or derive sufficient product revenues, and we may not become profitable.

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, less expensive or more advanced or effective than ours, which may harm our financial condition and our ability to successfully market or commercialize our product candidates.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. Moreover, the gene editing field is characterized by rapidly changing technologies, significant competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we have research programs. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches.

There are several other companies advancing gene editing and gene editing and gene therapy product candidates in preclinical or clinical development in sickle cell disease, including Beam Therapeutics Inc., bluebird bio, Inc., Cellectis SA, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., and Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. Companies advancing gene therapy programs in beta-thalassemia include bluebird bio, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. and Edigene Inc. Companies advancing gene therapy programs in XSCID include Mustang Bio, Inc. Companies advancing gene therapy programs in Gaucher Disease include AVROBio, Inc. and Freeline Therapeutics Holdings plc. Companies advancing gene editing and gene therapy programs in preclinical development for AAT deficiency include Beam Therapeutics Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Krystal Biotech Inc., Apic Bio Inc., and LogicBio Therapeutics Inc. Companies combining CRISPR with HDR (homology directed repair) include CRISPR Therapeutics AG, which, for oncology applications, inserts a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) construct into the TCR alpha constant (TRAC) locus in T-cells using HDR. Additionally, an academic collaboration between the University of California, San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles is seeking to correct the sickle cell mutation using CRISPR followed by delivery of a single-stranded oligonucleotide DNA donor to potentially harness HDR.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future that are approved to treat the same diseases for which we may obtain approval for our product candidates. This may include other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, and/or protein therapies.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and gene therapy 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 and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize product candidates that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any product candidates that we may develop or that would render any product candidates that we may develop obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors.

In addition, as a result of the expiration or successful challenge of our patent rights, we could face more litigation with respect to the validity and/or scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any product candidates that we may develop and commercialize.

59

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have limited experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved products for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, some of our product candidates if and when they are approved.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our commercialization personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our product candidates on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues to us may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Adverse public perception of genetic medicines and gene editing in particular, may negatively impact regulatory approval of, and/or demand for, our potential products, if approved.

Our potential therapeutic products involve editing the human genome. The clinical and commercial success of our potential products will depend in part on public understanding and acceptance of the use of gene editing therapy for the prevention or treatment of human diseases. Public perception and related media coverage of potential gene therapy-related efficacy or safety issues, including adoption of new therapeutics or novel approaches to treatment, as well as ethical concerns related specifically to gene editing, may adversely influence the willingness of subjects to participate in clinical trials, or if any therapeutic is approved, of physicians and patients to accept these novel and personalized treatments. Physicians, health care providers and third-party payors often are slow to adopt new products, technologies and treatment practices, particularly those that may also require additional upfront costs and training. Physicians may not be willing to undergo training to adopt these novel and potentially personalized therapies, may decide the particular therapy is too complex or potentially risky to adopt without appropriate training, and may choose not to administer the therapy. Further, due to health conditions, genetic profile or other reasons, certain patients may not be candidates for the therapies.

In addition, responses by federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments to negative public perception, ethical concerns or financial considerations may result in new legislation, regulations, or medical standards, such as stricter labeling requirements, that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. Based on these and other factors, health care providers and payors may decide that the benefits of these new therapies do not or will not outweigh their costs.

60

More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair our development and commercialization of product candidates or demand for our product candidates. Adverse events in our preclinical studies or clinical trials or those of our competitors or of academic researchers utilizing gene editing technologies, even if not ultimately attributable to product candidates we identify and develop, and the resulting publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of potential product candidates we identify and develop, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved, and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates. Use of gene editing technology by a third party or government to develop biological agents or products that threaten U.S. national security could similarly result in such negative impacts to us.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, such products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, and reimbursement for new products vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay or might even prevent our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates we develop, even if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval. See section entitled “Business – Government Regulation - Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement.”

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government authorities or healthcare programs, private health plans, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health plans, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are challenging the prices charged for medical products and requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices. Novel medical products, if covered at all, may be subject to enhanced utilization management controls designed to ensure that the products are used only when medically necessary. Such utilization management controls may discourage the prescription or use of a medical product by increasing the administrative burden associated with its prescription or creating coverage uncertainties for prescribers and patients. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any products that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be adequate. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products 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 products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products, and our overall financial condition.

Due to the novel nature of our technology and the potential for our product candidates to offer therapeutic benefit in a single administration or limited number of administrations, we face uncertainty related to pricing and reimbursement for these product candidates.

