IO Biotech, Inc. - Annual Report: 2021 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

Commission File Number 001-41008

IO BIOTECH, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: +45 7070 2980

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 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. ☐

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 June 30, 2021, the last day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, there was no public market for the registrant’s Common Stock. The registrant’s Common Stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market on November 5, 2021. As of February 28, 2022, the aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $75.9 million, based on the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on February 28, 2022.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 30, 2022 was 28,815,267.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

i

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical fact contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important 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 the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “should,” “would,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “could,” “intends,” “target,” “projects,” “contemplates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Some of the key factors that could cause actual results to differ from our expectations include:

 

ii

These statements relate to future events or to our future 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. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those set forth in Part II, Item 1A - “Risk Factors” below and for the reasons described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Any forward-looking statement in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflects our current view with respect to future events and is subject to these and other risks, uncertainties, and assumptions relating to our operations, results of operations, industry, and future growth. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates, projections, and other information concerning our industry, our business, and the markets for certain drugs, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, their projected growth rates, and the incidence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties, and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances reflected in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained these industry, business, market, and other data from reports, research surveys, studies, and similar data prepared by third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data, and similar sources. In some cases, we do not expressly refer to the sources from which these data are derived.

Except where the context otherwise requires, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “we,” “us,” “our,” “IO Biotech,” and the “Company” refer to IO Biotech, Inc. and, where appropriate, its consolidated subsidiaries.

iii

Trademarks
 

We have applied for various trademarks that we use in connection with the operation of our business. This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes trademarks, service marks, and trade names owned by us or other companies. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this report 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.

iv

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel, immune-modulating cancer therapies based on our T-win technology platform. Our product candidates are designed to induce the immune system to simultaneously target and disrupt multiple pathways that regulate tumor-induced immunosuppression. We believe this represents a paradigm shift in the management of cancer and that our product candidates have the potential to become cornerstones of the treatment regimens of multiple solid tumors. Our lead product candidate, IO102-IO103, is designed to target the immunosuppressive mechanisms mediated by key immunosuppressive proteins such as IDO and PD-L1. In a single-arm Phase 1/2 clinical trial of 30 patients with metastatic melanoma with the primary objective to investigate safety and tolerability, secondary objective to investigate immunogenicity and tertiary objective to investigate clinical efficacy, IO102-IO103, in combination with nivolumab, demonstrated an ability to induce meaningful tumor regression and establish durable antitumor response while achieving a manageable tolerability profile for patients. The clinical efficacy endpoints in this trial include objective response (OR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In this trial, we have observed a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 73% and a complete response rate (CRR) of 47%. Based on the results from this trial, IO102-IO103, in combination with pembrolizumab was granted BTD by the FDA for treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma and we are currently recruiting for a potentially registrational Phase 3 trial for IO102-IO103 in combination with pembrolizumab. We are experiencing longer than expected lead times in clinical trial site activation and patient enrollment and anticipate announcing first patient in (FPI) for this Phase 3 trial in the first half of 2022. We will be providing an update during the middle of this year on the anticipated timing of receiving interim data from this trial.

Our T-win platform is a novel approach to cancer immunotherapy designed to activate pre-existing T cells to target immunosuppressive mechanisms. Our T-win product candidates are designed to employ a dual mechanism of action: (1) direct killing of immunosuppressive cells, including both tumor cells and genetically stable cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME), that express Indoleamine 2,3-dehydrogenase (IDO) and programmed death ligand (PD-L1) and (2) modulation of the TME into a more pro-inflammatory, anti-tumor environment. Our T-win technology is built upon our team’s deep understanding of both TME and a tumor’s ability to evade surveillance and destruction by the immune system. Our approach is in contrast to previous methods that have sought to either block singular immunosuppressive pathways or to direct the immune system against specific identified antigens expressed by tumor cells.

We are developing a pipeline of product candidates that leverage our T-win technology platform to address targets within the TME. In addition to melanoma, we plan to evaluate IO102-IO103 in multiple solid tumor indications to potentially expand

5

the market opportunity for IO102-IO103. We are also focusing on additional targets that play key roles in immunosuppression and that are expressed in a broad range of solid tumors. Our pipeline of product candidates is summarized in the table below.

Our lead product candidate, IO102-IO103, combines our two fully-owned, novel immunotherapeutics, IO102 and IO103, which are designed to target IDO+ and PD-L1+ target cells, respectively. IDO and PD-L1 are often dysregulated and over-expressed in a wide range of solid tumors, and result in the inhibition of the body’s natural pro-inflammatory anti-tumor response within the TME. IO102-IO103 is designed to employ our novel dual mechanism of action approach. This is in contrast to previous approaches which have sought to block singular immunosuppressive pathways or to direct the immune system against specific identified antigens expressed by tumor cells. By combining IO102 and IO103 in a single treatment regimen, we also aim to provide a synergistic effect on tumors.

On December 14, 2020, the FDA granted us BTD for IO102-IO103 in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma based on data from the Phase 1/2 clinical trial, MM1636. BTD enables us to solicit more frequent and intensive guidance from the FDA as to how to conduct an efficient development program for IO102-IO103. The MM1636 trial is an investigator-initiated, single-arm Phase 1/2 trial of 30 anti PD-1/PD-L1 naïve patients with metastatic melanoma receiving IO102-IO103 and nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody. In this trial, investigators initially observed an ORR of 80% (24 out of 30 patients); however, two of 24 patients in which a response was observed progressed before subsequent radiological confirmation, which resulted in a confirmed ORR of 73%. In addition, 47% of patients achieved a CR, or complete elimination of their tumors based on RECIST 1.1 definitions. While a total of five patients (17%) experienced a high-grade adverse event (grade 3-5) as further discussed in the section titled “—Our Product Candidates—Dual Epitope IO102-IO103—Development of Dual Epitope IO102-IO103 in the First-line Setting—Tolerability,” based on the 17% discontinuation rate of treatment with both nivolumab and IO102-IO103, data from this trial suggests a manageable tolerability profile for patients. In addition, we have observed treatment-induced infiltration of CD3/CD8 T cells into the tumor site in responding patients and detected IO102+IO103-specific T cells in tumors after treatment in correlative biomarker data where this was analyzed. We are currently recruiting for a Phase 3 potentially registrational trial for IO102-IO103, the IOB-013/KN-D18 trial, in combination with pembrolizumab. While the MM1636 trial investigates IO102-IO103 in combination with nivolumab, we have made the commercial decision to investigate IO102-IO103 in combination with pembrolizumab in the Phase 3 trial. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are both IgG4 subclass antibodies that

6

target the PD-1 receptor. In a comparative data analysis by Moser (Annals of Oncology 2020), researchers found no difference between the effectiveness of frontline pembrolizumab and nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma. The Phase 3 trial will include a concurrent evaluation of the initial participants to allow for an assessment of safety, or safety run in. The pembrolizumab for this trial is being supplied by Merck pursuant to a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement that we entered into in September 2021.

We plan to broaden the development of IO102-IO103 to several other solid tumor indications. We intend to conduct a Phase 2 basket trial, the IOB-022 trials, which will enable us to investigate multiple first-line solid tumor indications in anti PD-1/PD-L1 treatment naïve patients with metastatic disease. Our planned basket trial will investigate the safety and efficacy of IO102-IO103 in combination with pembrolizumab in NSCLC with PD-L1 50%, SCCHN, and UBC. We plan to initiate at least one indication, the NSCLC arm of this Phase 2 basket trial in solid tumors in the first half of 2022, with initial data for such indication in the second half of 2022, and additional data in 2023. In addition to first-line cancer indications, we also plan to investigate IO102-IO103 when used before or after curatively intended surgery as a neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapy. As with our targeted first-line cancer indications, we plan to conduct a Phase 2 basket trial, the IOB-032 trial, which will enable us to investigate multiple solid tumor indications in anti PD-1/PD-L1 naïve settings focused initially on melanoma and SCCHN. We expect to initiate at least one indication of this trial in the second half of 2022 and receive data for such arms in 2023.

Our development of IO102-IO103 is based on our prior separate development of IO102 and IO103. IO102 is our fully-owned novel product candidate containing a single IDO-derived peptide sequence designed to engage and activate IDO-specific human T cells. IDO small molecule inhibitors have shown clinical potential in combination with PD-1 antibodies in early clinical trials, but have not been able to demonstrate the same level of efficacy in later-stage clinical trials. Our Phase 1 non-randomized trial of IO101, our first generation IDO therapy, in NSCLC resulted in proof of concept for our approach, with 47% of patients displaying clinical benefit and an OS of 26 months in the treatment arm compared to 8 months in the group receiving standard of care. There were no grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs). IO102 is currently being tested in a randomized Phase 1/2 trial in combination with pembrolizumab standard-of-care in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC. IO103 is our fully-owned, novel product candidate containing a single PD-L1-derived peptide designed to engage and activate PD-L1 specific human T cells. Continued clinical development of IO102 and IO103 will be focused on their use in our dual- and multi-antigen approaches.

IO112 is our fully-owned, novel product candidate containing a single Arginase 1-derived peptide designed to engage and activate Arginase 1-specific human T cells. IO112 is designed to target T cells that recognize epitopes derived from Arginase 1, which is an immunoregulatory enzyme highly expressed in difficult-to-treat tumors associated with high levels of MDSCs including colorectal, breast, prostate and pancreatic and ovarian cancers. Arginase overexpression is a well-documented tumor escape mechanism. We plan to file an IND/CTA for IO112 in the second half of 2022 and, subject to receiving no objections from the FDA, thereafter moving into a clinical trial in combination with IO102 and IO103, with an anticipated data readout in 2023.

In addition to IO102, IO103 and IO112, we are evaluating additional potential product candidates that we believe have potential for use in solid tumors. All our compounds in preclinical development are designed to target well-documented immunosuppressive molecules that are known to be overexpressed in the TME across a wide range of tumors. These targets provide additional opportunities across multiple cancer indications.

We were established in December 2014 as a spin-off of National Center for Cancer Immune Therapy at Herlev University Hospital in Denmark. We have assembled a seasoned management team and board of directors with extensive experience in developing novel oncology therapies, including advancing product candidates from preclinical research through to clinical development and ultimately to regulatory approval. Our team is led by our founder and Chief Executive Officer, Mai-Britt Zocca, Ph.D., who has close to 20 years of experience as a biotech executive. Keith Vendola, M.D., M.B.A., our Chief Financial Officer, has more than 20 years of experience in healthcare corporate finance as an executive, adviser, and investment banker working on over 50 financing and strategic transactions. Eva Ehrnrooth, MD, Ph.D., our Chief Medical Officer, is a clinical oncologist and has more than 20 years of experience in oncology and drug development. Mads Hald Andersen, Ph.D., our scientific founder and advisor, is a Professor and director at the National Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Herlev University Hospital and an internationally recognized immunology researcher. Muhammad Al-Hajj, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer, is a well-respected scientific leader with a proven-track record in the field of immuno-oncology and expertise in translational medicine and biomarker discovery. Our board of directors has deep expertise in the fields of immuno-oncology, business and finance.

7

Our Strategy

To achieve our goals, we aim to leverage our T-win platform to transform cancer treatments by creating a broad portfolio of immuno-oncology therapies focused on targets within the TME.

The key elements of our strategy are to:

8

Our Approach to Cancer Immunotherapy

Our product candidates are designed to induce the immune system to simultaneously target and disrupt multiple pathways that regulate tumor-induced immunosuppression. We believe this represents a paradigm shift in the management of cancer and that our product candidates have the potential to become cornerstones of the treatment regimens of multiple solid tumors. Our T-win technology is built upon our team’s deep understanding of both the TME and a tumor’s ability to evade surveillance and destruction by the immune system.

The Role of the Immune System in Fighting Cancer

The Immune System

The immune system is a dynamic and self-regulating network of cells and molecules that cooperate to help the body fight disease. It is able to detect pathogens and can distinguish abnormal cells, such as tumor cells, from healthy tissue. The immune system has evolved to detect such dangers to the body through the detection of molecules or molecular structures called antigens. When exposed to pathogens or abnormal cells, the immune system responds by recognition of antigens and becomes activated to defend against them. The first line of biological defense is a general, rapid response by the innate immune system which is essential for immediate recognition and attack of pathogens as well as tumor cells. This innate response then activates and triggers a more targeted response by the adaptive immune system. Through such adaptive immune responses, the body can develop long-term immunity, or immunologic memory, to specific pathogens and other threats. Immunologic memory is established through generation of specific B cells and T cells, equipping the body to recognize, counteract and neutralize pathogens and other threats, such as cancer cells.

The intricate system of how immune cells interact and propagate a signal to elicit an immune response in cancer is known as tumor immune regulation. Successful antitumor immunity requires optimal interactions between immune and non-immune constituents of the TME. The immune system comprises both activating and suppressing functions built up by a myriad of different cell types. These various immune cells function to activate or suppress immune activity. We have described some of the key cellular factors contributing to anti-tumor immunity below and have classified them as immune activators or immune suppressors. However, many of these cells types can differentiate and acquire distinct functions in response to changing circumstances, known as cellular plasticity, which allows cells to switch from being immune activating to immune suppressing, or the reverse, based on certain immune triggers.

9

The Key Immune Activators and Suppressors in Anti-tumor Responses

The immune system has the capacity to detect tumor cells and employ a variety of biological mechanisms, or immune effector functions, to specifically target and destroy these cells. However, tumors are adept at undermining normal immune system functions allowing cancer cells to evade such detection and destruction.

The Tumor Microenvironment

Tumors can generate signals that promote tumor growth and suppress immune system functions. The TME is an immunosuppressive environment that surrounds a tumor and includes blood vessels, immune cells, and signaling molecules. A significant portion of the immune reaction against tumors occurs within the TME. There is constant interplay between the TME and the tumor itself, as signals from the tumor can facilitate immunosuppression and tumor growth. In recent years, growing understanding of this interplay has led to the successful development of therapies that modulate specific immunosuppressive mechanisms within the TME to activate the immune system against cancer cells.

Within the TME, several molecules have been identified that play critical roles in regulating immune functions. These include:

10

These immune markers are often dysregulated and over-expressed in a wide range of cancers. The figure below shows the role of these molecules in immunosuppression within the TME:

Figure 1: Selected Drivers of Immunosuppression in the TME.

Engaging the Immune System to Fight Cancer

In recent years, rapidly growing understanding of the interaction between cancer and the immune system, known as immuno-oncology, has led to the development of a number of therapeutic approaches that aim to counter the tumor-driven immunosuppression in the TME, to allow the immune system to fight cancer. These approaches include:

11

These immuno-oncology approaches have typically sought to block single immunosuppressive pathways employed by tumors or to direct the immune system against antigens or neoantigens expressed by tumors cells. We believe that by directing the immune system against both tumor cells and other healthy cells within the TME that express immunosuppressive molecules such as PD-1 or IDO, we have the potential to drive significant benefits for patients by transforming the immune balance within the TME.

Our Approach: Targeting The TME With Our T-win Technology Platform

Our T-win platform is a novel approach to cancer immunotherapy designed to activate naturally occurring T cells to target immunosuppressive mechanisms. Our T-win product candidates are designed to employ a dual mechanism of action: (1) direct killing of immunosuppressive cells, including both tumor cells and genetically stable cells in the TME, that express key immunosuppressive proteins such as IDO and PD-L1 and (2) modulation of the TME into a more pro-inflammatory, anti-tumor environment. This is in contrast to previous methods that have sought either to only block singular immunosuppressive pathways or to direct the immune system against specific identified antigens expressed by tumor cells. We believe that our dual mechanism approach has the potential to induce tumor regression, establishing lasting and durable antitumor response, and to achieve manageable tolerability for patients.

T-win is based on the discovery of naturally occurring, pro-inflammatory T cells against immunosuppressive mechanisms mediated by key immunosuppressive proteins, such as IDO and PD-L1, that are present in the periphery and among tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes of cancer patients and, to a lesser degree, in healthy individuals (Figure 2 below). When isolated and cultured in vitro, the self-reactive IDO- or PD-L1-specific T cells demonstrated proinflammatory and cytotoxic responses against IDO- or PD-L1-expressing target cells (Figure 3 below).

Key Components of Our T-win Technology Platform

Based on this discovery, we created our T-win technology platform to direct the immune system against cells, both tumor cells and genetically stable cells within the TME, that express immunosuppressive proteins, with the goal of transforming the immune balance within the TME.

The key elements of our T-win platform are:

12

T-win Mechanism of Action

Our product candidates are designed to drive to activation and expansion of T cells reactive to immunosuppressive antigens. Upon trafficking of these T cells into the tumor site, effective anti-tumor response is induced by a dual mode of action:

We believe our T-win platform offers a novel approach that targets both tumor cells as well as genetically stable host immunosuppressive cells, in order to avoid immune escape. By attracting pro-inflammatory cells against immunosuppression within the TME, T-win product candidates are designed to alter the immunologically unfavorable TME environment into a pro-inflammatory milieu, thereby enhancing effective anti-tumor T cell responses. We believe that our T-win technology is the only existing platform that utilizes the intrinsic ability of cancer patients’ own T cells to target immunosuppression in the TME.

Administration of our T-win product candidates (Figure 4, step 1) selectively activates and expands pre-existing CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses against the T-win product candidate targeted antigen, such as those derived from IDO, in the draining lymph nodes (step 2). The resulting T cells migrate to the tumor sites, where target cells with elevated expression of T-win product candidate targeted antigens are found in the TME. Upon recognition and engagement of the targeted cells, the T cells either directly eliminate the cells by cytotoxic lysis or respond by the release of proinflammatory cytokines (step 3). Elimination of immunosuppressive target cells and concomitant immune modulation of the TME into an inflamed environment results in net enhancement of T effector infiltration and enhanced anti-tumor responses (step 4).

Figure 4: Illustration of T-win Mechanism of Action

Advantages of the T-win Technology Platform

We believe our T-win platform has the potential to pave the way for novel therapies with increased therapeutic effect and limited additional tolerability concerns. Potential advantages of our T-win platform include:

13

Our Product Candidates

We are developing a pipeline of product candidates that leverage our T-win technology platform to address targets within the TME. In addition to a potentially registrational Phase 3 trial in melanoma, we are planning two Phase 2 basket trials in additional solid tumors and treatment settings. We are also developing earlier stage product candidates that target additional immunosuppression-related targets that are expressed in a broad range of solid tumors. We expect to use these earlier stage product candidates in combination with our existing pipeline candidates.

Dual Epitope IO102-IO103

Our lead product candidate, IO102-IO103, combines our two fully-owned, novel immunotherapeutics, IO102 and IO103, which are designed to target IDO and PD-L1 expressing cells, respectively. IDO and PD-L1 are often dysregulated and over-expressed in a wide range of solid tumors, and result in the inhibition of the body’s natural pro-inflammatory anti-tumor response within the TME. By combining IO102 and IO103 in a single treatment regimen, we aim to provide a synergistic effect on tumors. We are currently executing a Phase 3 potentially registrational trial in advanced melanoma for IO102-IO103, the IOB-013/KN-D18 trial, in combination with pembrolizumab.

IO102 contains a single IDO-derived peptide sequence and is designed to engage and activate IDO-specific T cells against IDO expressing cells within the TME. This contrasts to small molecule IDO inhibitors that aim to address tumors by inhibiting IDO pathways. IO103 contains a single PD-L1-derived peptide and is designed to engage and activate PD-L1 specific human T cells against PD-L1 expressing cells. This is in contrast to PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies which aim to counter T cell inhibition by blocking the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand. Through the activation of both IDO and PD-L1 activated T cells, IO102-IO103 is designed to directly kill immunosuppressive cells, including both tumor cells and genetically stable cells within the TME, and to reduce immunosuppression within the TME, in order to confer clinically meaningful and long lasting anti-tumor responses.

14

The following graphic illustrates the distinct approaches by which our T-win product candidates engage with IDO expressing cells versus other clinically tested IDO inhibitors.

On December 14, 2020, the FDA granted us BTD for IO102-IO103 in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma based on data from the MM1636 Phase 1/2 clinical trial. BTD enables us to solicit guidance from the FDA on generating the clinical evidence needed to support approval in a potentially expedited manner. The MM1636 trial is an investigator-initiated, single-arm Phase 1/2 trial of 30 anti PD-1/PD-L1 naïve patients with metastatic melanoma receiving IO102- IO103 and nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody. In this trial, investigators initially observed an ORR of 80% (24 out of 30 patients); however, two of 24 patients in which a response was observed progressed before subsequent radiological confirmation, which resulted in a confirmed ORR of 73%. In addition, 47% of patients achieved a CR, or complete elimination of their tumors based on RECIST 1.1 definitions. Based on the 17% discontinuation rate of treatment with both nivolumab and IO102-IO103, we believe that the data from this trial suggests a manageable tolerability profile for patients. In addition, we have observed treatment-induced infiltration of CD3/CD8 T cells into the tumor site in responding patients and detected IO102+IO103-specific T cells in tumors after treatment in correlative biomarker data where this was analyzed. We are currently recruiting for a Phase 3 potentially registrational trial for IO102-IO103, the IOB-013/KN-D18 trial, in combination with pembrolizumab. The Phase 3 trial will include a safety run in.

IO102-IO103 specific T cells were found in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and at the tumor site.