Our initial target patient populations are relatively small, as a result of which the pricing and reimbursement of any of our product candidates, if approved, must be adequate to support the necessary commercial infrastructure. See section entitled “Business – Government Regulation - Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement.” If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell any such product candidates will be adversely affected. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to any product candidates we develop (e.g., for administration of our product candidate to patients) is also important. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician and payor resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our product candidates. In addition, we may need to develop new reimbursement models in order to realize adequate value. Payors may not be able or willing to adopt such new models, and patients may be unable to afford that portion of the cost that such models may require them to bear. If we determine such new models are necessary but we are unsuccessful in developing them, or if such models are not adopted by payors, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be adversely affected.

61

We expect the cost of a single administration of a gene editing therapy, such as those we are seeking to develop, to be substantial, when and if they achieve regulatory approval. We expect that coverage and reimbursement by government and private payors will be essential for most patients to be able to afford these treatments. Accordingly, sales of any such product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of any of our product candidates will be paid by government authorities, private health plans, and other third-party payors. Payors may not be willing to pay high prices for a single administration. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon several factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement for a product from third-party payors is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical, and cost-effectiveness data. There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be adequate to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

In the United States, no uniform policy exists for coverage and reimbursement for products among third-party payors. Therefore, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate a payor will pay for the product. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list or formulary, which may not include all FDA-approved products for a particular indication.

Further, third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, we may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Despite our best efforts, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover an approved product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a product candidate must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing product pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, in the EU, pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceutical products are regulated at a national level under the individual EU Member States’ social security systems. Some foreign countries provide options to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and can 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 country 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 products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Even if approved for reimbursement, historically, product candidates launched in some foreign countries, such as some countries in the EU, do not follow price structures of the United States and prices generally tend to be significantly lower.

If the market opportunities for any product candidates we develop are smaller than we believe they are, our potential revenues may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Because the target patient populations for many of our product candidates are small, we must be able to successfully identify patients and achieve a significant market share to maintain profitability and growth.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for rare genetically defined diseases. Many of our product candidates are expected to target a single mutation; as a result, the relevant patient population may therefore be small. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, and patients may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, or may become

62

increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Additionally, because of the potential that any product candidates we develop could cure a target disease, we may not receive recurring revenues from patients and may deplete the patient population prevalence through curative therapy.

Genetic medicines are novel, and any product candidates we develop may be complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience delays in complying with regulatory requirements or production problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs, limit the supply of our product candidates, or otherwise harm our business.

Our product candidates will likely require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a biologic such as the product candidates we are developing generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product candidate may not be sufficient to ensure that the product candidate will perform in the intended manner. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in unusable products, product recalls, product liability claims, insufficient inventory, or potentially delay progression of our potential IND filings. We may also encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet FDA, EMA or other comparable applicable foreign standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs. For example, the current approach of manufacturing AAV vectors may fall short of supplying required number of doses needed for advanced stages of pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, and the FDA may ask us to demonstrate that we have the appropriate manufacturing processes in place to support the higher-dose group in our future pre-clinical studies or clinical trials.

In addition, the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any of the approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a sample until the agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in product recalls. Product recalls could cause us to delay clinical trials or product launches, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality control, and manufacturing personnel needed to manage our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, including for AAV vectors, there is a risk of contamination during manufacturing. Any contamination could materially harm our ability to produce product candidates on schedule and could harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage. Some of the raw materials that we anticipate will be required in our manufacturing process are derived from biologic sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall, or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of our current or future product candidates could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could materially harm our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or the facilities with which we contract could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in third-party manufacturing process or facilities also could restrict our ability to ensure sufficient clinical material for our planned clinical trials and to meet market demand for any product candidates we develop and commercialize.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing in human clinical trials of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products we develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

63

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage when we begin clinical trials and if we successfully commercialize any products. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

If we or any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage fail to comply with environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We and any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air, and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research and product development efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty, and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements. These current or future laws, regulations, and permitting requirements may impair our research, development, or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations, and permitting requirements also may result in substantial fines, penalties, or other sanctions or business disruption, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any third-party contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage will also be subject to these and other environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws and regulations could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Relationships with Third Parties

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research, or testing.

We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions, and clinical investigators, to conduct some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and we expect to rely on third parties to help conduct our planned clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time under certain criteria. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it may delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties to conduct clinical trials and for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities require us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected.

Although we intend to design the clinical trials for our product candidates, CROs will conduct some or all of the clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct current and future preclinical studies and future clinical trials will also result in less direct control over the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we

64

were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with third parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Third parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If the CROs and other third parties do not perform preclinical studies and future clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates, or our development programs may be materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on preclinical and clinical data collected by our CROs and other third parties, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, or increase the size of any preclinical studies or clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require greater expenditures, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, result of operations, and prospects.

We also expect to rely on third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our therapies, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

Dr. Matthew Porteus, our co-founder and a member of our board of directors, may have actual or potential conflicts of interest because of his position with Stanford.

Dr. Porteus serves on our board of directors, our Scientific & Clinical Advisory Board and as our paid consultant and retains his position and affiliation with Stanford. Furthermore, Dr. Porteus holds shares of our restricted common stock subject to vesting based, among other things, on his continued service to us as a director, employee or consultant. Dr. Porteus’ position at Stanford creates, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when we ask Dr. Porteus to make decisions that could have different implications for Stanford than the decisions have for us or for himself, including decisions related to our license of intellectual property rights from Stanford and other contractual relationships we may enter into from time to time with Stanford.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of materials for our research programs and preclinical studies and expect to continue to do so for clinical trials and for commercialization of our product candidates. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of such materials, product candidates, or any products that we may develop and commercialize, or that such supply will not be available to us at an acceptable cost or timelines, which could delay, prevent, or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities at the present time. We currently rely on third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of materials for our research programs and preclinical studies, including our viral vectors, GMP plasmids, RNA guides and Cas9, and expect to continue to rely on third parties, including Stanford, for our planned clinical trials and for commercialization of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. For example, we rely on third parties to manufacture viral vectors. We do not have a long term supply agreement with any of our third-party manufacturers, and we purchase our required supply on a purchase order basis, which means that aside from any binding purchase orders we have from time to time, our third-party manufacturers could cease manufacturing for us or change the terms on which they are willing to continue manufacturing for us at any time.

We may be unable to establish any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms for one or more of our material needs. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

65

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocations, seizures or recalls of product candidates, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of suppliers or manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. For example, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, three vaccines for COVID-19 have been granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, and two of those later received marketing approval. Additional vaccines may be authorized or approved in the future. The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, may make it more difficult to obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the products needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to delays in these trials.

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply for bulk drug substances. If any one of our current contract manufacturer cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace that manufacturer, or we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different third-party manufacturer, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In either scenario, our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original third-party manufacturer and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change third-party manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new third-party manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new third- party manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a third-party manufacturer may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidate that such third-party manufacturer owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such third-party manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such third- party manufacturer in order to have another third-party manufacturer manufacture our product candidates. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or any products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We may enter into collaborations with third parties for the research, development, and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we may develop. If any such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of those product candidates.

We may seek third-party collaborators for the research, development, and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we may develop. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into.

66

If our collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to find a suitable replacement collaborator or attract new collaborators, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval, and commercialization described here apply to the activities of our collaborators.

If conflicts arise between us and our collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.

If conflicts arise between our corporate or academic collaborators or strategic partners and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Some of our academic collaborators and strategic partners are conducting multiple product development efforts within each area that is the subject of the collaboration with us. Our collaborators or strategic partners, however, may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the product candidates we develop that are the subject of these collaborations with us. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or strategic partners or to which the collaborators or strategic partners have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for our product candidates.

Some of our collaborators or strategic partners could also become our competitors in the future. Our collaborators or strategic partners could develop competing products, preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely, or fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts.

If we are not able to establish collaborations on a timely basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, we may have to alter, reduce or delay our development and commercialization plans, or increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities at our own expense.

For some of the product candidates we may develop, we may decide to collaborate with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborations and collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration, and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, the EMA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of

67

manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us.

We may also be restricted under existing collaboration agreements from entering into future collaboration agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators, which further increases competition we face in seeking potential collaborations.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to develop product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection for any product candidates we develop and for our gene editing platform technology, or if the scope of the patent and other intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and our gene editing platform technology may be adversely affected.

Our commercial success will depend in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property protection of our gene editing platform technology, product candidates and other technology, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending our patent and other intellectual property rights against third-party challenges. It is difficult and costly to protect our gene editing platform technology and product candidates, and we may not be able to ensure their protection. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing intellectual property relating to our platform technology and filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our gene editing platform technology and product candidates that are important to our business. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our gene editing platform technology and our product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection secured is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours and our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or any licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. The field of gene editing has been the subject of extensive patenting activity and litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain and we may become involved in complex and costly litigation. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our gene editing platform technology and our product candidates or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates.