Preclinical Development

We developed IO102 and IO103 to target two separate immune resistant pathways involving IDO and PD-L1, respectively. Key learnings from our preclinical development of these candidates include:

15

IO102-IO103 is designed to target and expand intrinsic T cells found in cancer patients that are capable of directing the immune attack against IDO+ and PD-L1+ target cells. Such intrinsic immunity against IDO and PD-L1 has also been observed in mice, and an immunotherapeutic approach using murine IO102 (mIO102) and murine IO103 (mIO103) showed promising anti-tumor activities. Because the expression of IDO and PD-L1 in melanoma patients has been reported in distinct cell populations in the TME, the anti-tumor activity of co-administration of mIO102 and mIO103 was tested in a syngeneic model (Figure 5 below). The combination of mIO102 and mIO103 treatments resulted in enhanced control of tumor growth in an additive fashion.

Figure 5: Anti-tumor Activity of Co-administration of mIO102 and mIO103

Treatment with either mIO102 (IDO) or mIO103 (PD-L1) alone reduced the tumor growth rate. When combined together, it further improved this anti-tumor activity in CT26 model. Mice were treated once with mIO102 and/or mIO103 peptides once, 7 days and 13 days after tumor inoculation in a syngeneic model.

Melanoma

IO102-IO103 is currently being tested in the MM1636 trial in both treatment-naïve (cohort A) and PD-1/PD-L1 mAb refractory (cohorts B and C) patients with metastatic melanoma. Unresectable, metastatic melanoma is a serious and life-threatening disease with a clear unmet medical need. In the United States, it is expected that approximately 106,000 patients will be diagnosed with, and about 7,200 people will die from, melanoma in 2021. The incidence of cutaneous melanoma is increasing, and advanced melanoma (unresectable or metastatic) is fatal if left untreated. According to Ascierto (JAMA Oncology 2019), Robert (New England Journal of Medicine 2019), and Larkin (New England Journal of Medicine 2019), the median OS in patients with stage IV melanoma (untreated) regardless of BRAF mutation status is between 37-39 months and five-year OS is approximately 40-50%. Anti-PD-1 monotherapy leads to a five-year OS of approximately 43-51%, while anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 combination therapy can increase five-year OS to approximately 52%, but is associated with considerable toxicity. Accordingly, there is a clear unmet need for improved combination therapies with the potential to enhance anti-PD-1 efficacy without a significant increase in toxicity.

Historical and Current Standard of Care

Historically, chemotherapy, with or without interferon-alpha (IFN-a) or IL-2, was offered to patients with advanced melanoma, with limited results. Although in the last decade, the treatment of advanced melanoma has improved with the approval of many novel agents, the current standard of care does not work for many patients. Before the availability of these treatments, according to Maio (Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015) and Garbe (The Oncologist 2011), patients with advanced melanoma had a median survival time of approximately 10 months. According to Robert (New England Journal of Medicine 2019) and Larkin (New England Journal of Medicine 2019), the current long-term survival is at least 37 – 39 months for patients with advanced melanoma regardless of BRAF mutational status based on current standard of care.

The currently approved novel agents can be divided into two main categories:

16

Recommended first-line treatment options for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma and for patients with or without BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma are summarized below:

Table 1a: Certain Currently Approved Immunotherapies and Targeted Agents

No head-to-head trials were conducted.

17

Table 1b: Selected Phase 3 Trial Update - American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2022

For patients with tumors harboring a BRAF V600 mutation, treatment choices are between MAPK or CI therapy. Cross trial comparisons indicate that combined MAPK or BRAF plus mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) has proven to have higher response rates than CIs. Data from cross trial comparisons suggest that the responses to CIs are slower in onset but more durable. For patients who are candidates for both treatments, standard of care guidelines recommend that CIs should be chosen as first-line therapy. Patients whose tumors are not progressing quickly and are not immediately threatening an important organ function, should be considered for CIs first, preserving MAPK for subsequent lines. However, American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines do not recommend a specific order of therapies for patients with BRAF wild-type (WT) unresectable and metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

As combination therapy with ipilimumab/nivolumab is associated with more severe toxicity, physicians must make a treatment decision between combination therapy and single agent anti-PD-1 antibody therapy after thorough evaluation regarding clinical activity and potential severe toxicity. Accordingly, we believe novel anti-PD-1 combinations with improved overall outcomes are needed for patients with advanced melanoma.

We are developing IO102-IO103 for potential treatment of patients with anti PD-1 naïve in the advanced setting advanced melanoma who are candidates for CI monotherapy, regardless of PD-L1 expression and BRAF mutation status, except for patients with rapidly progressing disease. We also plan to test IO102-IO103 as a neo-adjuvant used before surgery, followed by adjuvant therapy after surgery, in patients with melanoma, in a basket trial, the IOB-032 trial, with multiple solid tumor indications.

Development of Dual Epitope IO102-IO103 in the First-line Setting

Summary

The MM1636 trial is currently evaluating IO102-IO103 in combination with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, nivolumab, in 30 anti-PD-1 naïve, first-line metastatic melanoma patients. A brief summary of the MM1636 trial is below:

18

MM1636 Trial Design and Patient Characteristics

The MM1636 trial is a Phase 1/2 single arm, single center trial with the primary objective to investigate safety and feasibility, secondary objective to investigate immunogenicity and tertiary objective to investigate clinical efficacy. While the size of the trial was deemed sufficient to evaluate safety, as a single arm trial, the MM1636 trial was not designed to provide statistically significant results in respect of its clinical efficacy endpoints. The MM1636 trial patients were treated with IO102-IO103 in combination with nivolumab for up to 47 weeks and thereafter continued with nivolumab treatment according to usual guidelines. Treatment consisted of 100 µg IDO long, 100 µg PD-L1 long1, 25 µl dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), 475 µl phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and 500 µl Montanide. The treatment was administered biweekly for 6 weeks and then every 4 weeks for 41 weeks. Patients were given a maximum of 15 treatments during one year or until progression or undue adverse events. Nivolumab was administered according to the approved label for melanoma (3 mg/kg bi-weekly for up to two years). Because of the preclinical data on IO102-IO103, which provided support for the combination effect of our IDO and PD-L1 targeted candidates, IO102 and IO103, the MM1636 trial was not designed to evaluate the individual contributions of each component antigen.

A review of patient baseline characteristics presented in table 2 for the 30 anti PD-1 naïve metastatic melanoma patients included in the MM1636 trial shows that the majority of patients had one or more poor prognostic factors; 43% PD-L1 negative, 60% visceral metastatic disease (M1c) and 37% high LDH. The frequency of these poor prognostic factors indicates that the patient population was not subject to specific selection of good prognosis patients, as the baseline characteristics are largely similar to those in other trials.

Table 2: MM1636—Patient Characteristics

Tolerability

In the MM1636 trial, 77% of patients developed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 1 and 2 injection site reactions that typically manifested as transient adverse events; 77% injection site tenderness, 63% granulomas, 23% redness, 13% pain, 13% pruritus, and 3% myalgia at the injection site, most likely related to the adjuvant Montanide. Two patients discontinued treatment after eight and 11 injections, respectively, due to granulomas, tenderness and

19

pain that limited instrumental activities of daily living. Other CTCAE grade 1-2 AEs have included rash (50%), fatigue (47%), arthralgia (37%), diarrhea (27%), nausea (23%), amylase increase (20%), dry skin (20%), pruritus (20%), infusion reaction (17%), xerostomia (17%) and myalgia (17%).

A total of five patients (17%) have experienced a high-grade adverse event (grade 3-5); four patients (13%) experienced CTCAE grade 3-4 AEs, one patient with grade 3 maculopapular rash, one patient with grade 3 adrenal insufficiency and two patients with grade 3 arthralgia. One patient died (CTCAE grade 5) due to urosepsis with multi organ failure and severe hyponatremia. In addition, the patient had experienced multiple AEs including grade 3 colitis, grade 2 pneumonitis, grade 3 arthralgia, grade 2 vasculitis and grade 2 nivolumab induced infusion allergic reaction. The patient had symptoms of myocarditis at time of death with highly elevated troponin I. Bedside echocardiography showed an ejection fraction of 15%, which at baseline was 60%. The myocarditis was never confirmed pathologically. All the AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were considered by the investigator to be related to nivolumab. The rate of treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of both nivolumab and IO102-IO103 was 17%.

Response Rate

Results from the MM1636 trial, with a cut-off date of February 22, 2021, showed an ORR of 80% (95% confidence interval (CI); 62.7-90.5%). Two of the 24 responding patients progressed before subsequent radiological confirmation, therefore the confirmed ORR was 73.3% (95% CI; 54.1% to 87.7%). The CRR was 46.7% (95% CI; 28.3% to 65.7%).

Table 3: Objective Response Rate by Investigator Review

Independent External Radiology Review

To substantiate the investigator assessed evaluation of efficacy, clinical response data was validated by blind independent external review. This was performed at an earlier cut-off date (January 2020) where an ORR of 76.7% (CI: 57.7%-90.1%) was reported with 50.0% achieving CR, 26.7% partial response (PR), and 3.3% stable disease.

Comparison With Contemporary anti PD-1 Treated Patients from the National Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED)

To address potential trial bias regarding treatment effect through post-hoc exploratory analysis, patients in the MM1636 trial were matched with patients from the Danish Melanoma Database (DAMMED), which is a population-based database that retrospectively collects data on patients with metastatic melanoma in Denmark.

20

The ORR was significantly higher in the patients from the MM1636 trial than in the historical controls, suggesting that the high response rate and the long durability of response observed with the combination therapy approach are unlikely to be due to patient selection bias.

Tumor Shrinkage in Individual Patients

Data showing the percent change in target lesions from the baseline is shown in Figure 6. The effect was binary, as patients either responded (24 out of 30) or progressed (six out of 30). No patients showed stable disease (SD). The icons describe melanoma risk factors. Green bars indicating CR that are not at 100% tumor reduction are in patients with lymph node metastases, as lymph nodes do not disappear but normalize in size. Blue bars at 100% indicate the disappearance of target lesions, whereas some non-target lesions may remain based on RECIST 1.1. definitions. Six of the 30 patients progressed (red bars).

Figure 6: MM1636—Waterfall Plot Showing Best Percentage Change in Target Lesion Size

CR = complete response, PR = partial response, SD = stable disease, PD = progressive disease

Timing and Durability of Response in Individual Patients

The swimmer plot in Figure 7 presents individual patient-level data, including onset of PR, CR, PD and death. In addition, patients with ongoing responses are marked with an arrow. The majority of patients achieving a CR had one or more high risk factors (marked with icons) such as PD-L1 negative tumor expression, M1c stage/visceral metastases and high LDH as an indication severe disease. As of the February 22, 2021 cut-off date, response was still ongoing in 16 patients (indicated with arrows).

Because CRs have been observed as late as 15 months after initial treatment, the CRR may improve beyond 47% as the latest included patients had follow up time shorter than 15 months as of the February 22, 2021 cut-off date. We believe these data indicate good quality responses with a deep and durable response in most of the patients (Figure 8).

The median duration of response (DOR) had not yet been reached as of the February 22, 2021 cut-off date in the MM1636 trial, but 20 of the 22 patients with a radiologically confirmed response (at 12 weeks after the first response) had a response lasting greater than 182 days providing a durable response rate of 66.7% (20/30). (Figure 7 and 9).

21

Figure 7: MM1636—Durability and Deepening Responses (in Order of Patient Number)

CR = complete response, PR = partial response, SD = stable disease, PD = progressive disease

Figure 8: MM1636—Time to PR and CR

Figure 9: MM1636—Duration of Response

22

Tumor shrinkage and Durability of Response in Individual Patients Over Time

The rapid onset of response, deepening of responses over time and durability of responses in the MM1636 trial are shown in the spider plot for individual patients. Green, blue and red lines respectively indicate CR, PR and PD. Only six out of 30 patients experienced progressive disease at the first imaging timepoint (12 weeks) marked with red lines (Figure 8).

Figure 10: MM1636—Change in Target Lesions from Baseline Over Time

Progression Free Survival (PFS)

At a median duration of follow-up of 27.3 months (Figure 9), the median PFS was 25.6 months (lower 95% confidence interval 14.8 months, upper 95% confidence interval not reached). Median PFS was 25.3 months and median OS had not yet been reached as of June 7, 2021.

Figure 11: MM1636—Progression Free Survival

+ Censored; dotted lines show 95% Confidence Limits

Overall Survival (OS)

23

At a median duration of follow-up of 27.3 months, the median OS had still not yet been reached (Figure 12).

Figure 12: MM1636—Overall Survival

+ Censored; dotted lines show 95% Confidence Limits

Phase 1/2 Correlative Data

Correlative biomarker data from the MM1636 trial support the mechanism of action of IO102-IO103 in treated patients, based on the following observations:

Table 4: Treatment-specific T cell Responses to IO102 (IDO) and/or IO103 (PD-L1)

Figure 13: Increased Frequency of IO102-IO103-expanded T cell Clones Detected in TME After Treatment.

24

Cumulative frequencies of IO102-IO103-specific TCR rearrangements pre- and post-treatment in one CR patient are shown.

Figure 14: Treatment-induced Increased Infiltration T cells into TME with Enhanced Immune Effector Signature in Responding Patients

(A) In a CR patient (PD-L1 negative, LDH high, BRAF WT, M1c), immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis of tumor sections before vs on-treatment revealed more than three-folds increase in infiltrating T cells (left), majority of which were antigen-experienced (positive for PD-1/LAG-3/T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing protein 3 (TIM-3), “Ag+ CD8”) CD8 T cells (right). (B) This was accompanied by increased signature of effector T cell activation with concomitant reduction in pro-tumorigenic genes.

Potential Opportunities for Dual Epitope IO102-IO103

Proposed Registrational Trial in Melanoma Under BTD by FDA

Based on the results of the MM1636 trial to date, we are recruiting for a multicenter, international, open-label, randomized, two-arm Phase 3 potentially registrational trial of IO102-IO103, the IOB-013/KN-D18 trial, in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic (advanced) melanoma. The Phase 3 trial has a target enrollment of 300 patients randomized into either the experimental arm of IO102-IO103 in combination with pembrolizumab or the pembrolizumab control arm. All patients will receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every three weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles, corresponding to approximately two years of treatment. Patients randomized to the experimental arm will also be given IO102-IO103 every three weeks with an additional dose given during the induction period on Day 8 of cycles 1 and 2. IO102-IO103 will thereafter be administered subcutaneously every three weeks during the maintenance period. Each patient can be treated for a maximum of 37 administrations in total, corresponding to approximately two years of treatment. [An interim analysis of ORR will be conducted by the end of 2023]. The primary endpoint at the final analysis will be progression free survival. The trial design and discussions with FDA are aimed at potentially pursuing accelerated approval, if the trial data are favorable, based on the interim analysis of ORR, supported by other data. The Phase 3 trial will include a concurrent evaluation of the initial participants to allow for an assessment of safety, or safety run in.

Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death according to the American Cancer Society (ACS). The two main types of lung cancer are NSCLC and small cell lung cancer. NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for about 84% of all cases. According to the ACS, the five-year survival rate for patients suffering from highly advanced, metastatic (Stage IV) lung cancers is estimated to be 6%. The NSCLC market was expected to generate $28.5 billion in revenue in 2021, growing to $48 billion in 2026.

There is a large unmet need for improved combination therapies enhancing anti-PD-1 efficacy without a significant increase in toxicity. Until recently, the standard of care for patients with metastatic NSCLC was platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, anti-PD-1 therapy, such as pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy, has changed the standard practice in

25

first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. According to Mok (Lancet 2019) and Gandhi (New England Journal of Medicine 2018) the ORR with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression of 50% or higher was 39% and pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy 61%. In high PD-L1, approximately 40% of patients are alive after 30 months on pembrolizumab monotherapy. In low PD-L1, approximately 45% of patients are alive at 24 months on pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

Observations from a Phase 1 trial of our first generation IDO compound, IO101, provided us foundational support for our IO102-IO103 development strategy. We are planning development of IO102-IO103 plus anti PD-1 in first-line treatment of metastatic solid tumors with high PD-L1 expression. NSCLC is one of the indications in our basket trial.

First Generation IDO Compound

LU1006 was an investigator-initiated Phase 1 single arm, first in human trial with the primary objective to investigate safety and secondary objective to investigate immunogenicity and tertiary objective to investigate clinical benefit in patients with heavily pretreated human leukocyte antigen-A2 (HLAA2) positive stage III to IV NSCLC. Patients had stable disease after standard therapy comprising of chemotherapy and targeted therapy. The trial was a non-randomized comparison against patients who had standard of care, chemotherapy, at the site and were HLAA2 negative. 15 patients were treated with IO101 as subcutaneous injections formulated in 900 microliters Montanide and imiquimod ointment. The mean treatment duration was 7.9 months (95% CI: 4.6 –11.3).

Tolerability

In 90% of the patients, CTCAE grade 1 to 2, short-term, local injection site reactions (i.e., redness, swelling, or itching) were observed. Local treatments with steroid ointments removed the symptoms. High frequencies of fatigue, shortness of breath, coughing and haemoptysis were present at baseline in the 15 NSCLC patients. These were considered probably related to the underlying lung cancer. Nausea and headache were observed in relation to the development of brain metastases, whereas dyspepsia, abdominal pain and diarrhea could be related to the treatment, as IDO is expressed in the epithelial cells in the gastrointestinal tract (Table 5). No grade 3 or higher AEs were observed in the 15 patients treated with IO101 monotherapy.

Table 5: Adverse Event Frequency by CTCAE Grade

Clinical Benefit

Clinical benefit was defined as OR or SD for a minimum of 8.5 months after treatment initiation, corresponding to at least nine injections and demonstration of SD on at least three consecutive CT scans. Based on this definition, seven of 15 (47%) patients had clinical benefit. One patient achieved a PR after 15 months treatment (ORR of 7%), and six patients obtained SD (40%).

26

Survival

PFS is provided in Figure 15 below, “censored” represents patients who are surviving without progression of disease. The median PFS was 5.2 months. Overall survival was 26 months in the 15 patients treated with IO101, compared to eight months in patients who received the hospitals standard of care, which included chemotherapy and targeted therapies. These observations provided us foundational support for our IO102-IO103 development strategy.

Figure 15: IDO Monotherapy—Progression Free Survival

Figure 16: IDO Monotherapy—Overall Survival

Long Term Follow-Up

According to Kjeldsen (2018), three of 15 patients were still alive at a five-year follow up corresponding to a six-year overall survival of 20%. Two patients had continued monthly injections for five years (56 injections). One of these patients developed a PR 15 months after the first injection and remained in PR, without other subsequent anti-cancer therapy.

The other patient had a solitary distant metastasis in a retroperitoneal lymph node at baseline which normalized during treatment. All on study CT scans were without signs of relapse. Treatment was well tolerated for up to five years with no long-term AEs registered. The third long-term surviving patient discontinued treatment after 11 months due to PD. The chart below shows the duration of response for patients receiving study drug.

27

Figure 17: IDO Monotherapy—Duration of Response

Second Generation IDO Compound (IO102)

Our second generation IDO compound, IO102, is currently being tested in an ongoing, fully recruited, open-label, randomized Phase 1/2 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Cohort A) or pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (Cohort B) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC. The trial has a Phase 1 safety run in and Phase 2 is randomized (Figure 18). The primary objectives are to investigate the safety and efficacy of IO102 as add on to standard of care versus standard of care. Primary endpoints are safety and ORR. Secondary endpoints include OS, PFS and biomarkers.

Figure 18: IO102-012 Trial Design

The trial is being conducted as part of a clinical collaboration with Merck. The clinical trial is sponsored by IO Biotech while Merck provides pembrolizumab for the trial. Merck and IO Biotech have joint rights to the study results. IO Biotech will maintain global commercial rights to IO102.

Results presented below are from an updated analysis of patients entered into the Phase 2 part of the study, with a data cutoff of August 11, 2021. At this data cut off, a total of 110 patients were included in the trial, of which 109 received treatment. Six patients each in Phase 1 cohort A and B; 32 patients in the experimental arm A1 (IO102 with pembrolizumab), 16 patients in the control arm A2 (pembrolizumab); 33 in the experimental arm B1 (IO102 with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy) and 17 in the control arm B2 (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy) of which 16 were treated.

At the data cutoff, based on RECIST 1.1 definitions, Phase 2 Cohort A patients in the experimental arm achieved ORR of 46.9% and 43.8% in the control arm. In Phase 2 Cohort B, patients in the experimental arm achieved ORR of 36.4% and 52.9% in the control arm.

In the NSCLC portion of the IOB-022 trial, we plan to investigate IO102-IO103 in patients expressing PD-L1 ≥50%.

28

Tolerability Profile

The tolerability profile presented is for patients entered and treated in the Phase 2 part of IO102-012 (the safety population):

Table 6 summarizes the AEs reported as of the more recent data cutoff in August 2021.

All patients (100%), regardless of treatment allocation, had at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE).

Cohort A (PD-L1 50%): 81% of patients in the experimental arm (A1) and 81% administered pembrolizumab (A2) had at least one treatment related AE. 69% of patients in A1 had AEs related to IO102. The corresponding number for treatment related AEs to pembrolizumab were 79% across both arms. Serious AEs (SAE) were reported in 41% and 31% of the patients and related treatment-related SAEs in 9% and 0%, respectively. High grade AEs (CTCAE grade 3-4) were reported in 53% and 63% of patients, with 6% and 13%, respectively of the patients discontinuing any of the treatment due to TEAEs. Fatal (grade 5) AEs occurred in 3% and 6%, respectively.