No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in the field of gene editing has emerged in the United States. The scope of patent protection outside of the United States is also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the

68

United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, enforce and defend our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patent rights. With respect to both in-licensed and owned intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will be valid and enforceable and provide sufficient protection from competitors.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license or own currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we own or in-license may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our platform advances and product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, some of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications may in the future be, co-owned by us with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patent rights in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our gene editing platform technology and product candidates are subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.

We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties, and our licensors may not always act in our best interest. If we fail to comply with our obligations under our intellectual property licenses, if the licenses are terminated, or if disputes regarding these licenses arise, we could lose significant rights that are important to our business.

We have licensed and are dependent on certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our gene editing technology and product candidates. For example, we are a party to a license agreement with Stanford pursuant to which we in-license key patent applications for our gene editing platform technology and product candidates (the Stanford License Agreement). This license agreement imposes various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance, and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensors may have the right to terminate our license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market our gene editing platform or any other technology or product candidates covered by the intellectual property licensed under this agreement. For example, under the Stanford License Agreement, we are required to initiate clinical trial programs in accordance with the development plan and development milestones for the development of a licensed product covered by the licensed patent rights. If we fail to initiate such clinical trial programs, our rights with respect to the licensed patent rights may terminate.

These and other licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our gene editing platform technology and product candidates in the future. Some licenses granted to us are expressly subject to certain preexisting rights held by the licensors or certain third parties. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in certain territories or fields. For example, the Stanford License Agreement provides that our field of use is solely for the development of prophylactics and therapeutics for sickle cell disease, XSCID, and beta-thalassemia. If we determine that rights to such additional fields are necessary to commercialize our product candidates or maintain our competitive advantage, we may will need to obtain a license from Stanford and/or other third parties in order to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain such a license on an exclusive basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or allow our competitors or others the chance to access technology that is important to our business.

We do not have complete control in the preparation, filing, prosecution, and maintenance of the patent applications covering the technology that we license from third parties. For example, pursuant to our intellectual property license with Stanford, our licensors retain control of preparation, filing, prosecution, and maintenance of their patent applications. We cannot be certain that these patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to prosecute, and maintain such patent applications, or lose rights to those patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using, and selling competing products.

Certain of our licensors have also relied on third-party collaborators or on funds from third parties such that they are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patent rights we have in-licensed. For example, our in-licensed patent rights from the Stanford License are

69

jointly owned by Stanford and Agilent Technologies, Inc. (Agilent). We may be required to incur additional costs in connection with obtaining licenses to the rights of Agilent, and if we are unable to secure such licenses, the license granted to us in jurisdictions where the consent of a co-owner is necessary to grant such a license may not be valid. As a result, Agilent could license such patent rights to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, our rights to our in-licensed patent applications are dependent, in part, on inter-institutional or other operating agreements between Stanford and Agilent. If Stanford or Agilent breaches such inter-institutional or operating agreements, our rights to such in-licensed patents and patent applications may be adversely affected. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Furthermore, inventions contained within some of our in-licensed patent applications were made using U.S. government funding. We rely on our licensors to ensure compliance with applicable obligations arising from such funding, such as timely reporting, an obligation associated with our in-licensed patents and patent applications. The failure of our licensors to meet their obligations may lead to a loss of rights or the unenforceability of relevant patents. For example, the U.S. government could have certain rights in such in-licensed patent applications, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the U.S. government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. If the U.S. government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. The U.S. government’s rights may also permit it to disclose the funded inventions and technology to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use the technology we have licensed that was developed using U.S. government funding. The U.S. government may also exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we or our licensors failed to achieve practical application of the U.S. government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such in-licensed U.S. government-funded inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture product candidates embodying such inventions in the United States. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly.

In the event that any of our third-party licensors determines that, in spite of our efforts, we have materially breached a license agreement or have failed to meet certain obligations thereunder, it may elect to terminate the license agreement or, in some cases, one or more license(s) under the applicable license agreement and such termination would result in us no longer having the ability to develop and commercialize product candidates and technology covered by that license agreement. In the event of such termination of a third-party in-license, or if the underlying patent rights under a third-party in-license fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects of our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patents and intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Moreover, the initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or our licensors is forced to grant one or more licenses to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

Our owned and in-licensed patent applications may not provide sufficient protection of our gene editing platform technologies, our product candidates and our future product candidates or result in any competitive advantage.

We own and have in-licensed a number of patent applications that cover gene editing and gene targeting technologies. We have applied for provisional patent applications intended to specifically cover our gene editing platform technology and uses with respect to treatment of particular diseases and conditions, but do not currently own any issued U.S. patents. Each U.S. provisional patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the

70

filing date of the applicable provisional patent application. Any failure to file a non-provisional patent application within this timeline could cause us to lose the ability to obtain patent protection for the intentions disclosed in the associated provisional patent applications. We cannot be certain that any of these patent applications will issue as patents, and if they do, that such patents will cover or adequately protect our gene editing platform technologies or our product candidates, or that such patents will not be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, invalidated or held unenforceable. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our gene editing platform technology and product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our owned and in-licensed patent applications contain claims directed to compositions of matter on our gene editing product candidates, as well as methods directed to the use of such product candidates for gene therapy treatment. Method-of-use patents do not prevent a competitor or other third party from developing or marketing an identical product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, with respect to method-of-use patents, even if competitors or other third parties do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications or uses for which we may obtain patents, providers may recommend that patients use these products off-label, or patients may do so themselves.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. For example, while our patent applications are pending, we may be subject to a third party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), or become involved in interference or derivation proceedings, or equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Even if patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge their inventorship, validity, enforceability or scope, including through opposition, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review proceedings. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our owned or in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we, or our licensor, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our or our licensor’s priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our owned or in-licensed patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patent rights may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our platform technology or product candidates. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we own or in-license with respect to our gene editing platform technology and product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

Given that patent applications in the United States and other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, at any moment in time, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were in the past or will be in the future the first to file any patent application related to our gene editing technology or product candidates. In addition, some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued. As a result, there may be prior art of which we or our licensors are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim, and we or our licensors may be subject to priority disputes. For our in-licensed patent portfolios, we rely on our licensors to determine inventorship, and obtain and file inventor assignments of priority applications before their conversion as PCT applications. A failure to do so in a timely fashion may give rise to a challenge to entitlement of priority for foreign applications nationalized from such PCT applications. We or our licensors may in the future become a party to proceedings or priority disputes in Europe or other foreign jurisdictions. The loss of priority for, or the loss of, any European or other foreign patent rights could have a material adverse effect on the conduct of our business.

We may be required to disclaim part or all of the term of certain patent applications. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. There also may be prior art of which we or our licensors are aware, but which we or our licensors do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. No assurance can be given that, if challenged, our patent applications, if issued, would be declared by a court, patent office or other governmental authority to be valid or enforceable or that even if found valid and enforceable, a competitor’s technology or product would be found by a court to infringe our patent rights. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities, and consider that we are free to operate in relation to our product candidates, but our competitors may achieve issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, that block our efforts or potentially result in our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. It is possible that our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products or gene editing technology similar to ours. Those patent applications may have priority over our owned patent applications and in-licensed patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. The possibility also exists that others will develop products that have the same effect as our product candidates on an independent basis that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights, or will design around the claims of our patent applications or our in-licensed patents or patent applications that cover our product candidates.

71

Likewise, our currently owned patent applications, if issued as patents, and in-licensed patents and patent applications, if issued as patents, directed to our proprietary gene editing technologies and our product candidates are expected to expire from 2036 through 2042, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. Our owned or in-licensed patent applications, if issued as patents, may expire before, or soon after, our first product candidate achieves marketing approval in the United States or foreign jurisdictions. Additionally, no assurance can be given that the USPTO or relevant foreign patent offices will grant any of the pending patent applications we own or in-license currently or in the future. Upon the expiration of our current in-licensed patent applications, if issued as patents, we may lose the right to exclude others from practicing these inventions. The expiration of these patent rights could also have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our owned patent applications and in-licensed patents and patent applications and other intellectual property may be subject to inventorship or ownership disputes and similar proceedings. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We or our licensors may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patent applications or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners to enforce any patents that issue from such patent applications against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any inventorship or ownership disputes to which we or they are subject, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights through the loss of part or all of our owned, licensed, or optioned patent rights, or such patent claims may be narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, or through loss of exclusive ownership of or the exclusive right to use our owned or in-licensed patent rights. In the event of loss of patent rights as a result of any of these disputes, we may be required to obtain and maintain licenses from third parties, including parties involved in any such inventorship or ownership disputes. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our patent rights could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates. Even if we or our licensors are successful in an inventorship or ownership dispute, it could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.

We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights throughout the world.