Cohort B (PD-L1 <50%): 97% of patients in the experimental arm (B1) and 100% administered pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (B2) had at least one treatment related AE. 67% of patients in B1 had AEs related to IO102. The corresponding number for treatment related AEs to pembrolizumab and were 82% across both arms. Serious AEs (SAE) were reported in 42% and 56% of the patients and related SAEs in 18% and 31%. High grade AEs (CTCAE grade 3-4) were reported in 73% and 94% with 33% and 19%, respectively, of the patients discontinuing any of the treatments due to TEAEs. Fatal (grade 5) AEs occurred in 9% and 0%, respectively.

Table 6: Adverse Events Summary, Cohort A & B, Phase 2

29

The distribution of high-grade AEs (CTCAE grade 3 or higher, including fatal) is shown below.

Cohort A (PD-L1 50%): The most frequent high-grade AEs in cohort A1 (experimental, N=32), were infections, 18.8%, followed by vascular disorders, 15.6%. In A2 (control, N=16) the most common high grade AE was infections and infestations reported in 25.0% of patients.

Cohort B (PD-L1 <50%): The most frequent high-grade AEs in cohort B1 (experimental, N=33), were blood and lymphatic system disorders, in 39.4% of patients with 62.5% in B2 (control, N=16).

When comparing the experimental treatment in Cohort A and B with the control treatment, the safety data appears largely comparable, which suggests there was no increased frequency or severity of adverse events compared with the control arm.

Table 7.1: AEs  Grade 3 in at Least 5% of Patients/Cohort (Phase 2)

Adverse events experienced by 5% of patients entered into Phase 1 are provided below (date of data cutoff March 12, 2021).

Table 7.2: AEs  Grade 3 in at Least 5% of Patients/Cohort (Phase 1)

30

Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Cancer (SCCHN)

SCCHN includes cancers of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx, and is one of the most common tumor types worldwide. In the United States, cancers of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx are expected to occur in more than 66,600 patients and more than 14,600 are expected to die. Locoregional SCCHN is treated with curative intent, but at a cost of functional impairment and locoregional recurrence or metastatic disease.

Standard first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic (R/M) disease that is not amenable to local therapy was for more than a decade, cetuximab, an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody, plus chemotherapy with platinum and 5-fluorouracil (the EXTREME regimen), which provides a mOS of about 10 months and is associated with substantial adverse events, according to Vermorken (New England Journal of Medicine 2008).

According to Burtness (Lancet 2019), in the KN-048 Phase 3 clinical trial, mOS with pembrolizumab was 12.3 months in patients with combined positive score (CPS) > 1% and 14.9 months in CPS > 20% versus 10.7 and 10.3 months with the EXTREME regimen. In the overall population, the mOS with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was 12.3 versus 10.7 months with EXTREME. Based on above pembrolizumab plus platinum and 5-fluorouracil is an appropriate first-line treatment for R/M SCCHN and pembrolizumab monotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic SCCHN. Pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy did not improve the ORR versus EXTREME. ORR ranged from 17 to 23% with pembrolizumab versus 35-36% with EXTREME, pending on the CPS.

A significant number of cancer patients fail to respond to immunomodulatory agents regardless of PD-L1 expression, presumably because of tumor resistance mechanisms against immune attacks. According to Burtness (Lancet 2019), the two year OS in first-line R/M SCCHN ranged from 38% to 27%, pending on the CPS. Consequently, there is a large unmet need for improved combination therapies enhancing anti-PD1 efficacy without an increase in toxicity.

Besides anti-PD-1, investigations into the immune landscape of SCCHN provide a strong rationale to test agents targeting other immunomodulatory pathways such as IDO and arginase, either as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies.

The head and neck cancer market was expected to generate $3 billion in revenue in 2021 and is expected to grow to $5.8 billion by 2026.

The ongoing and planned investigator-initiated trials will provide learnings that we can use in our own development of IO102-IO103, including in our planned first-line basket trial. See “—Additional trials in other first-line indications and neo-adjuvant and adjuvant settings” for additional details on these trials.

Development of Dual Epitope IO102-IO103 in Neo-Adjuvant/Adjuvant Settings

One ongoing investigator-initiated trial at the St Luc Hospital in Belgium (HN1901) is testing the effect of single epitopes (IO102 and IO103) and later dual epitopes (e.g. IO102-IO103) as neo-adjuvant therapy (before surgery) on the TME in a randomized Phase 2 Umbrella trial in patients with resectable SCCHN. Treatment is short term with up to 3-4 weekly injections and patients are randomized against no treatment (observation before surgery as standard of care).

The primary objective is to evaluate T cell epitope specific response in blood after injections and the secondary objectives include safety, tolerability and anti-tumor effects of the epitopes tested. Translational Research will also be investigated (see Table 10 below). As of an August 2021 data cutoff, seven patients were enrolled in the HN1901 trial – four in the IO102 single epitope treatment arm and three patients in the control arm (where no treatment prior to surgery is received). The four IO102-treated patients had an aggregate of five primary tumors. Of these tumors, two tumors changed from an intermediate to a high immunoscore, a measure of how well a body’s immune cells surround and enter a tumor, two tumors remained unchanged, and one tumor had a reduced immunoscore. In the control arm, two patients maintained a stable immunoscore and one patient went from a high to intermediate immunoscore. In the IO102 treatment arm, only CTCAE grade 1-related adverse events were recorded. No serious adverse events related to the study drug were reported. No delays in standard treatment due to side effects were observed. Among the IO102-treated patients, diffusion imaging analysis showed a decrease in the median apparent

31

diffusion coefficient (mADC) after treatment in two patients (-11% and -14%) but not in one patient. One evaluable patient in the control arm did not show changes in mADC. Diffusion imaging analysis was not conducted for one patient in the IO102 treatment arm and for two patients in the control arm.

Another investigator-initiated trial in SCCHN is planned at an academic site in the U.S. This trial will investigate dual epitope (IO102-IO103) therapy in combination with anti PD-1 as neo-adjuvant therapy before surgery followed by adjuvant therapy after surgery in patients with SCCHN.

Bladder Cancer

UBC is a common malignancy, and was expected to occur in almost 84,000 patients in the United States in 2021. It was expected to account for approximately 17,200 deaths in 2021. In the vast majority of patients, tumors are of the transitional cell subtype. Similar to other malignancies, UBC has a high rate of survival if diagnosed early (>90%); however, even regional spread results in a decline in the five-year survival rate to under 50%. Approximately 75% of newly diagnosed cases of bladder cancer in the United States are early stage and non-muscle invasive disease. Low grade Ta lesions and high-grade T1 lesions have similar recurrence rates near 50%; however, high grade T1 lesions have a higher chance of progression than Ta lesions.

While a majority of cases treated with bladder cancer have a favorable prognosis, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) represents a heterogenous group of diseases to which risk stratification is important to further prognosticate and guide management. Multiple efforts have been made to risk stratify patients, and NMIBC is generally classified into low, intermediate, and high-risk (T1, high-grade Ta, or carcinoma in situ/Tis) groups (Table 8). Despite continued Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy, high risk groups have over a 30% recurrence risk at year one and an over 50% recurrence chance at year five. Moreover, disease progression rates are nearly 20% in high risk patients. Patients who do experience disease progression often must undergo radical cystectomy, an invasive procedure with high mortality rates.

Atezolizumab and pembrolizumab are both approved first-line agents in the metastatic setting and avelumab is approved as maintenance after first-line chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab furthermore has an indication in NMIBC refractory to BCG therapy, as previously discussed. Therefore, targeting the PD-L1 pathway is a clinically effective strategy in treating bladder cancer, including in the NMIBC, BCG-unresponsive setting.

Table 8: American Urology Association (AUA) Risk Stratification for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

* Within each of these risk strata an individual patient may have more or less concerning features that can influence care.

The bladder cancer market was expected to generate $2.3 billion in revenue in 2021 and is expected to grow to $9.3 billion by 2026.

32

We are considering investigating the dual epitope strategy in first-line setting of previously untreated solid tumors. Muscle invasive bladder cancer may be one of these indications. An ongoing BCG shortage has officially been recognized by expert panels and professional societies as complicating therapeutic access for patients with NMIBC. This poses a unique opportunity for us and our T-win platform.

Ongoing and planned investigator-initiated trials will provide learnings that we can use in our own development of IO102-IO103, including in our planned first-line basket trial. See Tables 10 and 11 below for additional details on these trials. Based on the above, IO102-IO103 is planned to be tested in an investigator-initiated trial at a U.S. academic site in combination with anti PD-1 antibody in anti PD-1 naïve, BCG refractory non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Future Clinical Development in First-Line Indications

In addition to the ongoing clinical trials discussed above, we are executing a Phase 2 basket trial, IOB-022, which will enable us to investigate multiple solid first-line tumor indications in anti PD-1/PD-L1 treatment naïve patients with metastatic disease such as NSCLC, UBC, or SCCHN. In the NSCLC portion of the trial we plan to investigate IO102-IO103 in patients expressing PD-L1 ≥50%, a patient population similar to Cohort A in our Phase 1/2 trial of IO102 in combination with pembrolizumab as first line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC.

Our planned basket trial will be a non-comparative, open label, unblinded trial and investigate the safety and efficacy of IO102-IO103 in combination with pembrolizumab in each of the following metastatic first-line indications:

We plan to first expand the sample size in Phase 2 and then pending the outcome move into a Phase 3 trial in one or more of these indications if a sufficiently strong efficacy signal is observed. The primary endpoints of the Phase 2 trial will be dual target of either ORR according to RECIST 1.1. or PFS at six months by investigator assessment. Secondary outcome measures will include PFS, duration of response, CRR, disease control rate, OS, time to response and safety reporting.

Figure 19: Schematic Clinical Development Diagram

Future Clinical Development in Neo-Adjuvant / Adjuvant Setting

In addition to first-line metastatic cancer indications, we also plan to investigate the dual epitope IO102-IO103 used before or after curatively intended surgery as a neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapy. As with first-line cancer indications, we plan to conduct a Phase 2 basket trial, the IOB-032 trial, which will enable us to investigate multiple solid tumor indications in anti PD-1/PD-L1 naïve settings.

33

Our planned basket trial will investigate the safety and efficacy of IO102-IO103 in combination with anti-PD 1 in each of the below indications:

We plan to first expand the sample size in Phase 2 and then move into a Phase 3 trial in one or more of these indications if a sufficiently strong efficacy signal is observed and the tolerability data are generally consistent with previous clinical trials.

Figure 20: Schematic Clinical Development Diagram

Additional Trials in Other First-Line Indications and Neo-Adjuvant and Adjuvant Settings

There are multiple potential indication expansion opportunities in various cancer settings with limited anti-PD-1 mAb efficacy or tolerability and toxicity concerns. Both IDO and PD-L1 are highly expressed in numerous other solid tumor indications where anti PD-1-mAb is also approved. Therefore, we believe the potential for the dual epitope IO102-IO103 product candidate in combination with anti PD-1-mAB is significant beyond first-line treatment of advanced melanoma—both as a first-line treatment, but also as a neo-adjuvant (before surgery)/adjuvant (after surgery) therapy. A series of investigator-initiated trials have been completed and others are ongoing that will inform our own development, including our planned basket trials. Safety data from these trials is included in the tables below.

34

Table 9: Adverse Events Summary of Completed Investigator Initiated Trials

The following table summarizes adverse events reported by the clinical investigators:

35

Table 10: Ongoing Investigator Initiated Trials

* As of August 2021, the total number of patients enrolled is 7.

Additionally, the following table describes currently planned investigator-initiated trials.

Table 11: Planned Investigator Initiated Trials

The clinical trials listed in Tables 10 and 11 above are investigator-initiated trials and accordingly we do not have control over the timing of such trials.

IO102 (IDO)

IO102 is our fully-owned novel product candidate containing a single IDO-derived peptide sequence designed to engage and activate IDO-specific human T cells. This is different from small molecule IDO inhibitors, such as epacadostat, which are designed to block IDO expression on cells. IO102 is the second generation IDO therapy investigated by us. The first IDO therapy we investigated, IO101, is a 9-amino acid peptide investigated in a Phase 1 trial in patients with metastatic NSCLC. The IO101 peptide is an HLA-A2-restricted, IDO-derived CD8+ T cell epitope. IO102 comprises the original CD8+ T cell epitope encoded by IO101 but also contains additional CD8+ T cell epitopes as well as CD4+ T cell epitopes.

IO102 is currently being tested in a randomized Phase 1/2 trial in combination with pembrolizumab standard-of-care in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC.

36

Preclinical Development

IO102 is designed to selectively engage and activate cancer patients’ own T cells to attack IDO-expressing target cells. The activated T cells have demonstrated cytotoxic responses against IDO+ target cells (both tumor cells as well as immune cells) in vitro (Figure 21 below). Further, co-culture of IDO- specific T cells augments expansion of effector T cells against viral and/or tumor antigens such as cytomegalovirus (CMV) (Figure 22 below) and melanoma antigen recognized by T cells (MART-1), illustrating the immunomodulatory function of IDO-specific T cells.

The anti-tumor activity of murine IDO targeting peptide immunotherapy (mIO102) has been demonstrated in many syngeneic tumor models, with data supporting the mechanism of action and validating the treatment approach.

37

mIO102 treatment has demonstrated synergistic and durable anti-tumor activity in combination with aPD-1 in a preclinical model where IDO expression is confined to the immune cells in the TME (Figures 23 and 24 below).

The anti-tumor activity of mIO102 was accompanied by a substantial reduction of IDO1 expression in TME (Figure 25 below). In contrast, animals treated with the IDO inhibitor, epacadostat, exhibited little changes in the IDO expression in TME with no durable responses, highlighting the differential MoA between IO102 and IDO small molecule inhibitors.

This preclinical data generated for IO102 compared to epacadostat has informed our decision to pursue our dual mechanism approach rather than an approach focused on small molecule inhibition of IDO.

38

Finally, in an anti-PD-1 refractory, ‘cold’ tumor model (B16F10 melanoma), mIO102 treatment demonstrates synergistic anti-tumor activity when combined with tumor associated antigen (TAA) peptide immunotherapy (Figure 26). The anti-tumor activity of mIO102, but not TAA, correlates with the reduction of immunosuppressive, IDO+ myeloid cell types, as well as the reduction of regulatory T cells. Given that murine regulatory T cells do not themselves express IDO, the latter observation supports the notion that mIO102 treatment leads to modulation of the TME into a more proinflammatory environment. Finally, a concomitant increase in infiltrating antigen-specific T cells in the TME was observed in the treated animals (Figure 27 below).

Clinical Development of IO102

As described above, our second generation IDO compound, IO102, is currently being tested in an open-labelled, randomized Phase 1/2 trial in combination with pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC. Continued development of IO102 will be with IO103 and potentially with IO112 and other antigens as part of multiantigen approaches.

IO103 (PD-L1)

IO103 is our fully-owned, novel product candidate containing a single PD-L1-derived peptide designed to engage and activate PD-L1 specific human T cells.

PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1 constitute an important immune regulatory pathway. The interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 negatively regulates the proliferation and cytokine production of T cells. Accordingly, cancers upregulate PD-L1 to evade the host immune system and PD-L1 expression is correlated with increased tumor aggressiveness and poor prognosis. PD-L1 expression has been reported for both hematological cancer and solid tumors.

IO103 was tested in a single-arm Phase 2 trial assessing IO103 as a monotherapy in patients with Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC) of the skin.

39

Preclinical Development

IO103 is designed to selectively engage and activate cancer patients’ own T cells to attack PD-L1-expressing target cells. The activated T cells have demonstrated cytotoxic responses against PD-L1+ target cells (both tumor cells as well as immune cells) in vitro (Figure 28 below). Further, PD-L1- specific T cells augments expansion of other effector T cells against viral and/or tumor antigens such as CMV (Figure 29 below) and MART-1, illustrating the immunomodulatory function of PD-L1-specific T cells.

40

As shown below, we observed the anti-tumor activity of murine PD-L1 targeting peptide immunotherapy (mIO103) in a syngeneic model.

Figure 30: Anti-Tumor Activity of Murine PD-L1 Targeting Peptide Immunotherapy in Syngeneic Model

Clinical Development of IO103

IO103 was investigated in a small, mechanism of action focused Phase 2a trial of 10 patients with resectable BCC on a standalone basis. IO103 has previously been investigated in a first in-human study in patients with multiple myeloma and in smoldering myeloma (Tables 9 and 10 above). The primary objective was to investigate objective and relative (%) reduction of the target lesion as well as the tolerability and immunogenicity after treatment with IO103 in patients with BCC.

Ten patients with resectable BCC were treated with up to nine injections. Adverse events observed during each of the trials were grade 1–2 and most of these grade 1-2 adverse events were injection site reactions. One patient had a history of decreased vision due to wet age-related macular degeneration prior to inclusion in the trial. This adverse event was not deemed related to treatment with IO103.

Table 12: Adverse Events by CTCAE Grade and Frequency

All patients exhibited peptide specific immune responses in T cells and in skin-infiltrating lymphocytes. IO103’s continued development will be exclusively as part of the dual epitope candidate IO102-IO103 and potentially other dual epitope candidates combined with our antigens or multi-antigen developments.

IO112 (Arginase 1)

IO112 is our fully-owned, novel product candidate containing a single Arginase 1-derived peptide designed to engage and activate Arginase 1-specific human T cells. IO112 is designed to target T cells that recognize epitopes derived from Arginase 1, which is an immunoregulatory enzyme highly expressed in difficult-to-treat tumors associated with high levels of MDSCs including colorectal, breast, prostate and pancreatic and ovarian cancers.

41

Arginase 1 contributes to immune regulation by catabolizing and limiting the availability of arginine, an essential amino acid for immune effector cell survival and growth. Arginase overproduction by immune suppressive cells like myeloid derived suppressor cells and tolerogenic dendritic cells is a well-documented tumor escape mechanism. Increased levels of arginase have been detected on tumor and immune cells in several solid tumor types.

Preclinical Development

IO112 is designed to selectively engage and activate cancer patients’ own T cells to attack Arginase 1-expressing target cells. Upon activation, T cells secrete proinflammatory cytokines such as IFN and TNF, thereby contributing to immune modulation of microenvironment.

Immunotherapeutic activity of murine Arginase 1 peptide therapy (mIO112) has been observed in multiple Arginase 1-expressing tumor models. Arginase 1 treatment resulted in a concomitant reduction of Arginase 1+ cells and an increased influx of T cells into the TME. The treatment approach enhanced the anti-tumor effect of an anti-PD-1 antibody treatment in a colon adenocarcinoma model, MC38.

Figure 31: Arginase 1 Therapy in Mouse Colon Cancer Model

Treatment combining Arginase 1 therapy and aPD-1 treatment results in synergistic response in a mouse colon cancer model, MC38 (A). In this model, mIO112 treatment (and in combination with aPD-1) results in increased influx of immune cells into TME while promoting enrichment of M1 macrophages (B). In another model (fibrosarcoma, MCA205), increased influx of T cells (CD3 staining) and reduction of Arginase 1-expressing cells in the TME was observed in mice treated with Arginase 1 therapy (ovalbumin (OVA) used as irrelevant peptide control) (C).

Clinical Development of IO112

The next indications that we look to explore are difficult to treat cancers, and therefore IO112 is being tested in a single arm first-in-human Phase 1 trial in patients with arginase-positive solid tumors conducted at Copenhagen University. No data is yet available from this trial. This is an exploratory safety study to determine if this product can be advanced together with IO102-IO103 or as a component of other multiantigen approaches.

Longer term, we are considering investigating our product candidates in difficult to treat tumors which often express high levels of arginase, such as colorectal, breast, prostate, pancreatic and ovarian cancer. These are all large indications with significant unmet medical need and large commercial potential.

42

Other Preclinical Compounds

In addition to IO102, IO103 and IO112, we are evaluating additional potential targets that we believe have potential for use in solid tumors. All our compounds in preclinical development target well-documented immunosuppressive molecules that are known to be overexpressed in the TME across a wide range of tumors. These targets are differentially expressed on tumors compared to normal tissue and cover multiple cancer indications. For example, we are evaluating the potential anti-tumor effect of a novel immune-modulatory cancer therapy using TGF-ß-derived peptides (IO170) in murine tumor models. Transforming growth factor-ß (TGF-ß) is one of the key molecules that contribute to immunosuppression and it is produced in large amounts in the TME by not only cancer cells but also by suppressive and regulatory cells.

Collaborations

Agreements with Herlev University Hospital (Herlev)

Option Agreements with Herlev

We have entered into a number of agreements with Herlev in Denmark granting us options to acquire certain intellectual property rights related to our programs. The primary agreement governing these rights is Framework Assignment Agreement (the Framework Assignment Agreement) that we entered into with Herlev in May 2016. Under the Framework Assignment Agreement, Herlev grants us options to acquire licenses to data and assignments of patent rights in and to certain inventions related to activating or boosting T cells that react towards regulatory immune cells for the treatment and prevention of cancer (the Field) developed by Drs. Mads Hald Andersen and Inge Marie Svane. We have a period of three months after disclosure by Herlev of any applicable invention to exercise our option with respect to such invention in the Field. Upon exercise of any option, we will negotiate in good faith with Herlev regarding the terms of an assignment agreement for such invention in the Field. If we are unable to agree to terms of such assignment within six months of exercise of the option, Herlev will have no further obligation to continue negotiations with respect to such invention.

The Framework Assignment Agreement will continue until termination by either party. Under the Framework Assignment Agreement, either party may terminate the agreement (1) for convenience, upon six months’ prior written notice or (2) for the other party’s uncured material breach. Termination of the Framework Assignment Agreement for any reason will not affect any assignment agreement entered into prior to such termination.

We have exercised our options granted under the Framework Assignment Agreement, and other option agreements with Herlev, and obtained assignments and licenses related to certain inventions, including inventions related to our lead product candidates, IO102, IO103 and IO112.

Assignment Agreements with Herlev

In January 2015, January 2017 and December 2018, respectively, we exercised options granted by Herlev, and acquired Herlev’s rights and title in and to the patent applications related to Indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase based immunotherapies, PD-L1-based immunotherapies and PD-LI peptides for use in cancer vaccines, such as our T-win product candidates, and Arginase specific T cells. In connection with such acquisitions, Herlev has also granted us non-exclusive licenses under any clinical data related to such patent rights arising at Herlev for the purpose of developing and commercializing the inventions and patent rights. The agreements pursuant to which we have obtained these rights and licenses (the Assignment Agreements) are non-terminable.

Pursuant to the Assignment Agreements and other similar agreements with Herlev, we have paid and are obligated to pay future contingent payments and royalties, including upon achieving potential regulatory milestones and low single digit royalties on net sales from sales of products incorporating the acquired patent rights and other revenues arising from the acquired patent rights. Upon the occurrence of a change of control, stock or asset sale or IPO, certain outstanding milestone payments under such agreements became due immediately in the aggregate of approximately DKK 13.2 million (which is approximately $2.1 million based on the exchange rate of DKK 6.54 to one U.S. dollar on December 31, 2021). This was triggered by our IPO in November 2021, and has subsequently been paid. We have the right to buy-out all remaining payment obligations under the each Assignment Agreement at any time by paying DKK 20 million (for each of the PD-L1 technology and IDO technology) or DKK 10 million (for the Arginase technology) to Herlev.

Under the Assignment Agreements, we control all rights to the covered patents and, with respect to the PD-L1 and Arginase technology, are required to use our best reasonable efforts to manage, prosecute, maintain and enforce, and we are not permitted to abandon, the acquired patent rights certain markets, including Denmark and certain other EU countries, the UK, the US, Canada, Japan and China.

43

Research Agreements with Herlev

In connection with the Framework Assignment Agreement, we entered into a Framework Cooperation Agreement (the Framework Cooperation Agreement) with Herlev, in which we agreed to cooperate with Herlev, either through co-financed research or sponsored research, for certain agreed-upon research programs to develop therapies aimed at activating or boosting T cells that react towards regulatory immune cells for the treatment and prevention of cancer (the Field). Pursuant to the Framework Cooperation Agreement, we will have the option to acquire all intellectual property rights in inventions developed in the course of any research program, under the terms of the Framework Assignment Agreement. The Framework Cooperation Agreement does not have a set expiration date, but may be terminated by either party (1) for convenience, upon six months’ prior written notice, or (2) for the other party’s uncured material breach.

Each research program under the Framework Cooperation Agreement will be conducted under a separate cooperation agreement (each, a Cooperation Agreement). We are currently engaged in six co-financed or sponsored research programs in the Field, each under a separate Cooperation Agreement. Each Cooperation Agreement will continue until the completion of the applicable research program, and either party may terminate such Cooperation Agreement, (1) for convenience, upon three months’ prior written notice, or (2) for the other party’s uncured material breach.

Additionally, we have entered into a separate agreement with Herlev pursuant to which we were obligated to pay a cash fee in the amount of DKK 5.0 million (which is approximately $0.8 million based on the exchange rate of DKK 6.54 to one U.S. dollar on December 31, 2021) upon the occurrence of a change of control, stock or asset sale or IPO. This was triggered by our IPO in November 2021, and has subsequently been paid.

Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreements with MSD International GmbH

November 2021 Agreement

In November 2021, we entered into a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement (the CTCSA) with MSDIG, an affiliate of Merck, and MSD International Business GmbH (MSDIB), another affiliate of Merck, (collectively, MSD). Under the CTCSA, we will collaborate with MSD regarding the conduct of our international Phase II trial for our compounds, IO102 and IO103, in combination with MSD’s pembrolizumab, a humanized anti-human PD-1 monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of metastatic NSCLC, SCCHN or UBC (the “Trial”). Under the CTCSA, we will act as the sponsor of the Trial at our cost, and MSD will supply pembrolizumab for use in the Trial. Neither party will have any obligation to reimburse costs incurred by the other party in connection with the Trial or the supply of pembrolizumab, except upon certain breach or early termination events.

The CTCSA will remain in effect until we provide MSD with the top-line results and a final report of the results, promptly after the Trial is completed, unless terminated earlier by either party for the other party’s material breach if such party fails to cure such breach within the specified cure period, or upon certain other occurrences specified in the CTCSA.

September 2021 Agreement

In September 2021, we entered into an additional Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement (the MSD Agreement) with MSDIG, and MSDIB to collaborate regarding the conduct of our international Phase 3 trial for the Company’s compounds, IO102-IO103, in combination with MSD’s anti-PD-1 therapy, Keytruda, for the treatment of advanced melanoma (the MSD Study). Each party is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to supply its compound, at its own cost, for use in the MSD Study. Under the MSD Agreement, we will act as the sponsor of the MSD Study at our cost (except for the cost of the supply of Keytruda from MSD and certain other internal costs incurred by MSD in conducting the MSD Study).

Under the MSD Agreement, all clinical data besides the data arising from the arm of the MSD Study involving only Keytruda will be jointly owned by us and MSD. All inventions relating to the combined use of IO102-IO103 and Keytruda arising from the MSD Study will also be jointly owned by us and MSD. We do not have the right under these jointly owned inventions to research, develop or commercialize any PD-1 antagonist and MSD does not have the right under the jointly owned inventions to research, develop or commercialize any peptide vaccine, such as our T-win product candidates, containing an IDO- or PD-L1-derived peptide. We have the first right to enforce such jointly owned patents. We will own all rights in any inventions or improvements arising from the MSD Study relating solely to or solely covering IO102-IO103 or any a compound that is a peptide vaccine, such as our T-win product candidates, containing an IDO- or PD-L1-derived peptide and MSD will own all rights in any inventions or improvements arising from the MSD Study relating solely to or solely covering Keytruda or any PD-1 antagonist. The parties agreed that positive clinical data from the MSD Study may be used to obtain label changes for each party’s respective compounds to add an indication for combination therapy.

44

Under the MSD Agreement, MSD has a limited time right of first negotiation to enter into a definitive agreement with us to develop and commercialize IO102 or IO103. We will be free to negotiate with third parties regarding rights to IO102 or IO103 if MSD does not exercise its right of first negotiation within the exercise period or if the parties are not able to enter into an agreement during the negotiation period.

The MSD Agreement will remain in effect until delivery of the MSD Study’s final analysis by us to MSD, unless terminated earlier by either party: (1) for the other party’s material breach if such party fails to cure such breach within the specified cure period; (2) upon a good faith determination by the terminating party that there is a patient safety concern regarding the MSD Study; (3) if any regulatory authority takes any action that prevents the terminating party from supplying its compound for the MSD Study; (4) if the terminating party determines to withdraw any regulatory approval for its compound or discontinue development of its compound; or (5) for the other party’s failure to comply with its anti-corruption obligations. Upon termination by MSD due to our material breach or our failure to perform any obligations related to anti-corruption laws, we are required to reimburse MSD for the direct and indirect manufacturing costs incurred by MSD in delivering its compound for the MSD Study.

February 2018 Agreement

In February 2018, we entered into a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement (the Merck Collaboration Agreement) with MSDIG, an affiliate of Merck, to collaborate regarding the conduct of the Company’s international Phase 1/2 trial for the Company’s compound, IO102, in combination with MSDIG’s anti-PD-1 therapy, Keytruda (pembrolizumab), for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (the Study). Each party is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to supply its compound, at its own cost, for use in the Study. Under the Merck Collaboration Agreement, we will act as the sponsor of the Study at our cost (except for the cost of the supply of Keytruda from MSDIG and certain other internal costs incurred by MSDIG in conducting the Study).

Under the Merck Collaboration Agreement, all clinical data arising from the Study and all inventions relating to the combined use of IO102 and Keytruda arising from the Study will be jointly owned by us and MSDIG. We do not have the right under these jointly owned inventions to commercialize any PD-1 antagonist and MSDIG does not have the right under the jointly owned inventions to commercialize any peptide vaccine, such as our T-win product candidates, containing an IDO-derived peptide. The parties are jointly responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the joint patents, and we have the first right to enforce the joint patents. We will own all rights in any inventions or improvements arising from the Study relating solely to or solely covering IO102 or any a compound that is a peptide vaccine, such as our T-win product candidates, containing an IDO-derived peptide and MSDIG will own all rights in any inventions or improvements arising from the Study relating solely to or solely covering Keytruda or any PD-1 antagonist.

During the term of the Merck Collaboration Agreement and for six months thereafter, each party has the option to propose an amendment to the Merck Collaboration Agreement or a new agreement for a registration study for the combination of IO102 and Keytruda for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. If either party makes such a proposal, the other party is obligated to negotiate in good faith the terms of such an amendment or agreement. In addition, we are obligated to offer MSDIG the option of participating in a registration study for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer using IO102 in combination with Keytruda before we enter into an agreement with any third party to conduct a registration study for non-small cell lung cancer for IO102 in combination with a PD-1 antagonist.

The Merck Collaboration Agreement will remain in effect until delivery of the final study report for the Study by the Company, unless terminated by either party: (1) for the other party’s material breach if such party fails to cure such breach within the specified cure period; (2) upon a good faith determination by the terminating party that there is a patient safety concern regarding the Study; (3) if any regulatory authority takes any action that prevents the terminating party from supplying its compound for the Study; (4) if the terminating party determines to withdraw any regulatory approval for its compound or discontinue development of its compound; or (5) for the other party’s failure to comply with its anti-corruption obligations. Upon termination by MSDIG due to our material breach or our failure to perform any obligations related to anti-corruption laws, we are required to reimburse MSDIG for the direct and indirect manufacturing costs incurred by MSDIG in delivering its compound for the Study.

Clinical Trial Research Agreement with Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc

In November 2019, we entered into a Clinical Trial Research Agreement (the Clinical Trial Agreement) with Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc (Saint-Luc) in Belgium in order to conduct an investigator-initiated study regarding the activity and safety of peptide-based immunotherapy in the pre-operative setting for patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and

45

neck (the Saint-Luc Study). The Saint-Luc Study is designed as an umbrella trial enabling the testing of multiple of our compounds, including IO102, IO103 and IO112, after initial testing of IO102 in a monotherapy setting. We are responsible for payment of costs associated with the Saint-Luc Study in accordance with an agreed-upon budget.

Saint-Luc is the sponsor of the Saint-Luc Study and owns all inventions arising from, and data and results generated in, the Saint-Luc Study, and has agreed to grant us an exclusive license to all data and results generated during the Saint-Luc Study. In addition, we have the exclusive right to evaluate, prepare, file, prosecute and maintain patent rights related to any inventions, and we will own all such patented inventions. Saint-Luc is required to take all actions necessary to assign rights in any such patents to us.

The Clinical Trial Agreement will continue for the term of the Saint-Luc Study, unless terminated earlier by either party for convenience or the other party’s material breach, subject to applicable notice and cure periods. In addition, we have the right to terminate the Clinical Trial Agreement for various reasons related to the conduct of the Saint-Luc Study.

Competition

Our industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face substantial competition from major pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and established collaborative arrangements for the research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of cancer immunotherapies. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources. Smaller and early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

We face competition with respect to our current product candidates, and will face competition with respect to future product candidates, from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue immune-oncology treatments.

Specifically, there are many companies that commercialize or are developing immuno-oncology treatments for cancer including large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies such as Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche, and its subsidiary Genentech.

In melanoma specifically, the dominant market players are nivolumab, marketed by BMS and Ono, nivolumab & ipilimumab, marketed by BMS and Ono, and pembrolizumab, marketed by Merck. We are also aware of several companies testing their compounds in combination with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Among those in late stage development are Nektar Therapeutics (bempegaldesleukin) and BMS (relatlimab), the latter of which was recently approved by the FDA. In earlier stage development there are also BioNTech with NEO-PV-01 and Karyopharm with selinexor.

We are not aware of any human peptides targeting the TME that are currently in late stage development for melanoma, NSCLC, bladder cancer or other solid tumors.

Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we may or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Furthermore, we also face competition more broadly across the market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy, or a combination of such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drug and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates may not be competitive with them.

46

Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that if our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and a gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development.

The acquisition or licensing of pharmaceutical products is also very competitive. If we seek to acquire or license products, we will face substantial competition from a number of more established companies, some of which have acknowledged strategies to license or acquire products and many of which are bigger than us and have more institutional experience and greater cash flows than we have. These more established companies may have competitive advantages over us, as may other emerging companies taking similar or different approaches to product licenses and/or acquisitions. In addition, a number of established research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may acquire products in late stages of development to augment their internal product lines, which may provide those companies with an even greater competitive advantage.

Manufacturing and Supply

Our compounds are linear peptides formulated as lyophilized powders to ensure long-term shelf-life and reconstituted with water for injection and emulsified with adjuvant prior to subcutaneously administration. The manufacturing process of our compounds has multiple advantages over other immuno-oncology compounds. The manufacturing process is based on a well-understood process solid state peptide synthesis and data has proven our compounds to be stable for a long period at easy-to-administer temperatures. The cost of goods sold for both trials and commercial use is expected to be relatively low.

We currently do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities nor have any plans to do so in the foreseeable future. We rely on, and expect to continue to rely on, third-party contract development and manufacturing organizations to continue the development and the optimization of our product candidates and to ensure that suitable manufacturing processes are in place for both present scales and future commercial scales of production of our product candidates. This ensures that all products manufactured under our responsibility are done in accordance with relevant regulatory requirements and approval and includes those product materials intended for use in our preclinical and clinical testing, as well as commercial manufacture.

We believe that our strategy and workforce allow us to maintain an efficient infrastructure and ensure we do not need to invest in expensive manufacturing facilities and equipment. The personnel within the organization enable us to focus our expertise and resources on the development of our product candidates and the management of third parties.

To date, we have obtained active pharmaceutical ingredients from qualified facilities with the relevant expertise to manufacture our drug substances. Likewise, suitably qualified facilities with relevant experience have been used to manufacture our drug products. All third parties are assessed under our quality system and appropriate quality agreements to ensure compliance are in place. We maintain agreements with our manufacturers and ensure that confidentiality and intellectual property provisions to protect our proprietary rights related to our product candidates are in place.

We are in the process of further optimizing and developing our supply chain for each of our product candidates to ensure continuity of supply and capacity for intended commercial scales.

Commercialization

We hold worldwide development and commercial rights to our pipeline of immuno-oncology programs, and we intend to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, in key geographies. We do not currently have our own marketing, sales, or distribution capabilities. To commercialize IO102-IO103, if approved for commercial sale, we would have to develop a sales and marketing infrastructure.

Subject to receiving marketing approvals, we expect to commence commercialization activities by building a focused sales and marketing organization to sell our products. We believe that such an organization will be able to address the community of oncologists who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our product candidates are being developed. We may selectively enter into distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties for any of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval if we believe these collaborations could maximize the value of our product candidates.

47

We also plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or assigned from third parties. We own the issued patents and patent applications relating to all compounds in our portfolio. Our policy includes seeking to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications, in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States, directed to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology and product candidates, continued innovation, and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of immunotherapy. We also plan to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and supplementary protection certificates / patent term extensions (SPC/PTE) when available. Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions, and improvements; to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and know-how; to obtain and maintain licenses to use intellectual property owned by third parties; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including any patents that we may own in the future; and to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. For more information, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Patents

Our patent portfolio currently comprises 13 separate patent families. These are numbered as Families 1 to 13 and are discussed in more detail below. The families are divided into groups based on therapeutic targets. Some of the families span more than one target, particularly with respect to the patents for our lead compounds directed to the target IDO (compound IO102) and target PD-L1 (compound IO103).

48

49

Upon receipt of marketing approvals in each country, we will file applications for supplementary protection certificates or patent term extensions (SPC/PTE) as appropriate. These will provide up to an additional 5 years term of protection with respect to each extended patent, although there is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain such SPC/PTE. For more information, please see “Risk Factors—If we do not obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation, thereby potentially extending the term of marketing exclusivity for our product candidates, our business may be harmed.”

Trademark

We hold the trademark T-win in the European Union (Registered no. 017871048), the United States (Registered no. 5754675), China (Registered no. 33152486), Japan (Registered no. 6107125), and the United Kingdom (Registered no. 00917871048). The trademark of T-win is registered in class 5 (including pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical purposes) and class 42 (including scientific and/or medical research services).

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, tracking, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of biological products such as those we are developing. We, along with our vendors, collaboration partners, contract research organizations (CROs) and CMOs, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of biological products and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, where we are initially focusing our product development, the FDA regulates biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) and their implementing regulations. Biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Our product candidates are early-stage and have not been approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States.

Our product candidates must be approved for therapeutic indications by the FDA through a BLA (Biologics License Application) before they may be marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

50

Nonclinical and Clinical Trials

Nonclinical Trials

Before testing any biologic product in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous nonclinical testing in vitro and in vivo. Such nonclinical in vitro and in vivo animal studies assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of nonclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety and toxicology studies. The results of the nonclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, a proposed clinical trial protocol, and analytical data must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND prior to the start of clinical studies in humans. However, some long-term nonclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support BLAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional information regarding risks, benefits, and optimal use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

Investigational New Drug — Authorization to Conduct Clinical Trials in US

An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational biologic product to humans and to ship such products in interstate commerce for use in investigational clinical trials. INDs must become effective before clinical

51

trials in the U.S. may begin. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, carcinogenicity, formulation, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product; and a proposed clinical trial protocol.

The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt of the submission by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Accordingly, submission of an IND may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a trial. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development of a product candidate, and the FDA must grant permission, either explicitly or implicitly by not objecting, before each clinical trial can begin.

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

The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

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 also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about applicable clinical trials, including clinical trials results, must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators within fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human participants exposed to the drug or biological product, and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible, but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

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

FDA Review Process

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications must be submitted to FDA. A BLA is a request for approval to market a new biological product for one or more specified indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent nonclinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources,

52

including studies initiated by investigators not from the company. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity, and potency of the investigational biological product, to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a product may be marketed in the United States.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) certain BLAs and certain supplements to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. 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 must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (iPSP) within 60 days after an End-of-Phase 2 meeting or such other time as agreed upon between FDA and the sponsor. If no End-of-Phase 2 meeting occurs, the iPSP should be submitted as soon as practicable but before initiation of Phase 3 studies, or within 210 calendar days in advance of a marketing application if a Phase 3 study, or a combined Phase 2 and Phase 3 study, will not be conducted or will be conducted but not under IND. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to a product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

The FDA reviews all submitted BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting a BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure continued safety, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA filed for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority BLAs, and the review process may be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee. FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions may be available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first BLA filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product applicant also seeks approval for a non-orphan indication.

The FDA may refer an application for a biologic product to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP, and other requirements, and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

The FDA also may require submission of a REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) as a condition for approving the BLA to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk-minimization tools.

After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a Complete Response Letter. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter will usually describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, and the FDA may issue the Complete Response Letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted production 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. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide

53

that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a biologic product, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may limit the approved indications for use, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the approved labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation (ODD) to a biologic product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with either a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biological product in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States of that drug or biological product. ODD must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants ODD, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its orphan designation are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

A product that has received ODD and subsequently is the first FDA approved biologic product for the disease for which it has such designation, is entitled to orphan product exclusivity for the approved indication. The designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process. Orphan exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years from the date of approval of the BLA, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan product to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the product was approved. Orphan exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biological product for the same disease or condition, or the same product for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of ODD are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee.

A product that has received ODD may not receive orphan exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received ODD. 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 the patients with the rare disease or condition.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new biologic products to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review and Accelerated Approval.

A new biologic product is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the biologic product, or combination of drugs and biologic products, and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Fast Track designation may provide increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that 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 application. FDA may revoke the Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

In addition, a new biologic product may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biological product,

54

alone or in combination with or more other biologic products, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review and regulatory staff in a proactive, collaborative, cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any biologic product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track, or BTD designation, may also be eligible for priority review. A product is eligible for priority review if it is intended to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. 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 (compared with ten months under standard review).

In addition, biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may be eligible for accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing 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 approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of such product receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

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. Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or review process.

U.S. Post-approval Requirements

Biological 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 recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of a BLA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, product manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which imposes certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our CMOs. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, and civil or criminal penalties. There is also a continuing, annual program fee for any marketed product.

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

55

adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

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

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The 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-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies, unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services waives a required element. 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 biological product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products.

A reference product is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a BLA for the competing product containing that sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of the other company’s product.

At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

56

A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study, requested by the Secretary, in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study. However, extensions are not applicable if made later than 9 months prior to the expiration of such period.

Other Regulatory Matters

As further described below, manufacturing, sales, commercialization and promotion of product candidates following product approval and other related activities of the company, where applicable, are subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Other Healthcare Laws

Physicians, other healthcare providers, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation:

57

The full scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have continued to increase their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including certain arrangements with physicians who receive stock, warrants, or stock options as compensation for services provided to us, do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring

58

of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients and healthcare providers are unlikely to use our products unless third-party payor coverage is provided and reimbursement by such payor is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other comparable government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product.

Pursuant to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute, we will be required to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program in order for federal payment to be available for our products under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Medicaid is a government health insurance program for eligible low-income adults, children, families, pregnant women, and people with certain disabilities. It is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, and it is administered by individual states within parameters established by the federal government. As a result, coverage and reimbursement requirements for drugs and biologics vary by state. For example, drugs and biologics may be covered under the medical or pharmacy benefit, and state Medicaid programs may impose different utilization management controls, such as prior authorization, step therapy, or quantity limits on drugs and biologics, subject to federal limitations for such controls. But all states must generally provide coverage and reimbursement for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs, as that term is defined by applicable law, if a manufacturer participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.

Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, we will be required to, among other things, pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for quantities of our products utilized on an outpatient basis (with some exceptions) that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program. Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates are calculated using a statutory formula, state-reported utilization data, and pricing data that are calculated and reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of single source and innovator multiple source products, the best price for each drug.

In addition to participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, federal law requires manufacturers to participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B drug pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities only include health care organizations that have certain federal designations or receive funding from specific federal programs, including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program grantees, and certain types of hospitals and specialized clinics, as well as certain hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The Affordable Care Act expanded the 340B program to include additional types of covered entities: certain children’s hospitals, certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, certain rural referral centers and certain sole community hospitals, each as defined by the Affordable Care Act. However, “orphan drugs” i.e., those designated under section 526 of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) are exempted from the ceiling price requirements for these eligible entities added by the Affordable Care Act (except for certain children’s hospitals). The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and in general, products subject to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. In addition, after multiple delays, the final rule implementing civil monetary penalties against manufacturers for instances of overcharging 340B covered entities became effective on January 1, 2019. Accordingly, if we have an approved product, we could be subject to such penalties if the government were to find that we knowingly and intentionally overcharged a 340B covered entity.

Federal law requires that for a company to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs as well as to be purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, it also must participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) pricing program. To participate, we will be required to

59

enter into an FSS contract and other agreements with the VA for our products, which may qualify as “covered drugs.” Under these agreements, we would need to make our products available to the “Big Four” federal agencies—the VA, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), and the Coast Guard—at pricing that is capped pursuant to a statutory federal ceiling price, or FCP, formula set forth in Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (VHCA). The FCP is based on a weighted average non-federal average manufacturer price (Non-FAMP), which manufacturers are required to report on a quarterly and annual basis to the VA. Pursuant to the VHCA, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to a penalty for each item of false information and could result in other potential liability as well, including liability under the False Claims Act.

FSS contracts are federal procurement contracts that include standard government terms and conditions, separate pricing for each product, and extensive disclosure and certification requirements. All items on FSS contracts are subject to a standard FSS contract clause that requires FSS contract price reductions under certain circumstances where pricing is reduced to an agreed “tracking customer.” Further, in addition to the “Big Four” agencies, all other federal agencies and some non-federal entities are authorized to purchase off FSS contracts. FSS contractors are permitted to charge FSS purchasers other than the Big Four agencies “negotiated pricing” for covered drugs that is not capped by the FCP; instead, such pricing is negotiated based on a mandatory disclosure of the contractor’s commercial “most favored customer” pricing.

In addition, pursuant to regulations issued by the DoD to implement Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, each of our covered drugs will listed on an agreement with the Defense Health Agency (DHA) under which we will agree to honor the “Big Four” pricing for our products when they are dispensed to TRICARE beneficiaries by TRICARE retail network pharmacies. More specifically, we will agree to provide rebates (or refunds) on such utilization. Companies are required to enter into a DHA Agreement for “covered drug” products in order for the covered drug to be eligible for DoD formulary inclusion and available to TRICARE beneficiaries without preauthorization. The formula for determining the rebate is established in the regulations and our DHA agreement and is based on the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and the FCP (as described above, these price points are required to be calculated by us under the VHCA).
 

In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, with commercial payors, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. Moreover, for products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself may or may not be available. Instead, the hospital or administering physician may be reimbursed only for providing the treatment or procedure in which our product is used.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products on a payor-by-payor basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. 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. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party coverage and reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to cover our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment

60

programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. It is difficult to predict how Medicare coverage and reimbursement policies will be applied to products for which the company receives marketing approval in the future and coverage and reimbursement under different federal healthcare programs is not always consistent. Further, private payors often follow the coverage and reimbursement policies established under Medicare. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products for which we receive marketing approval.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, included changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The ACA included provisions of importance to our potential product candidate that:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law, including the repeal, effective January 1, 2019, of the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states who argued that, without the individual mandate, the entire ACA was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the lawsuit did not specifically rule on the constitutionality of 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 the ACA or our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional Congressional action is taken, with the exception of a temporary suspension by Congress of the 2% cut in Medicare payments from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law,

61

which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes under new healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. For example, included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 were several drug price reporting and transparency measures, such as a new requirement for certain Medicare plans to develop tools to display Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit information in real time and for group and health insurance issuers to report information on pharmacy benefit and drug costs to the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury. Additionally, on July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to promote competition in the US economy that included several initiatives addressing prescription drugs. Among other provisions, the executive order directed the Secretary of HHS to issue a report to the White House within 45 days that includes a plan to, among other things, reduce prices for prescription drugs, including prices paid by the federal government for such drugs. In response to the Executive Order, on September 9, 2021, HHS issued a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that identified potential legislative policies and administrative tools that Congress and the agency can pursue in order to make drug prices more affordable and equitable, improve and promote competition throughout the prescription drug industry, and foster scientific innovation. Most recently, on February 2, 2022, the Biden Administration signaled its continued commitment to the Cancer Moonshot initiative, which was initially launched in 2016. In its recent announcement, the administration noted that its new goals under the initiative include addressing inequities in order to ensure broader access to cutting-edge cancer therapeutics and investing in a robust pipeline for new treatments. At the state level, individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize any product that is ultimately approved, if approved.

On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its EU Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and

62

high-priced EU Member States, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

Compliance with Other Federal and State Laws or Requirements; Changing Legal Requirements

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

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

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

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our sales and manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling or packaging; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

European Union Drug Development

In the EU, our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can only be marketed if a Marketing Authorization (MA) from a competent regulatory authority has been obtained and additionally, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

European Union Clinical Trials

For example, in the EU a CTA must be submitted to each EU Member State’s competent authority and an independent ethics committee, similar to the FDA and the IRB, respectively. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. Once the CTA is approved by the EU Member State’s competent authority and the ethics committee has granted a positive opinion in relation to the conduct of the trial in the relevant Member State(s), in accordance with an EU Member State’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and EU Member State regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, (ICH) guidelines on GCP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical trials of advanced therapy medicinal products. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an entity within the EU to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU Member States, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

In the European Union, or the EU, the Clinical Trials Regulation ((EU) No 536/2014) applied since 31 January 2022, replacing and repealing the Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC). Under the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, there is a centralized application procedure where one EU Member State’s competent authority takes the lead in reviewing part I of the application, which contains scientific and medicinal product documentation, and the other national authorities only

63

have limited involvement. Part II, which contains the national and patient-level documentation, will be assessed individually by each EU Member State. A clinical trial can only start in an EU Member State once it has been authorized (potentially with conditions) by the concerned EU Member State via the EU Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS. Separately, the sponsor must obtain a positive opinion from the relevant, independent Ethics Committee(s). A transitional period will apply during the transition from Clinical Trials Directive to the Clinical Trials Regulation, During this period, the following applies: (a) until 30 January 2023, clinical trial sponsors may use CTIS to apply to run a clinical trial under the Clinical Trials Regulation or may choose to apply to run a trial under the Clinical Trials Directive; (b) from 31 January 2023, clinical trial sponsors will need to use CTIS to apply to start a new clinical trial in the EU/EEA; and (c) from 31 January 2025, any trials approved under the Clinical Trials Directive that continue running will need to comply with the Clinical Trials Regulation and their sponsors must have recorded information on them in the CTIS.

Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the CTA must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent authorities and ethics committees. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with GMP. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

During the development of a medicinal product, EMA, and EU Member States’ competent authorities provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the CHMP. A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical trials, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. Advice is not legally binding with regard to any future MA application (MAA) of the product concerned.

We are in the process of applying to renew our status with the EMA as a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME). If we are successful in maintaining our current SME status with the EMA, it will provide access to administrative, regulatory and financial support, including fee reductions for scientific advice and regulatory procedures.

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the European Union, medicinal products can only be placed on the market after obtaining a MA. To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational biological product in the EU, we must submit a MAA. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the European Union, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product.

The centralized procedure results in a single MA, issued by the European Commission, (based on the opinion of the EMA) which is valid across the entire territory of the EU. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) designated orphan medicines and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure may at the request of the applicant also be used in certain other cases. Therefore, the centralized procedure would be mandatory for the products we are developing.

The CAT, is responsible in conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation ATMPs. The CAT is primarily responsible for the scientific evaluation of ATMPs and prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of each ATMP for which a MAA is submitted. The CAT’s opinion is taken into account by the CHMP when giving its final recommendation regarding the authorization of a product in view of the balance of benefits and risks identified. Although the CAT’s draft opinion is submitted to the CHMP for final approval, the CHMP may depart from the draft opinion, if it provides detailed scientific justification. The CHMP and CAT are also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs and have published numerous guidelines, including specific guidelines on gene therapies and cell therapies. These guidelines provide additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs; the manufacturing and control information that should be submitted in a MAA; and post-approval measures required to monitor patients and evaluate the long term efficacy and potential adverse reactions of ATMPs.

Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA, by the EMA is 210 days. This excludes so-called clock stops, during which additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the EMA. At the end of the review period, the EMA provides an opinion to the European Commission. If this opinion is favorable, the European Commission may then adopt a decision to grant an MA.

64

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the European Commission or the EU Member States’ competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal.

In exceptional cases, the EMA might perform an accelerated review of an MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is however not guaranteed. The benefits of a PRIME designation includes the appointment of a rapporteur from the EMA before submission of an MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

The European Commission may grant a so-called “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full MA. Such conditional MAs may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional MA may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the MA holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional MAs are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The MA can be converted into a standard MA once the MA holder fulfils the obligations that were imposed and the complete data confirm that the medicine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the EMA of applications for a conditional MA.

The European Commission may also grant a so-called “marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances”. Such MA is intended for products for which the applicant can demonstrate that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized, because the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, or in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided, or it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information. Consequently, MAs under exceptional circumstances may be granted subject to certain specific obligations, which may include the following:

A MA under exceptional circumstances is subject to annual review to reassess the risk-benefit balance in an annual reassessment procedure. Continuation of the authorization is linked to the annual reassessment and a negative assessment could potentially result in the MA being suspended or revoked. The renewal of a MA of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances, however, follows the same rules as a “normal” MA. Thus, a MA under exceptional circumstances is granted for an initial five years, after which the authorization will become valid indefinitely, unless the EMA decides that safety grounds merit one additional five-year renewal. A MA under exceptional circumstances should not be granted when a conditional MA is more appropriate.

The European Union medicines rules expressly permit the EU Member States to adopt national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of any medicinal product containing, consisting of or derived from a specific type of human or animal cell, such as embryonic stem cells. While the products we have in development do not make use of embryonic stem

65

cells, it is possible that the national laws in certain EU Member States may prohibit or restrict us from commercializing our products, even if they have been granted an MA.

European Union Data and Marketing Exclusivity

The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. MAAs for generic medicinal products do not need to include the results of preclinical and clinical trials, but instead can refer to the data included in the MA of a reference product for which regulatory data exclusivity has expired. Upon receiving MA, new chemical entities generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year market exclusivity period may be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years a new therapeutic indication with significant clinical benefit over existing therapies is approved. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

European Union orphan designation and exclusivity

Products receiving orphan designation in the EU can receive ten years of market exclusivity once they are authorized as orphan medicines. During the ten-year market exclusivity period, the EMA cannot accept another application for a MA, or grant a MA or accept an application to extend an existing MA, for the same therapeutic indication, in respect of a similar medicinal product. An orphan medicinal product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. A medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the MAA. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the MA is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, a MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:

Post-Approval Requirements

Similar to the United States, both marketing authorization holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the EU Member States’ competent authorities. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, (PSURs).

66

All new MAAs must include a RMP describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

Failure to comply with EU and EU Member State laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MAs of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA; manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the marketing authorization, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

European Union Drug Marketing

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU Directives, the details are governed by regulations in each EU Member State and can differ from one country to another.

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statue prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to healthcare professionals to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery rules of EU Member States. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

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

Pricing and Reimbursement

Even if a medicinal product obtains a MA in the EU, there can be no assurance that reimbursement for such product will be secured on a timely basis or at all. Governments influence the price of medicinal products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. EU Member States are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed to by the government. EU Member States may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the pharmaceutical product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other EU Member States may allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, 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.

European Pediatric Investigation Plan

In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products must generally include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (PIP) agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (PDCO). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which an MA

67

is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the medicinal product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when this data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all Member States of the EU and trial results are included in the product information, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension.

European Data Collection

The collection and use of personal data (including health data) in the EEA is governed by the EU GDPR and national implementing legislation in EEA Member States. The EU GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The EU GDPR establishes stringent requirements applicable to the processing of personal data, including strict requirements relating to the validity of consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, requirements to conduct data protection impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, special provisions for “special categories of personal data” including health and genetic information of data subjects, mandatory data breach notification (in certain circumstances), “privacy by design” requirements, and direct obligations on service providers acting as processors. The EU GDPR also prohibits the international transfer of personal data from the EEA to countries outside of the EEA unless made to a country deemed to have adequate data privacy laws by the European Commission or a data transfer mechanism has been put in place. Failure to comply with the requirements of the EU GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA States may result in fines up to 20 million euros or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the EU GDPR affords various data protection rights to individuals (e.g., the right to erasure of personal data) in certain circumstances, and the ability for data subjects to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringements of the EU GDPR. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the EU GDPR, will require significant time, resources and expense, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the evolving data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. These requirements and risks are set out in further detail in the section of this annual report titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Industry and Business Operations—We are subject to a variety of privacy and data security laws, and our failure to comply with them could harm our business.”

Rest of the World Regulation

For other countries outside of the EU (or in some cases, EEA) and the United States, such as the United Kingdom, countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2021, we had 32 full-time employees, 13 of whom have Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 25 employees are engaged in research and development activities and seven employees are engaged in finance, legal, human resources, facilities and general management. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and we have not experienced any work stoppages. 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 employees. We also place a high value on the diversity of our team –including gender, background and expertise – to foster our culture of innovation. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to align the interests of our stockholders and those eligible for awards, to retain and incentivize officers, directors, employees, and other service providers, and to encourage them to act in our long-term best interests. We value our employees and regularly evaluate total compensation we provide, including pension contributions paid time off personal leave and other benefits, to ensure we remain competitive and attractive to potential new hires.

68

Facilities

We lease a facility containing approximately 302 square meters of office space for our main office, which is located at COBIS, Ole Maaloes Vej 3, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. The lease expires on January 31, 2025. We also lease lab space at COBIS, Ole Maaloes Vej 3, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. The lease expires on December 31, 2022.

In the United States, we lease facilities in New York, located at 430 East 29th Street, New York, New York, and in Maryland, located at 5640 Fishers Lane, Suite C, Rockville, Maryland. The New York lease expires on February 28, 2027 and the Maryland lease expires on March 31, 2027.

For our UK team, we lease an office facility located at 18 Maryport Street, Monmouthshire, UK. This lease can be terminated at our convenience.

We believe that our current facilities are adequate for our current needs and that suitable additional or substitute space at commercially reasonable terms will be available as needed to accommodate any future expansion of our operations.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on May 25, 2021 under the name IO Biotech, Inc. We consummated a corporate reorganization in connection with our initial public offering (IPO), pursuant to which all of the issued and outstanding stock of IO Biotech ApS (IO ApS) was exchanged for shares of Class A and preferred stock of IO Biotech, Inc. As a result of this corporate reorganization, IO ApS, became a wholly-owned subsidiary of IO Biotech, Inc. We are a holding company. We conduct substantially all of our operations through our subsidiaries. Our subsidiary, IO ApS, a corporation domiciled in Denmark, was originally incorporated in December 2014, and holds our intellectual property assets. Our executive offices are located at Ole Maaløes Vej 3, Copenhagen N, Denmark, and our telephone number is +45 7070 2980. Our website address is iobiotech.com. Information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and you should not consider information on our website to be part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

69

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business is subject to numerous risks. You should carefully consider the following risks and all other information contained in this Annual Report, as well as general economic and business risks, together with any other documents we file with the SEC. If any of the following events actually occur or risks actually materialize, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition and cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

Summary of the Material and Other Risks Associated with Our Business
 

Our business is subject to numerous material and other risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:
 

70

Risks Related to Limited Operating History, Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have a limited operating history, have incurred net losses since our inception, and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. We may never generate any revenue or become profitable or, if we achieve profitability, may not be able to sustain it.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history that may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, developing and optimizing our technology platform, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking research, preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, establishing and enhancing our intellectual property portfolio, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. IO102-IO103 is in early clinical development and IO112 is in preclinical development, and none of our product candidates have been approved for commercial sale. We have never generated any revenue from product sales and have incurred net losses each year since we commenced operations. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, our net losses were $67.9 million and $12.0 million, respectively. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for regulatory approval and commercialization. We expect to incur increasing levels of operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we advance our product candidates through clinical development. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital.

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize a product or products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown challenges. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis and we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of the company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We will need to obtain substantial additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. If we are unable to raise this capital when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or other operations.

Since our inception, we have used substantial amounts of cash to fund our operations and expect our expenses to increase substantially during the next few years. The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates, especially immune-oncology product candidates, is capital intensive. As our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need substantial additional funds to expand our clinical, regulatory, quality and manufacturing capabilities. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant

71

commercialization expenses related to marketing, sales, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

As of December 31, 2021, we had $211.5 million in cash and cash equivalents. Based upon our current operating plan, we estimate that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2024. However, our existing cash and cash equivalents may not be sufficient to fund any of our product candidates through regulatory approval, and we may need to raise substantial additional capital to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect or require adjustment as a result of business decisions, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, some of which are outside of our control, including:

72

We will require additional capital to achieve our business objectives. Additional funds may not be available on a timely basis, on favorable terms, or at all, and such funds, if raised, may not be sufficient to enable us to continue to implement our long-term business strategy. Further, our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the recent disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. If we are unable to raise sufficient additional capital, we could be forced to curtail our planned operations and the pursuit of our growth strategy.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our operations through equity offerings, debt financings or other capital sources, including potentially grants, collaborations, licenses or other similar arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of holders of our common stock. Additional debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants further limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as further limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, make capital expenditures or declare dividends.

If we raise funds through collaborations or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds 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 have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to remedy our material weakness, or if we fail to establish and maintain effective internal controls, we may be unable to produce timely and accurate financial statements, and we may conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective, which could adversely impact our investors’ confidence and our stock price.

Prior to our IPO, we were a private company and had limited accounting and financial reporting personnel and other resources with which to address our internal controls and related procedures. In connection with the audit of our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, we and our independent registered public accounting firm identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. This material weakness has not been remediated, and in connection with the preparation of our consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2021, the Company identified an error, which resulted in a restatement as disclosed in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2021. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting as defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The material weakness relates to our financial statement close process, primarily related to the lack of required finance capacity, knowledge or expertise to perform the financial statement close in a timely and accurate manner or to account for certain complex areas of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

We are in the process of implementing measures designed to improve our internal control over financial reporting to remediate this material weakness. We have initiated the design and implementation of improved processes and internal controls, including ongoing senior management review and audit committee oversight. Additionally, we have begun to further develop and implement formal policies, processes and documentation procedures relating to our financial reporting, including the oversight of third-party service providers. The actions that we are taking are subject to ongoing executive management review and will also be subject to audit committee oversight. These remediation activities are being done in conjunction with our adoption of the requirements Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for the year ended December 31, 2022. We expect to incur additional costs to remediate this material weakness, primarily external consulting fees. We cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, together with any measures we may take in the future, will be sufficient to remediate the control deficiency that led to the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting or to avoid potential future material weaknesses. In addition, neither our management nor an independent registered public accounting firm has ever performed an

73

evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act because no such evaluation has been required. Had we or our independent registered public accounting firm performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, additional material weaknesses may have been identified. If we are unable to successfully remediate our existing or any future material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or if we identify any additional material weakness, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports in addition to applicable stock exchange listing requirements, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting, and our stock price may decline as a result. We also could become subject to investigations by Nasdaq, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), or other regulatory authorities.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

Our development efforts are in the early stages. All of our product candidates are in clinical development or in preclinical development. if we are unable to advance our product candidates through clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

There is no assurance that clinical trials of IO102-IO103, or any other future clinical trials of our product candidates, will be successful or will generate positive clinical data and we may not receive marketing approval from the FDA, European Commission, or other regulatory authorities for any of our product candidates. We have limited experience submitting INDs to the FDA. IO112 is in initial clinical development, currently being studied in an investigator-initiated study. There can be no assurance that the FDA will permit any of our future INDs, including any IND for IO112, to go into effect in a timely manner or at all. Without an IND for a product candidate, we will not be permitted to conduct clinical trials in the United States of such product candidate.

Biopharmaceutical development is a difficult, long, time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage of any of our clinical trials. For example, we are currently experiencing longer than expected lead times in clinical trial site activation and patient enrollment in our clinical trials. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates will prevent us from commercializing and marketing our product candidates. The success in the development of our product candidates will depend on many factors, including:

74

Many of these factors are beyond our control, including the time needed to adequately complete clinical testing, the regulatory submission process and potential threats to our intellectual property rights. It is possible that none of our product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval, even if we expend substantial time and resources seeking such approval. If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, or any other factors impacting the successful development of biopharmaceutical products, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials are not always predictive of future results. Any product candidate that we advance in clinical trials, including IO102-IO103, may not achieve favorable results in later clinical trials, if any, or receive marketing approval.

The research and development of drugs and biological products is extremely risky. Only a small percentage of product candidates that enter the development process ever receive marketing approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. The outcome of clinical testing is uncertain. We may face unforeseen challenges in our product candidate development strategy, and we can provide no assurances that we will ultimately be successful in our current and future clinical trials or that our product candidates will be able to receive regulatory approval. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. For example, it is not uncommon for product candidates to exhibit unforeseen safety or efficacy issues when tested in humans despite promising results in preclinical animal models. In particular, while with IO102-IO103 in combination with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody has been investigated in a Phase 1/2 trial in 30 metastatic melanoma patients at University Hospital of Copenhagen, we do not know how IO102-IO103 will perform in the upcoming Phase 3 clinical trial combining IO102-IO103 with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in first line treatment of advanced melanoma patients or in other future clinical trials, including the planned Phase 2 basket trials with IO102-IO103 for the treatment of solid tumors and any future trials of IO112. Future results of preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates are also less certain due to the novel and relatively untested nature of the approach of our T-win technology platform. In general, clinical trial failure may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in study design, dose selection, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety or efficacy traits. As such, failure in clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry, including immune-oncology companies, have suffered setbacks in the advancement of clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials.

Our product candidates are based on novel technologies that target the highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which makes it difficult to predict the results, timing, and cost of product candidate development and likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on product candidates using our T-win technology platform, and our future success depends on the successful development of this approach. Our product candidates target the tumor microenvironment which is highly immunosuppressive. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for any product candidates based on our platform technologies in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter, and use of our platform technologies may not ever result in marketable products. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners or establishing our own commercial manufacturing capabilities, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing any products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA, and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be less predictable, more expensive and longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates.

There is no assurance that the approaches offered by our products will gain broad acceptance among doctors or patients or that governmental agencies or third-party medical insurers will be willing to provide reimbursement coverage for proposed product candidates. Since our current product candidates and any future product candidates will represent novel approaches to treating various conditions, it may be difficult, in any event, to accurately estimate the potential revenues from these product candidates. Accordingly, we may spend significant capital trying to obtain approval for product candidates that have an uncertain commercial market. The market for any products that we successfully develop will also depend on the cost of the product. We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate what it will cost to commercially manufacture our

75

current product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture these products could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of these products. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize products based upon our approach or find suitable and economical sources for materials used in the production of our products, we will not become profitable, which would materially and adversely affect the value of our common stock.

The immuno-oncology industry is also rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies improving the immune response to cancer that render our technologies obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates.

We plan to initiate clinical trials with IO102-IO103 in melanoma and other solid tumors, and our third product candidate, IO112, targets an immune resistance pathway known as Arginase 1 which is highly expressed in solid cancer indications. If our product candidates do not show any functionality in the solid tumor microenvironment our development plans, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be materially adversely affected.

While we plan to develop product candidates for use in solid tumors, including IO102-IO103 and IO112, our product candidates may not show any functionality in the solid tumor microenvironment. The cellular environment in which solid tumor cells thrive is generally hostile to T cells due to factors such as the presence of immunosuppressive cells, humoral factors and limited access to nutrients. Our product candidates may not be able to access the solid tumor, and even if they do, they may not be able to exert anti-tumor effects in a hostile tumor microenvironment. In addition, the safety profile of our product candidates may differ in a solid tumor setting. As a result, our product candidates may not demonstrate efficacy in solid tumors. If we are unable to make our product candidates function in solid tumors, our development plans, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be materially adversely affected.

We are experiencing, and may in the future experience delays, or difficulties in clinical trial site activations and the enrollment and/or retention of patients in clinical trials, which could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals.

Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patients. Patient enrollment, which is an important factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including clinical trial site activation, the size and nature of the patient population and competition for patients eligible for our clinical trials with competitors which may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that are under development to treat the same indications as one or more of our product candidates, or approved products for the conditions for which we are developing our product candidates.

Trials may be subject to delays as a result of patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated or patient withdrawal. As a result of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic and continuing resource constraints on CROs, us, prospective clinical trial sites and others, we are currently experiencing longer than expected lead times in clinical trial site activation and patient enrollment in our clinical trials. Furthermore, enrollment for our Phase 3 potentially registrational trial may take longer than anticipated due to other monotherapies and combination therapies being investigated in the first-line setting at this time. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We cannot predict how successful we will be at enrolling subjects in future clinical trials. Subject enrollment is affected by other factors including:

76

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in these 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. Furthermore, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and we will have limited influence over their performance.

Interim “top-line” and preliminary results from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim top-line or preliminary results from our clinical trials. Interim results from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or top-line results also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated, and should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects and may cause the trading price of our common stock to fluctuate significantly.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable. if we are not able to obtain required regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval or other marketing authorizations by the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable, and it typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, and the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that we may never obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future. Neither we nor any current or future collaborator is permitted to market any drug product candidates in the United States until we receive regulatory approval of a biologics license application (BLA) from the FDA, and we cannot market it in the European Union (EU) until we receive a marketing authorization approval (MAA) from the European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), or in the United Kingdom (UK) until we receive regulatory approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or other required regulatory approval in other countries. To date, we have had only limited discussions with the FDA and European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) regarding clinical development programs or regulatory approval for any product candidate within the United States and EU, respectively. In addition, we have had no discussions with other comparable foreign authorities regarding clinical development programs or regulatory approval for any product candidate outside of those jurisdictions.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any drug product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), or other foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support

77

approval by the FDA, the European Commission (based on recommendation of the EMA), and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or after approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development programs.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

Of the large number of products in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval and marketing authorization process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval and marketing authorization to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In the EU, EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) is responsible for assessing the quality, safety, and efficacy of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). ATMPs include gene therapy medicines, somatic-cell therapy medicines and tissue-engineered medicines. The role of the CAT is to prepare a draft opinion on an application for marketing authorization for a gene therapy medicinal candidate that is submitted to EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) for final adoption. In the EU, the development and evaluation of ATMPs follow relevant EU guidelines. European Commission or EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for ATMPs and require that we comply with these new guidelines.

We have invested a significant portion of our time and financial resources in the development of our clinical and preclinical product candidates. Our business is dependent on our ability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, successfully commercialize IO102-IO103, IO112 and any future product candidates in a timely manner.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA or other comparable foreign marketing application for IO102-IO103, IO112 or any future product candidates, the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may grant approval or other marketing authorization contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also approve or authorize for marketing a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally request, and the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve or authorize the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval or other marketing authorization would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

In addition, the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and regulatory review committees described above may change their policies, issue additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval of our future products under development on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could

78

delay our ability to obtain approvals, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained.

Our preclinical studies and clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, or serious adverse or unacceptable side effects may be identified during the development of our product candidates, which could prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval of our product candidates, limit their commercialization, increase our costs or necessitate the abandonment or limitation of the development of some of our product candidates.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in each target indication. These trials are expensive and time consuming, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failures can occur at any time during the development process. Preclinical studies and clinical trials often fail to demonstrate safety or efficacy of the product candidate studied for the target indication, and most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved.

We may fail to demonstrate with evidence from adequate and well-controlled trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that our product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses.

Possible adverse reactions and adverse side effects that could occur with immuno-oncology treatments can be severe. For example, we have reported to FDA some serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions from the IO102-112 trial to FDA, which involved pulmonary tuberculosis, enterocolitis, hypovolaemic shock, and diabetic ketoacidosis. Depending on an evaluation of the available data, we may decide or be required to perform additional preclinical studies or to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates or to limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe, or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate, if approved.

Our clinical trials could also be suspended or terminated and the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Even if this does not occur, reports of serious reactions could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to not initiate, delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, 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 develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

If our product candidates are associated with side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses in which the side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. The FDA, EMA, an institutional review board (IRB)/ethics committee (EC), which are local institutional boards or committees, as applicable, that review, approve and oversee basic and clinical research conducted as the institution participating in the clinical trial, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, may also require that we suspend, discontinue, or limit our clinical trials based on safety information, or that we conduct additional animal or human studies regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates which we have not planned or anticipated. Such findings could further result in regulatory authorities failing to provide marketing authorization for our product candidates or limiting the scope of the approved indication, if approved. Many product candidates that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the product candidate.

As an organization, we have never conducted pivotal clinical trials, and we may be unable to do so for any product candidates we may develop.

We will need to successfully complete clinical trials meeting requirements for approval of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, known as pivotal trials, to market IO102-IO103, IO112, or any future product candidate. Carrying out pivotal clinical trials is a complicated process. As an organization, we have not previously conducted any later stage or pivotal clinical trials. In order to do so, we will need to expand our clinical development and regulatory capabilities, and we may be unable to recruit and train qualified personnel. We also expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct our pivotal clinical trials. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to BLA submission and approval of IO102-IO103, IO112, or future product candidates. We may require more time

79

and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing our product candidates.

Some data for product candidates comes from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, EU and the UK, and the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

Although we believe that the patient population in the Phase 1/2 trial with IO102-IO103 in combination with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in 30 metastatic melanoma patients is representative of the population for which we intend to label our IO102-103 product candidate in the United States, the trial was conducted in Europe, and we may conduct additional trials in the future outside of the United States, Europe and the UK. The acceptance of data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. Similarly, the EMA, and other equivalent foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from trials conducted outside their jurisdiction. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to good clinical practice (GCP) regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In general, the patient population for any clinical trials conducted outside the United States must be representative of the population for whom we intend to label the product candidate in the United States. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements for clinical trials. In addition, such trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for any product candidate may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that the product candidate will receive marketing approval

IO102-IO103 combined with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in first line metastatic melanoma patients has been granted breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA. We may also, in the future, apply for breakthrough therapy designation, or the equivalent thereof in foreign jurisdictions (where available), for our product candidates or programs. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product candidate that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of the submission of the BLA.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate, including the breakthrough therapy designation of IO102-IO103 combined with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in first line metastatic melanoma patients, may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and it would not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even after a product candidate qualifies as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or it may decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to post-market study requirements, marketing and labeling

80

restrictions, and even recall or market withdrawal if unanticipated safety issues are discovered following approval. In addition, we may be subject to penalties or other enforcement action if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements.

If the FDA, the European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export, recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting for our product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, establishment registration and listing, as well as continued compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements (cGMPs) and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product.

The FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

In the EU, the European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) may require an equivalent risk management plan (RMP). The FDA’s, European Commission’s, EMA’s, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

We anticipate that our current product candidates and any future product candidates will be used in combination with third-party drugs or biologics, some of which are still in development, and we have limited or no control over the supply, regulatory status, or regulatory approval of such drugs or biologics.

Our T-win technology targets both immune suppressive host and tumor cells in the TME initiating a dynamic process of activating the host immune system, which response can be further exploited by concurrent or subsequent therapies as checkpoint inhibitors such as the dominant PD-1 monoclonal antibodies, pembrolizumab and nivolumab. Accordingly, it is expected that our product candidates, if approved, would be used in combination with third-party drugs or biologics. For example, IO102-IO103 in combination with an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody was recently investigated in a Phase 1/2 trial in 30 metastatic melanoma patients at University Hospital of Copenhagen, and we are planning a Phase 3 clinical trial, the IOB-013/KN-D18 trial, combining IO102-IO103 with an pembrolizumab in first line advanced melanoma patients. Our ability to develop and ultimately commercialize our current product candidates and any future product candidates used in combination with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or any other checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies will depend on our ability to access such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms for the clinical trials and their availability for use with the commercialized product, if approved. We cannot be certain that current or potential future commercial relationships will provide us with a steady supply of such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

81

Any failure to maintain or enter into new successful commercial relationships, or the expense of purchasing checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies or other comparator therapies in the market, may delay our development timelines, increase our costs and jeopardize our ability to develop our current product candidates and any future product candidates as commercially viable therapies. If any of these occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

Moreover, the development of product candidates for use in combination with another product or product candidate may present challenges that are not faced for single agent product candidates. We are currently developing IO102-IO103 and IO112 and may develop other future product candidates for use in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and may develop IO102-IO103 and IO112, or any future product candidates for use with other therapies. The FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to use more complex clinical trial designs in order to evaluate the contribution of each product and product candidate to any observed effects. It is possible that the results of such trials could show that any positive previous trial results are attributable to the combination therapy and not our current product candidates and any future product candidates. It is also possible that trial results for our product candidates may differ significantly if our product candidates are investigated with different combination therapies in different trials - for example, if we were to investigate our product candidates with one anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in one trial and a different anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in another. Moreover, following product approval, the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require that products used in conjunction with each other be cross labeled for combined use. To the extent that we do not have rights to the other product, this may require us to work with a third party to satisfy such a requirement. Moreover, developments related to the other product may impact our clinical trials for the combination as well as our commercial prospects should we receive marketing approval. Such developments may include changes to the other product’s safety or efficacy profile, changes to the availability of the approved product, quality, manufacturing and supply issues, and changes to the standard of care.

In the event that any of our collaborators or suppliers cannot continue to supply their products on commercially reasonable terms, we would need to identify alternatives for accessing such checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies. Additionally, should the supply of products from any collaborator or supplier be interrupted, delayed or otherwise be unavailable to us, our clinical trials may be delayed. In the event we are unable to source an alternative supply, or are unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

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 must prioritize our research programs and will need to focus our discovery and development on select product candidates and indications. Correctly prioritizing our research and development activities is particularly important for us due to the breadth of potential product candidates and indications that we believe could be pursued using our platform technologies. 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 also 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.

If we fail to develop additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity could be limited.

We expect initially to focus on the development of our lead dual epitope IO102-IO103, as well as our third product candidate, IO112. A key part of our strategy, however, is to continue to pursue clinical development of additional product candidates utilizing our T-win technology platform. Developing, obtaining marketing approval for, and commercializing any future product candidates will require substantial additional funding beyond the net proceeds of our IPO and will be subject to the risks of failure inherent in drug product development. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully advance any future product candidates through the development process.

Even if we obtain approval from the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to market any future product candidates for the treatment of tumors, we cannot assure that any such product candidates will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace, or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize additional product

82

candidates our commercial opportunity may be limited and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

Difficulty in enrolling patients could delay or prevent clinical trials of our current product candidates and any future product candidates. We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our ongoing clinical trials or any subsequent trials we may conduct and our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented. For example, we are currently experiencing longer than expected lead times in clinical trial site activation and patient enrollment in our clinical trials.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of our current product candidates and any future product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of completion of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our current product candidates and any future product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment or patient retention due to other unforeseen factors. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our current product candidates and any future product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll and retain a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities outside the United States. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted, and may continue to impact, our ability to initiate clinical sites and recruit, enroll and retain patients or may divert healthcare resources away from clinical trials. In addition, some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as our current product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates or future product candidates.

In addition to the competitive trial environment, the eligibility criteria of our planned clinical trials will further limit the pool of available study participants as we will require that patients have specific characteristics that we can measure to assure their cancer is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a study. Additionally, the process of finding patients may prove costly. We also may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical studies because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidates under study, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical trials, the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients, and the patient referral practices of physicians. If patients are unwilling to participate in our studies for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed.

The enrollment of patients further depends on many factors, including:

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our current product candidates and any future product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our clinical trials may instead opt to enroll in a clinical trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining enrollment of such patients in our clinical trials.

83

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our current product candidates and any future product candidates, the commercial prospects of our current product candidates and any future product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from such product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

Our future growth depends, in part, on our ability to penetrate multiple markets in which we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future profitability will depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, in markets in the United States, Europe , the UK, and other countries where we maintain commercialization rights. As we begin to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, in multiple markets, we are subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

These and other risks associated with international operations may adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations. Future sales of our products or our product candidates, if they are approved, will be dependent on purchasing decisions of and reimbursement from government health administration authorities, distributors and other organizations. As a result of adverse conditions affecting the global economy and credit and financial markets, including disruptions due to political instability or otherwise, these organizations may defer purchases, may be unable to satisfy their purchasing or reimbursement obligations, or may affect milestone payments or royalties for our products or any of our product candidates that are approved for commercialization in the future. Should any of these risks materialize, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Manufacturing and Commercialization

The manufacture of our product candidates is complex and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling-out of our manufacturing capabilities. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped.

We have not yet manufactured or processed our product candidates on a commercial scale and may not be able to do so for any of our product candidates. We may encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up or out, validating the production process, and assuring high reliability of the manufacturing process. These problems include delays or break-downs in logistics and shipping, difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, and product testing, operator error, lack of availability of qualified personnel, as well as failure to comply with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations.

84

Furthermore, if contaminations are discovered in our supply of product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any of these or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates will not occur in the future. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to begin new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely.

Manufacturing facilities also require commissioning and validation activities to demonstrate that they operate as designed, and are subject to government inspections by the FDA, EU Member States, coordinated by the EMA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. If we are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the regulatory authorities, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to manufacture our products. Further, manufacturing facilities may fail to pass government inspections prior to or after the commercial launch of our product candidates, which would cause significant delays and additional costs required to remediate any deficiencies identified by the regulatory authorities. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidate, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Changes in product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to later-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Any of these changes could cause our current product candidates or any future product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. Such changes may also require additional testing, or notification to, or approval by the FDA, European Commission, EMA, or a comparable foreign regulatory authority. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or studies, require the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our current product candidates and any future product candidates and/or jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Even if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it 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.

Even if we obtain marketing approvals from the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA), or other comparable foreign regulatory agencies and are able to initiate commercialization of our clinical-stage product candidates or any other product candidates we develop, the product candidate may not achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, including pharmacy directors, and third-party payors and, ultimately, may not be commercially successful. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

85

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our product candidates, if approved, may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts may require more resources than are typically required due to the complexity and uniqueness of our product candidates. Because we expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our product revenue for the foreseeable future, the failure of our product candidates to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional financing. Even if our product candidates, if approved, achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

We may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved, due to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates profitably

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process, with uncertain results, that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. There may be significant delays in obtaining such coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may not be available, or may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. 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, by any future laws limiting drug prices and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of product from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, there is no uniform policy among third-party payors for coverage and reimbursement. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. Therefore, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product.

Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if coverage and reimbursement are available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we 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.

86

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, and the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with those medications. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of our products. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement are critical to a new product’s acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available.

For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself may or may not be available. Instead, the hospital or administering physician may be reimbursed only for providing the treatment or procedure in which our product is used. Further, from time to time, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, revises the reimbursement amounts paid to health care providers, including the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, which may result in reduced Medicare payments.

We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, medical devices and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the successful commercialization of new products. Further, the adoption and implementation of any future governmental cost containment or other health reform initiative may result in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved product.

Outside of the United States, many countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed, and the pricing review period only begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some of these countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. 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 candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue, if any, 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, even if such product candidates obtain marketing approval.

Reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country outside the US, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In the EU and the UK, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the EU, UK or at a EU Member State level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the EU and the UK, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU Member States and the UK have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products in these countries, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the US, the EU, UK or any other jurisdiction. If we, or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

If the regulatory authorities in such jurisdictions set prices or make reimbursement criteria that are not commercially attractive for us or our collaborators, our revenues and the potential profitability of our products in those countries would be negatively affected.

87

If the market opportunities for any of our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer.

We are focused on the development of treatments for cancer. Our projections of addressable patient populations that have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates are based on estimates, including estimated incidence rates of specific forms of cancer. If any of our estimates are inaccurate, the market opportunities for any of our product candidates could be significantly diminished and have an adverse material impact on our business.

If any of our product candidates are approved for marketing and commercialization and we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we will be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates if and when they are approved.

We have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities or experience. To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization, which would be expensive and time consuming, or outsource these functions to other third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales and marketing 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 sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force 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 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 sales and marketing personnel. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize future products on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of these product revenue to us are likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. In entering into third-party marketing or distribution arrangements, any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of the third parties and we cannot assure you that such third parties will establish adequate sales and distribution capabilities or devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market any future products effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Regulatory approval by the FDA, European Commission (based on recommendation from the EMA) or comparable foreign regulatory authorities is limited to those specific indications and conditions for which approval has been granted, and we may be subject to substantial fines, criminal penalties, injunctions, or other enforcement actions if we are determined to be promoting the use of our products for unapproved or “off-label” uses, or in a manner inconsistent with the approved labeling, resulting in damage to our reputation and business.

We must comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to therapeutics are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and continuing review by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory and governmental authorities, Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress, and the public. When the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities issue regulatory approval for a product candidate, the regulatory approval is limited to those specific uses and indications for which a product is approved. If we are not able to obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval for desired uses or indications for our current product candidates and any future product candidates, we may not market or promote them for those indications and uses, referred to as off-label uses, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be

88

materially harmed. We also must sufficiently substantiate any claims that we make for our products, including claims comparing our products to other companies’ products, and must abide by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory or governmental authority’s strict requirements regarding the content of promotion and advertising.

While physicians may choose to prescribe products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical trials and approved by the regulatory authorities, we and any third parties engaged on our behalf are prohibited from marketing and promoting the products for indications and uses that are not specifically approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not restrict or regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by biopharmaceutical companies concerning off-label use.

If we are found to have impermissibly promoted any of our current product candidates and any future product candidates, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations regarding product promotion, particularly those prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted a product may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of our products, following approval, for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims and other litigation under federal and state statutes. These include fraud and abuse and consumer protection laws, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines, agreements with governmental authorities that materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute therapeutic products and conduct our business. These restrictions could include corporate integrity agreements, suspension or exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, and suspension and debarment from government contracts and refusal of orders under existing government contracts. These False Claims Act lawsuits against manufacturers of drugs and biologics have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements pertaining to certain sales practices and promoting off-label uses. In addition, False Claims Act lawsuits may expose manufacturers to follow-on claims by private payors based on fraudulent marketing practices. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a biopharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, as well as criminal and civil penalties, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal and state healthcare programs. If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, if any, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we do not successfully defend against such actions, those actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

In the United States, the promotion of biopharmaceutical products are subject to additional FDA requirements and restrictions on promotional statements. If after one or more of our current or future product candidates obtains marketing approval the FDA determines that our promotional activities violate its regulations and policies pertaining to product promotion, it could request that we modify our promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or other enforcement actions, including issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, suspension or withdrawal of an approved product from the market, requests for recalls, payment of civil fines, disgorgement of money, imposition of operating restrictions, injunctions or criminal prosecution, and other enforcement actions. Similarly, industry codes in foreign jurisdictions may prohibit companies from engaging in certain promotional activities and regulatory agencies in various countries may enforce violations of such codes with civil penalties. If we become subject to regulatory and enforcement actions our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed.

Furthermore, the use of our products for indications other than those approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not effectively treat such conditions. Any such off-label use of our product candidates could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients. There may also be increased risk of injury to patients if physicians attempt to use our products for these uses for which they are not approved, which could lead to product liability suits that that might require significant financial and management resources and that could harm our reputation.

Even if we obtain FDA or European Commission (based on recommendation of the EMA) approval any of our product candidates in the United States or EU, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize any of them in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential

In order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a country-by-country basis regarding safety and efficacy.

89

Approval by the FDA in the United States or the European Commission (based on recommendation of the EMA) in the EU does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. However, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. 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 testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and increased 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 products in those countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including in 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 any product we develop will be unrealized.

Risks Related to Reliance on Third Parties

Some of our product candidates may be studied in clinical trials sponsored by organizations or agencies other than us, or in investigator-initiated clinical trials, which means we will have minimal or no control over the conduct of such trials.

We have and may continue to supply and otherwise support third party research, including investigator-initiated clinical trials. Investigator-initiated clinical trials pose similar risks as those set forth elsewhere in this “Risk Factor” section relating to our internally-sponsored clinical trials, but because we may not be the sponsors of these trials, we have less control over the protocols, administration or conduct of these trials, including follow-up with patients and ongoing collection of data after treatment. The conduct or findings of these trials may have a negative impact on our development programs notwithstanding that we have little involvement or control over these trials. As a result, we are subject to additional risks associated with the way investigator-initiated trials are conducted. In particular, we may be named in lawsuits that would lead to increased costs associated with legal defense. Additional risks include difficulties or delays in communicating with investigators or administrators, procedural delays and other timing issues and difficulties or differences in interpreting data. Third-party investigators may design clinical trials with clinical endpoints that are more difficult to achieve, or in other ways that increase the risk of negative clinical trial results compared to clinical trials that we may design on our own. Negative results in investigator-initiated clinical trials could have a material adverse effect on our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates and the public perception of our product candidates. As a result, our lack of control over the conduct and timing of and communications with the FDA and other regulatory authorities regarding investigator-sponsored trials may expose us to additional risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside our control, and the occurrence of which could adversely affect the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise, and monitor our clinical trials and perform some of our research and preclinical studies. If these third parties do not satisfactorily carry out their contractual duties or fail to meet expected deadlines, our development programs may be delayed or subject to increased costs, each of which may have an adverse effect on our business and prospects.

We do not have the ability to conduct all aspects of our preclinical testing or clinical trials ourselves. As a result, we are and expect to remain dependent on third parties to conduct our current and future preclinical studies and clinical trials. CROs that manage our preclinical studies and clinical trials as well as clinical investigators, including in investigator-initiated clinical trials, and consultants play a significant role in the conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. The timing of the initiation and completion of these studies and trials will therefore be partially controlled by such third parties and may result in delays to our development programs. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal requirements, and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs and other third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs are required to comply with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the EMA, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GLP and GCP requirements through periodic inspections of preclinical study sites, trial sponsors, clinical trial investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of our CROs or clinical trial sites, including clinical trial sites in investigator-initiated clinical trials, fail to comply with applicable GLP or GCP requirements, the data generated in our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA, EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional preclinical or clinical trials before

90

approving our marketing applications. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to stop and/or repeat clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process.

There is no guarantee that any such CROs, clinical trial investigators or other third parties on which we rely will devote adequate time and resources to our development activities or perform as contractually required. These risks are heightened as a result of the efforts of government agencies and the CROs themselves to limit the spread of COVID-19, including quarantines and shelter-in-place orders. If any of these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, adhere to our clinical protocols or meet regulatory requirements, otherwise performs in a substandard manner, or terminates its engagement with us, the timelines for our development programs may be extended or delayed or our development activities may be suspended or terminated. If any of our clinical trial sites terminates for any reason, we may experience the loss of follow-up information on subjects enrolled in such clinical trials unless we are able to transfer those subjects to another qualified clinical trial site, which may be difficult or impossible. In addition, clinical trial investigators for our clinical trials or investigator-initiated clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection of any marketing application we submit by the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our products.

We rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and we expect to continue to rely on third parties for the clinical as well as any future commercial supply of our product candidates and other future product candidates. The development of our current and future product candidates, and the commercialization of any approved products, could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if any such third party fails to provide us with sufficient clinical or commercial quantities of such product candidates or products, fails to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices or fails to achieve or maintain satisfactory regulatory compliance.

We do not currently have, and we do not plan to build, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture current product candidates or any future product candidates for use in the conduct of our clinical trials or, if approved, for commercial supply. We rely on, and expect to continue to rely on, CMOs. Reliance on third-party providers may expose us to more risk than if we were to manufacture our product candidates ourselves. We do not control the manufacturing processes of the CMOs we contract with and are dependent on those third parties for the production of our product candidates in accordance with relevant applicable regulations such as cGMP, which includes, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation.

In complying with the manufacturing regulations of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we and our third-party suppliers must spend significant time, money and effort in the areas of design and development, testing, production, record-keeping and quality control to assure that the products meet applicable specifications and other regulatory requirements. The failure to comply with these requirements could result in an enforcement action against us, including the seizure of products and shutting down of production. We and any of these third-party suppliers may also be subject to inspections by the FDA, EU Member States, coordinated by the EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. If any of our third-party suppliers fails to comply with cGMP or other applicable manufacturing regulations, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates could suffer significant interruptions.

Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products.

Any disruption, such as a fire, natural hazards or vandalism at our CMOs, or any impacts on our CMOs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, could significantly interrupt our manufacturing capability. We currently do not have alternative

91

production plans in place or disaster-recovery facilities available. In case of a disruption, we will have to establish alternative manufacturing sources. This would require substantial capital on our part, which we may not be able to obtain on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Additionally, we would likely experience months of manufacturing delays as we build facilities or locate alternative suppliers and seek and obtain necessary regulatory approvals. If this occurs, we will be unable to satisfy manufacturing needs on a timely basis, if at all. If changes to CMOs occur, then there also may be changes to manufacturing processes inherent in the setup of new operations for our product candidates and any products that may obtain approval in the future. Any such changes could require the conduct of bridging studies before we can use any materials produced at new facilities or under new processes in clinical trials or, for any products reaching approval, in our commercial supply. Further, business interruption insurance may not adequately compensate us for any losses that may occur and we would have to bear the additional cost of any disruption. For these reasons, a significant disruptive event of any CMOs could have drastic consequences, including placing our financial stability at risk.

Our product candidates and any drugs that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and drugs for access to manufacturing facilities. There are no assurances we would be able to enter into similar commercial arrangements with other manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval.

If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of or if any supplier were unable to meet our clinical or commercial demand for any of our product candidates, we could experience delays in our planned clinical studies or commercialization. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact our ability to procure sufficient supplies for the development of our current and future product candidates, and the extent of such impacts will depend on the severity and duration of the spread of the virus and the actions undertaken to contain COVID-19 or treat its effects. We could be unable to find alternative suppliers of acceptable quality and experience that can produce and supply appropriate volumes at an acceptable cost or on favorable terms. Moreover, our suppliers are often subject to strict manufacturing requirements and rigorous testing requirements, which could limit or delay production. The long transition periods necessary to switch manufacturers and suppliers, if necessary, would significantly delay our clinical trials and, for any product candidates that reach approval, the commercialization of our products, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation.

We depend on third-party suppliers for materials that are necessary for the conduct of preclinical studies and manufacture of our product candidates for clinical trials, and the loss of these third-party suppliers or their inability to supply us with sufficient quantities of adequate materials, or to do so at acceptable quality levels and on a timely basis, could harm our business.

Manufacturing our product candidates requires many reagents, which are substances used in our manufacturing processes to bring about chemical or biological reactions, and other specialty materials and equipment, some of which are manufactured or supplied by small companies with limited resources and experience to support commercial biologics production. We currently depend on a limited number of vendors for certain materials and equipment used in the manufacture of our product candidates. For example, we currently use facilities and equipment at external CMOs, as well as supply sources internal to the collaboration for vector supply. Our use of CMOs increases the risk of delays in production or insufficient supplies as we transfer our manufacturing technology to these CMOs and as they gain experience with our supply requirements. Some of these suppliers may not have the capacity to support clinical trials and commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms or may otherwise be ill-equipped to support our needs. We also do not have supply contracts with many of these suppliers and may not be able to obtain supply contracts with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key materials and equipment to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

92

For some of these reagents, equipment, and materials, we rely and may in the future rely on sole source vendors or a limited number of vendors. The supply of the reagents and other specialty materials and equipment that are necessary to produce our product candidates could be reduced or interrupted at any time. In such case, identifying and engaging an alternative supplier or manufacturer could result in delay, and we may not be able to find other acceptable suppliers or manufacturers on acceptable terms, or at all. Switching suppliers or manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. If we change suppliers or manufacturers for commercial production, applicable regulatory agencies may require us to conduct additional studies or trials. If key suppliers or manufacturers are lost, or if the supply of the materials is diminished or discontinued, we may not be able to develop, manufacture and market our product candidates in a timely and competitive manner, or at all. An inability to continue to source product from any of these suppliers, which could be due to a number of issues, including regulatory actions or requirements affecting the supplier, adverse financial or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected demands or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for our product candidates, which could adversely and materially affect our product sales and operating results or our ability to conduct clinical trials, either of which could significantly harm our business.

As we continue to develop and scale our manufacturing process, we expect that we will need to obtain rights to and supplies of certain materials and equipment to be used as part of that process. We may not be able to obtain rights to such materials on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and if we are unable to alter our process in a commercially viable manner to avoid the use of such materials or find a suitable substitute, it would have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are able to alter our process so as to use other materials or equipment, such a change may lead to a delay in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans. If such a change occurs for product candidate that is already in clinical testing, the change may require us to perform both ex vivo comparability studies and to collect additional data from patients prior to undertaking more advanced clinical trials. These factors could cause the delay of studies or trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of product candidates that we develop, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our product candidates successfully.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to research and develop and to manufacture our product candidates, we must share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s independent discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. For example, any academic institution that we may collaborate with will likely expect to be granted rights to publish data arising out of such collaboration and any joint research and development programs may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

93

We may form or seek partnerships, collaborations or strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such partnerships, collaborations, alliances or licensing arrangements.

We may form or seek partnerships or strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. For example, we have entered into collaborative agreements with Merck pursuant to which they provide the pembrolizumab used in certain of our trials. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, require us to share the data with such collaborators or restrict our ability to utilize certain data arising out of these collaboration arrangements, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business.

In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy and obtain marketing approval.

Further, collaborations involving our product candidates are subject to numerous risks, which may include the following:

As a result, if we enter into additional collaboration agreements and strategic partnerships or license our product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

94

Risks Related to Our Industry and Business Operations

The outbreak of COVID-19, or similar public health crises, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including the execution of our planned clinical trials.

In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was identified. This virus has since spread globally, including within the United States and while cases and hospitalization are currently on the decline in the United States, there can be no assurances they will not continue at the current rate or increase in the future especially in light of the number of variants that are emerging across the world. Governments in the United States and elsewhere have taken and are continuing to take severe measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, including requiring that certain businesses close or conduct only the minimum necessary operations. The pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred, supply chains have been disrupted, facilities and production have been suspended, and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as travel, has fallen. The extent to which COVID-19 will continue to impact our business and operating results will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted, including new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19 and government measures taken in response.

Site activation, participant recruitment and enrollment, participant dosing, distribution of clinical trial materials, study monitoring and data analysis for our planned clinical trials may be delayed due to changes in hospital or university policies, federal, state or local regulations, prioritization of hospital resources toward pandemic efforts, or other reasons related to the pandemic. Additionally, some participants and clinical investigators may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols. For example, quarantines or other travel limitations (whether voluntary or required) may impede participant movement, affect sponsor access to study sites, or interrupt healthcare services, and we may be unable to conduct its planned clinical trials. If the global effort to control the spread of COVID-19 and treat COVID-19 patients continues for an extended period of time, we risk a delay in activating sites and enrolling subjects as previously projected. For example, we are currently experiencing longer than expected lead times in clinical trial site activation and patient enrollment in our clinical trials. Any delays to our planned clinical trials for IO102-IO103 and any future clinical trials and increased cost associated with the conducting of our clinical trials could impact the use and sufficiency of our existing cash reserves, and we may be required to raise additional capital earlier than it had previously planned. We may be unable to raise additional capital if and when needed, which may result in further delays or suspension of our development plans.

Further, infections and deaths related to COVID-19 are disrupting certain healthcare and healthcare regulatory systems globally. Such disruptions could divert healthcare resources away from, or materially delay review by, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies. It is unknown how long these disruptions could continue, were they to occur. Any elongation or de-prioritization of our clinical trials or delay in regulatory review resulting from such disruptions could materially adversely affect the development and study of its product candidates.

We currently utilize third parties to, among other things, manufacture raw materials and our product candidates, components, parts, and consumables, and to perform quality testing. If either we or any third-party in the supply chain for materials used in the production of its product candidates are adversely impacted by restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, our supply chain may be disrupted, limiting our ability to manufacture product candidates for its clinical trials.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we complied with applicable regulation and limited required on-site staff to essential workers, with the balance of its employees continuing their work primarily outside of our offices. Due to shelter-in-place orders or other mandated local travel restrictions, third parties conducting clinical or manufacturing activities may not be able to access laboratory or manufacturing space, and our core activities may be significantly limited or curtailed, possibly for an extended period of time.

While the potential economic impact brought by and the duration of the pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, it has already caused, and is likely to result in further, significant disruption of global financial markets and the trading prices of biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may reduce our ability to access capital either at all or on favorable terms. In addition, a recession, depression or other sustained adverse market event resulting from the global effort to control COVID-19 infections could materially and adversely affect our business.

The ultimate impact of the current pandemic, or any other health epidemic, is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our planned clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

95

Disruptions at the FDA, EMA, SEC and other government agencies and regulatory authorities caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal governmental functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA, EMA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, the ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at regulatory authorities and government agencies have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies such as the EMA following its post-Brexit relocation and resulting staff changes as well as necessary COVID-19 prioritizations may also slow the time necessary for new products to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, in recent years, including in 2018 and 2019, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, upon completion of our IPO and in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020 the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. On July 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to resume certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA intends to use this risk-based assessment system to identify the categories of regulatory activity that can occur within a given geographic area, ranging from mission critical inspections to resumption of all regulatory activities. Additionally, on April 14, 2021, the FDA issued a guidance document in which the FDA described its plans to conduct voluntary remote interactive evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites. According to the guidance, the FDA intends to request such remote interactive evaluations in situations where an in-person inspection would not be prioritized, deemed mission-critical, or where direct inspection is otherwise limited by travel restrictions, but where the FDA determines that remote evaluation would still be appropriate. In May 2021, the FDA outlined a detailed plan to move toward a more consistent state of inspectional operations, and in July 2021, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities and was continuing to maintain this level of operation as of September 2021. More recently, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU may cause additional administrative burdens and strain on regulatory authorities in the EU, this may delay our ability to obtain regulatory approvals of our product candidates in the EU and may require us to incur additional expenses in order to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates in the EU.

The United Kingdom formally exited the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit, on January 31, 2020. Under the terms of its departure, the United Kingdom entered a transition period (the Transition Period), during which it continued to follow all EU rules. The Transition Period ended on December 31, 2020. On December 30, 2020, the United Kingdom and EU signed the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which includes an agreement on free trade between the two parties. The TCA does not contain wholesale mutual recognition of regulatory regimes for pharmaceuticals as was hoped. There is mutual recognition of cGMP inspections of manufacturing facilities but it does not include reciprocal arrangements for the recognition of batch testing certification, in order to avoid unnecessary re-testing on importation of products.

There is considerable uncertainty resulting from a lack of precedent and the complexity of the United Kingdom and the EU’s intertwined legal regimes as to how Brexit will impact the life sciences industry in Europe, including our company, including with respect to ongoing or future clinical trials. The impact will largely depend on the model and means by which

96

the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU is governed post-Brexit and the extent to which the United Kingdom chooses to diverge from the EU regulatory framework.

The regulatory framework for medicines that existed before the end of the transition period has effectively been preserved in UK domestic legislation as ‘retained EU law’ which has prevented substantial divergence to the regulation of medicines. However, some changes to the UK legislation have been immediately necessary, including the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), pursuant to which, the EU pharmaceutical legal framework acquis continues to apply in Northern Ireland (subject to periodic consent of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly), and only products compliant with EU law can be placed in the Northern Ireland market - adding an extra layer of regulatory complexity. As companies now need to comply with a separate UK regulatory legal framework in order to commercialize medicinal products in Great Britain (namely, England, Wales and Scotland, as EU law continues to apply in Northern Ireland). The UK government is currently trying to renegotiate fundamental aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol so this is an unpredictable area for companies in the near future. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed between the UK and the EU allows for future deviation from the current regulatory framework and it is not known if and/or when any deviations may occur, which may have an impact on development, manufacture, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products.

Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from or delay us commercializing our product candidates in the United Kingdom and/or the European Economic Area (EEA) and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. In the short term, there is a risk of disrupted import and export processes due to a lack of administrative processing capacity by the respective United Kingdom and EU customs agencies that may delay time-sensitive shipments and may negatively impact our product supply chain.

We may be exposed to significant foreign exchange risk.

We have operations in Denmark and we incur portions of our expenses, and may in the future derive revenues, in a variety of currencies. As a result, we are exposed to foreign currency exchange risk as our results of operations and cash flows are subject to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Fluctuations in currency exchange rates have had, and will continue to have, an impact on our results as expressed in U.S. dollars. We currently do not engage in hedging transactions to protect against uncertainty in future exchange rates between particular foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar. We cannot predict the impact of foreign currency fluctuations, and foreign currency fluctuations in the future may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States, EU, UK, and in other jurisdictions, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

We face potential product liability, and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability and costs. if the use of our product candidates harms patients or is perceived to harm patients even when such harm

97

is unrelated to our product candidates, our regulatory approvals could be revoked or otherwise negatively impacted and we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. There is a risk that our product candidates may induce adverse events. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If and when we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claims, or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Patients with cancer and other diseases targeted by our product candidates are often already in severe and advanced stages of disease and have both known and unknown significant pre-existing and potentially life-threatening health risks. During the course of treatment, patients may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may be related to our product candidates. Such events could subject us to costly litigation, require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, delay, negatively impact or end our opportunity to receive or maintain regulatory approval to market our products, or require us to suspend or abandon our commercialization efforts. Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products, the investigation into the circumstance may be time-consuming or inconclusive. These investigations may divide the attention of our management team, interrupt our sales efforts, delay our regulatory approval process in other countries, or impact and limit the type of regulatory approvals our product candidates receive or maintain. As a result of these factors, a product liability claim, even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key members of senior management and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biopharmaceutical industry depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified management, research and development, clinical, financial and business development personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel, including Mai Britt Zocca, Ph.D., our Chief Executive Officer, Keith Vendola, M.D., M.B.A., our Chief Financial Officer, Eva Ehrnrooth, M.D., Ph.D., our Chief Medical Officer, and Muhammad Al-Hajj, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer. Our senior management may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our employees.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and clinical personnel and, if we progress the development of any of our product candidates, commercialization, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel, will be critical to our success. The loss of the services of members of our senior management or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing members of our senior management and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize our product candidates. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers, as well

98

as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel. Competition to hire from this limited candidate pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

We expect to expand our clinical development and regulatory capabilities and potentially implement sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2021 we had 32 full-time employees engaged in research and development activities. As our development progresses, we expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical product development, regulatory affairs, manufacturing and, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products more quickly or marketing them more successfully than us.

The development and commercialization of new products is highly competitive. We expect to compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue immuno-oncology treatments. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain regulatory approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, if ever, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or make our development more complicated. Moreover, with the proliferation of new drugs and therapies into oncology, we expect to face increasingly intense competition as new technologies become available. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. The highly competitive nature of and rapid technological changes in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries could render our product candidates or our technology obsolete, less competitive or uneconomical.

Other products in a similar class as some of our product candidates have already been approved and other products in the same class are further along in development. As more product candidates within a particular class of biopharmaceutical products proceed through clinical development to regulatory review and approval, the amount and type of clinical data that may be required by regulatory authorities may increase or change. Consequently, the results of our clinical trials for product candidates in those classes will likely need to show a risk benefit profile that is competitive with or more favorable than those products and product candidates in order to obtain marketing approval or, if approved, a product label that is favorable for commercialization. If the risk benefit profile is not competitive with those products or product candidates, we may have developed a product that is not commercially viable, that we are not able to sell profitably or that is unable to achieve favorable pricing or reimbursement. In such circumstances, our future product revenue and financial condition would be materially and adversely affected.

Specifically, there are many companies that have commercialized or are developing immuno-oncology treatments for cancer including large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies such as Amgen Inc. (Amgen), AstraZeneca plc (AstraZeneca) and its subsidiary, MedImmune, LLC (MedImmune), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS), Merck, Novartis AG (Novartis), Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) and F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (Roche), and its subsidiary Genentech, Inc. (Genentech). In melanoma specifically, the dominant market players are nivolumab, marketed by BMS and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Ono), nivolumab & ipilimumab, marketed by BMS and Ono, and pembrolizumab, marketed by Merck. We are also aware of

99

several companies testing their compounds in combination with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Select programs in late stage development include lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) assets from BMS (relatlimab) and modified interleukin-2 (IL-2) assets from Nektar Therapeutics bempegaldesleukin). In earlier stage development there are also BioNTech SE (BioNTech) with NEO-PV-01 and Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. (Karyopharm) with selinexor.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing than we do. Future collaborations and mergers and acquisitions may result in further resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or that maybe necessary for, our programs.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be efficacy, safety, and convenience. If we are not successful in developing, commercializing and achieving higher levels of reimbursement than our competitors, we will not be able to compete against them and our business would be materially harmed.

The tax authorities in the jurisdictions in which we operate may challenge our transfer pricing procedures.

We are a multinational business that operates in Denmark and other tax jurisdictions, and the tax laws of those jurisdictions generally require that royalty and other payments between affiliated companies in different jurisdictions be the same as those between unrelated companies dealing at arm’s length, and that such prices are supported by contemporaneous documentation. While we believe that we operate in compliance with applicable transfer pricing laws and intend to continue to do so, our transfer pricing procedures are not binding on applicable tax authorities. If tax authorities in any of these jurisdictions were to successfully challenge our transfer prices as not reflecting arm’s length transactions, they could require us to adjust our transfer prices and thereby reallocate our income or deductions to reflect these revised transfer prices, which could result in a higher overall tax liability to us and possibly interest and penalties.

Additionally, tax authorities in the jurisdictions in which we operate may challenge our treatment of the Corporate Reorganization. No assets (either physical or intangible) are being transferred from Denmark to the U.S. pursuant to the Corporate Reorganization, nor are any existing business functions or units operating from Denmark being transferred from IO Biotech ApS to IO Biotech, Inc. as part of the Corporate Reorganization to form part of our U.S. operations. Accordingly, we do not intend to treat the Corporate Reorganization as a deemed sale of all or part of our business by IO Biotech ApS to IO Biotech, Inc. If Danish tax authorities were to disagree with our position and treat the Corporate Reorganization or any of our activities thereafter as a deemed sale, in whole or in part, of intellectual property rights and/or other assets owned by IO Biotech ApS to IO Biotech, Inc., we could be subject to a Danish tax, the current rate of which is 22%, on the gain realized calculated as the difference between the fair market value and the tax value of the assets, at the time of the deemed sale of the assets from Denmark as determined by the Danish tax authorities.

Finally, the nature of our operations can produce conflicting claims from tax authorities in different countries as to the profits to be taxed in the individual countries. The jurisdictions in which we operate have double tax treaties with other jurisdictions, which provide a framework for mitigating the impact of double taxation on our revenues and capital gains. However, mechanisms developed to resolve such conflicting claims are largely untested, can be expected to be very lengthy, and do not always contain a mandatory dispute resolution clause. In recent years, tax authorities around the world have increased their scrutiny of company tax filings, and have become more rigid in exercising any discretion they may have.

In general, tax reform efforts, including with respect to transfer pricing, will require us to continually assess our organizational structure and could lead to an increased risk of international tax disputes, an increase in our effective tax rate and an adverse effect on our financial condition.

We have net operating losses to be carried forward, which may become devalued if we do not generate sufficient future taxable income, applicable corporate tax rates are reduced or if we experience an ownership change.

Our total gross deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2021 were $15.2 million. Of that amount, $15.1 million relates to gross deferred tax assets in IO Biotech ApS. Our anticipated activities are also expected to result in future significant net operating losses in Denmark resulting in additional deferred tax assets. Utilization of most deferred tax assets is dependent on generating sufficient future taxable income in the appropriate jurisdiction and/or entity. The company has provided a valuation allowance of $15.1 million on our net deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2021, based on all available evidence, it is

100

considered more likely than not that all the recorded deferred tax assets will not be realized in a future period. Additionally, most of our deferred tax assets are determined by reference to applicable corporate income tax rates in Denmark. Accordingly, in the event of a reduction of any such corporate income tax rates, the carrying value of certain of our deferred tax assets would decrease.

Moreover, our ability to use our net operating losses and other deferred tax assets to offset future taxable income in Denmark may be limited if we experience an ownership change. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of our IPO or subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside the Company’s control.

For Danish income tax purposes, an ownership change will generally occur when one, or several shareholders together, at once or successively, acquire shares representing more than 50 percent of the share capital or voting power. Although such an ownership change entails no reduction of the amount of net operating losses to be carried forward, the utilization is restricted to exclude offsetting against positive net capital income (e.g. income from interest, dividend and royalty) on net operating losses incurred in a previous income year, where the ownership differs by 50 percent (under section 12D of the Danish Corporate Tax Act). The restriction may limit future offsetting against net operating profits, when the ownership change is due to the listing on an exchange.

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, an ownership change will generally occur when the percentage of our stock (by value) owned by one or more “5% shareholders” (as defined in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) has increased by more than 50% over the lowest percentage owned by such shareholders at any time during the prior three years (calculated on a rolling basis). We anticipate that we will incur losses in the United States in the foreseeable future related to our research and development activities. Due to potential ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code, we may be limited in our ability to realize a tax benefit from the use of such losses, whether or not we attain profitability in future years.

In addition, our ability to utilize any future net operating losses may be limited by Pub. L. 115-97, enacted in 2017 and commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). Under the TCJA, the amount of our net operating losses that we are permitted to deduct in any taxable year is limited to 80% of our taxable income in such year, where taxable income is determined without regard to the net operating loss deduction itself, while allowing unused net operating losses to be carried forward indefinitely.

For these reasons, a material devaluation in our deferred tax assets due to insufficient taxable income, lower corporate income tax rates or ownership change would have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We may be subject to current taxation on some of the income of our foreign subsidiaries even absent any cash distributions.

Because we hold directly or indirectly all of the shares of our foreign subsidiaries, including IO Biotech ApS, such subsidiaries are treated as controlled foreign corporations (CFC) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, IO Biotech, Inc. will therefore need to include in its taxable income each year its “global intangible low-taxed income” and IO Biotech ApS’s “subpart F income”, if any, even if no distributions are made.

Our foreign subsidiaries may directly become subject to U.S. federal income tax and be subject to a branch profits tax in the United States, which could reduce our after-tax returns and the value of our shares.

We currently intend to conduct substantially all of our businesses and operations in a manner such that our foreign subsidiaries will not be treated as engaged in a trade or business in the United States and will not be subject to additional U.S. income tax or branch profits tax. However, it is not entirely clear when a foreign subsidiary is treated as being engaged in a trade or business in the United States for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will not contend, perhaps successfully, that our foreign subsidiaries were engaged in a trade or business in the United States or are subject to more U.S. income tax than they currently incur. A foreign corporation deemed to be so engaged would be subject to U.S. federal income tax on its income that is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of that trade or business, as well as to branch profits tax on its “dividend equivalent amount,” unless the corporation is entitled to relief under an applicable tax treaty, which is determined on an annual basis.

101

Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, transparency laws and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Healthcare providers and others play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Although we do not currently have any products on the market, our operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, customers and third-party payors, may be subject to various U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the U.S. federal civil and criminal false claims laws and the Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations. These laws may impact, among other things, our current business operations, including our clinical research activities, and proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain the business of financial arrangements and relationships with healthcare providers and other parties through which we may market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to additional healthcare, statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by foreign regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. See Part I, Item 1, Government Regulations – Other Regulatory Matters – Other Healthcare Laws for additional detail.

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including certain arrangements with physicians who receive stock, warrants or stock options as compensation for services provided to us, do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from U.S. government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, disgorgement, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the delay, reduction, termination or restructuring of our operations. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time-consuming, and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment. If any of the above occur, it could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our current product candidates and any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell a product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the ACA), was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and biologics, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (increased from 50% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs and biologics to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs or biologics to be covered under Medicare Part D.

102

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. See Part I, Item 1, Government Regulation – Healthcare Reform for additional detail on recent challenges to the ACA.

We expect that the ACA, new laws, and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize or product candidates, if approved. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

We are subject to a variety of privacy and data security laws, and our failure to comply with them could harm our business.

We maintain a large quantity of sensitive information, including confidential business and personal information in connection with the conduct of our clinical trials and related to our employees, and we are subject to laws and regulations governing the privacy and security of such information. In the United States, there are numerous federal and state privacy and data security laws and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure and protection of personal information, including federal and state health information privacy laws, federal and state security breach notification laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues, including with respect to regulatory enforcement and private litigation, which may affect our business and is expected to increase our compliance costs and exposure to liability. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g. Section 5 of the FTC Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH and regulations promulgated thereunder. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant penalties if we obtain, use, or disclose, or are subject to an actual or alleged data breach regarding, individually identifiable health information in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

In the EEA, we are subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the EU GDPR), which took effect in May 2018. The EU GDPR governs the collection, use, disclosure, transfer or other processing of personal data (i.e., data which identifies an individual or from which an individual is identifiable), including clinical trial data, and grants individuals various data protection rights (e.g., the right to erasure of personal data). The EU GDPR imposes a number of obligations on companies, including inter alia: (i) accountability and transparency requirements, and enhanced requirements for obtaining valid consent; (ii) obligations to consider data protection as any new products or services are developed and to limit the amount of personal data processed; and (iii) obligations to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to safeguard personal data and to report certain personal data breaches to the supervisory authority without undue delay (and no later than 72 hours where feasible). In addition, the EU GDPR prohibits the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States and other jurisdictions that the European Commission does not recognize as having “adequate” data protection laws unless a data transfer mechanism has been put in place. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States by invalidating the EU-US Privacy Shield for purposes of international transfers and imposing further restrictions on use of the standard contractual clauses (SCCs) including, a requirement for companies to carry out a transfer privacy impact assessment, which among other things, assesses laws governing access to personal data in the recipient country and considers whether supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under SCCs will need to be implemented to ensure an essentially equivalent level of data protection to that afforded in the EEA. The European Commission subsequently issued new SCCs in June 2021 to account for the decision of the CJEU and recommendations made by the European Data Protection Board and which are in turn relatively more onerous. The EU GDPR imposes substantial fines for breaches and violations (up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of consolidated annual worldwide gross revenue), and confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the EU GDPR. Relatedly, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU (i.e., Brexit), and the expiry of the Brexit transition period, which ended on December 31, 2020, the EU GDPR has been implemented in the United Kingdom (as the UK GDPR). The UK GDPR sits alongside the UK Data Protection Act 2018 which implements certain derogations in the EU GDPR into UK law. Under the UK GDPR, companies not established in the UK but who process personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the UK, or to monitor their behavior will be subject to the UK GDPR –

103

the requirements of which are (at this time) largely aligned with those under the EU GDPR and as such, may lead to similar compliance and operational costs with potential fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover.

Compliance with these and any other applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations is a rigorous and time-intensive process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. Furthermore, the laws are not consistent, and compliance in the event of a widespread data breach is costly. In addition, states are constantly adopting new laws or amending existing laws, requiring attention to frequently changing regulatory requirements. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (the CCPA), which took effect on January 1, 2020, became enforceable by the California Attorney General on July 1, 2020, and has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used by requiring covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers (as that term is broadly defined) and provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Further, the California Privacy Rights Act (the CPRA) recently passed in California. The CPRA will impose additional data protection obligations on companies doing business in California, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The majority of the provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2023, and additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required. Although the CCPA currently exempts certain health-related information, including clinical trial data, the CCPA and the CPRA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Similar laws have been adopted in other states (for example Nevada, Virginia and Colorado) or proposed in other states and at the federal level, and if passed, such laws may have potentially conflicting requirements that would make compliance challenging.

Any actual or perceived failure by us to comply with applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations could result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/ change our processing of our data, enforcement notices, and/ or assessment notices (for a compulsory audit). We may also face civil claims including representative actions and other class action type litigation (where individuals have suffered harm), potentially amounting to significant compensation or damages liabilities, as well as associated costs, diversion of internal resources, and reputational harm.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

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

We rely upon a combination of patents, know-how and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our products and technologies and to prevent third parties from copying and surpassing our achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for our T-win technology platform, product candidates and their uses, as well as our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel discoveries and technologies that are important to our business. We cannot guarantee that our pending and future patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection of our product candidates or their intended uses against competitors, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around, invalidated by third parties, or will effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies, products or product candidates.

Obtaining and enforcing patents is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications or maintain and/or enforce patents that may issue based on our patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner, including delays as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic impacting our or our licensors’ operations. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development results before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors

104

and other third parties, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such results before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical product candidates often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. However, we cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications directed to composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid and enforceable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.

The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal, scientific, and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation, resulting in court decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, which have increased uncertainties as to the ability to enforce patent rights in the future. The standards that the USPTO and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or vice versa.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. For example, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates or their intended uses, and as a result the impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. 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 know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, inventorship, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending patent applications may be challenged in patent offices in the United States and abroad. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, ownership, scope, validity or enforceability. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. For example, our pending patent applications may be subject to third-party pre-issuance submissions of prior art to the USPTO or our issued patents may be subject to post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, oppositions, derivations, reexaminations, interference or inter partes review proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, 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 products. 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. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates or their uses could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. We may also rely on trade secret protection as temporary protection for concepts that may be included in a future patent filing. However, trade secret protection will not protect us from innovations that a competitor develops independently of our proprietary know how. If a competitor independently develops a technology that we protect as a trade secret and files a patent application on that technology, then we may not be able to patent that technology in the future, may require a license from the competitor to use our own know-how, and if the license is not available on commercially-viable terms, then we may not be able to launch our product. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop

105

substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, and this scenario could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

106

Should any of these or similar events occur, they could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations imposed by any intellectual property licenses with third parties that we may need in the future, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

We may in the future require licenses to third-party technology and materials. Such licenses may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. We may rely on third parties from whom we license proprietary technology to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the intellectual property we license from them. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by these licensors will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that may be licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than if we conduct them ourselves. Even if we acquire the right to control the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of the licensed and sublicensed intellectual property relating to our product candidates, we may require the cooperation of our licensors and any upstream licensor, which may not be forthcoming. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of these patent rights will be in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If we or our licensor fail to maintain such patents, or if we or our licensor lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected. In addition to the foregoing, the risks associated with patent rights that we license from third parties will also apply to patent rights we may own in the future. Further, if we fail to comply with our diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone payments, royalties, insurance and other obligations under our license agreements, we may lose our patent rights with respect to such agreement, which would affect our patent rights worldwide.

Termination of our current or any future license agreements would reduce or eliminate our rights under these agreements and may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology. Any of the foregoing could prevent us from commercializing our other product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and overall financial condition.

In addition, intellectual property rights that we may in-license in the future may be sublicenses under intellectual property owned by third parties, in some cases through multiple tiers. The actions of our licensors may therefore affect our rights to use our sublicensed intellectual property, even if we are in compliance with all of the obligations under our license agreements. Should our licensors or any of the upstream licensors fail to comply with their obligations under the agreements pursuant to which they obtain the rights that are sublicensed to us, or should such agreements be terminated or amended, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be materially harmed.

In the future, we may need to obtain additional licenses of third-party technology that may not be available to us or are available only on commercially unreasonable terms, and which may cause us to operate our business in a more costly or otherwise adverse manner that was not anticipated.

We currently own intellectual property directed to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies, including our T-win technology platform. Other pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions may also have filed or are planning to file patent applications potentially relevant to our business. From time to time, in order to avoid infringing these third-party patents, we may be required to license technology from additional third parties to further develop or commercialize our product candidates. Should we be required to obtain licenses to any third-party technology, including any such patents required to manufacture, use or sell our product candidates, such licenses may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. The inability to obtain any third-party license required to develop or commercialize any of our product candidates could cause us to abandon any related efforts, which could seriously harm our business and operations.

The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights we may consider attractive or

107

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. Even if we are able to obtain a license under such intellectual property rights, any such license may be non-exclusive, which may allow our competitors to access the same technologies licensed to us.

Moreover, some of our owned and in-licensed patents or patent applications or future patents may be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any 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 patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed patents maybe subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could be costly and time consuming and could prevent or delay us from developing or commercializing our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates without infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may allege that we have infringed, misappropriated or otherwise violated their intellectual property. Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time consuming and, even if resolved in our favor, is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us.

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our product candidates. We cannot be certain that our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop will not infringe existing or future patents owned by third parties. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the infringing candidate product or product. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing candidate product or product. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our investigational products or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors’ patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, analysis of the scope of relevant patent claims or determination of the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough. We may not be aware of patents that have already been issued and that a third party, for example, a competitor in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates, might assert are infringed by our current or future product candidates, including claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods of use or treatment that cover our product candidates. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop, could be found to be infringed by our product candidate. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe.

108

Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. . Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States, Europe or elsewhere that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a considerable number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity may be difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity in court requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents, and there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

We may choose to challenge the enforceability or validity of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-parte re-exam, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources. We may choose to challenge a third party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (EPO), or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates or proprietary technologies.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or insufficient written description. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial

109

amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of shares of our common stock. Moreover, we cannot assure you that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may not be in a position to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties.

We employ and may employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. We may also be subject to claims that former employers or other third parties have an ownership interest in our future patents. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees.

Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs, and may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act), signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent

110

on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date. Thus the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the 2013 case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submissions, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuities fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent and/or patent application. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies also require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse, including due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on us or our patent maintenance vendors, can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitive position would be adversely affected.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

The term of any individual patent depends on applicable law in the country where the patent is granted. In the United States, provided all maintenance fees are timely paid, a patent generally has a term of 20 years from its application filing date or earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. Extensions may be available under certain circumstances, but the life of a patent and, correspondingly, the protection it affords is limited. Even if we or our licensors obtain patents covering our product candidates, when the terms of all patents covering a product expire, our business may become subject to competition from competitive medications, including generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review and approval of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates may expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

111

If we do not obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation, thereby potentially extending the term of marketing exclusivity for our product candidates, our business may be harmed.

In the United States, a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic may be eligible for a term extension designed to restore the period of the patent term that is lost during the premarket regulatory review process conducted by the FDA. Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act), which permits a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. In Europe, our product candidates may be eligible for term extensions based on similar legislation. In either jurisdiction, however, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Even if we are granted such extension, the duration of such extension may be less than our request. If we are unable to obtain a patent term extension, or if the term of any such extension is less than our request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be in effect shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. The resulting reduction of years of revenue from applicable products could be substantial.

We enjoy only limited geographical protection with respect to certain patents and we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and even in countries where we have sought protection for our intellectual property, such protection can be less extensive than those in the United States. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. In-licensing patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world may similarly be prohibitively expensive, if such opportunities are available at all. And in-licensing or filing, prosecuting and defending patents even in only those jurisdictions in which we develop or commercialize our product candidates may be prohibitively expensive or impractical. Competitors may use our and our licensors’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection or licensed patents to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States or Europe. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our or our licensors’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws or regulations in the United States and Europe, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending proprietary rights in such jurisdictions. Moreover, the legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets or other forms of intellectual property, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to prevent competitors in some jurisdictions from marketing competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, are likely to result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, and