We may have limited intellectual property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws of the United States. In addition, our intellectual property license agreements may not always include worldwide rights. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patents and intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Moreover, the initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or our licensors are forced

72

to grant one or more licenses to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from our licensors or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We have entered into a license agreement with Stanford related to our platform technology and certain of our product candidates, and a license agreement with Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (IDT) related to high- fidelity nucleases and gene editing systems, and may need to obtain licenses to additional intellectual property rights from these entities and others to advance our ongoing and planned research and development programs or to allow commercialization of our product candidates. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain any licenses to such additional intellectual property rights at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In either event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates or expand our platform capabilities, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, including gene editing technology, manufacturing methods, product candidates, or future methods or products resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant.

Pursuant to our license agreements with Stanford and IDT, we are generally responsible for bringing any actions against any third party for infringing on the patent rights we have licensed. Certain provisions of our license agreements also require us to meet development thresholds to maintain the license, including establishing a set timeline for developing and commercializing products. In spite of our efforts, Stanford, IDT or any future licensor from whom we may seek to license intellectual property rights might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patent rights fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of or gene editing platform technology or product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and growth prospects. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property rights from Stanford and IDT are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise under our existing license agreements or future license agreements into which we may enter could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or broaden what we believe to be the scope of the licensor’s rights to our intellectual property and technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. As a result, any termination of or disputes over our intellectual property license could result in the loss of our ability to develop and commercialize our gene editing platform or other product candidates or we could lose other significant rights, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. It is also possible that a third party could be granted limited licenses to some of the same technology, in certain circumstances.

73

We may not be successful in acquiring or in-licensing necessary rights to key technologies or any product candidates we may develop.

We currently have rights to intellectual property, through licenses from third parties, to identify and develop product candidates, and we expect to seek to expand our product candidate pipeline in part by in-licensing additional rights to key technologies. The future growth of our business will depend in part on our ability to in-license or otherwise acquire the rights to additional product candidates and technologies. Although we have succeeded in licensing technologies from Stanford and IDT as third party licensors in the past, we cannot assure you that we will be able to in-license or acquire additional rights to any product candidates or technologies from Stanford or other third parties on acceptable terms or at all. For example, there are third parties who possess technologies related to gene editing or other technologies which we may need to in-license.

In addition, our agreement with Stanford provides that our field of use is solely for the development of prophylactics and therapeutics for sickle cell disease, XSCID, and beta-thalassemia. If we determine that rights outside such field are necessary to commercialize our drug candidates or maintain our competitive advantage, we may need to obtain an additional license from Stanford University in order to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing our drug candidates. We may not be able to obtain such a license on an exclusive basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates or allow our competitors or others the chance to access technology that is important to our business.

Furthermore, there has been extensive patenting activity in the field of gene editing, and pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and academic institutions are competing with us or are expected to compete with us in the in the field of gene editing technology and filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business and we are aware of certain third-party patent applications that, if issued, may allow the third party to circumvent our patent rights. For example, we are aware of several third-party patents, and patent applications, that if issued, may be construed to be relevant to our gene editing technology and product candidates. In order to market our product candidates, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses from such third-party intellectual property holders. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or otherwise acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for product candidates we may develop and gene editing technology. We may also require licenses from third parties for certain additional technologies, including technologies relating to gene editing such as guide RNA modification and target sequences, as well as technologies for cell manufacturing that we are evaluating for use with our product candidates. In addition, some of our in-licensed patent applications are co-owned with third parties. With respect to any patents co-owned with third parties, we may require licenses to such co-owners’ interest to such patents. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patent applications in order to enforce such patent rights against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

Additionally, we may collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Even if we hold such an option, we may be unable to negotiate a license from the institution within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

For example, the licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a highly competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The intellectual property landscape around the technologies we use or plan to use, including gene editing technology, is highly dynamic, and third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and may prevent, delay or otherwise interfere with our product discovery and development efforts.

Because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our field, third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may file patent infringement claims or lawsuits against us, and if we are found to infringe such third-party patents, we may be required to pay damages, cease commercialization of the infringing technology, or obtain a license from such third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In addition, we have in the past, and may in the future, receive an offer for license from third parties regarding their proprietary intellectual property for which they may believe encompass our product candidates and technologies. We will evaluate such offers for relevance to our business.

74

The field of gene editing is still in its infancy, and no such therapeutic product candidates have reached the market. Due to the intense research and development that is taking place by several companies, including us and our competitors, in this field, the intellectual property landscape is evolving and in flux, and it may remain uncertain for the coming years. There may be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third-party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators and present and future licensors to develop, manufacture, market, and sell any product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be subject to and may in the future become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our gene editing platform technology and our product candidates, including interference proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions such as oppositions before the EPO. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications that are owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates and they may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit.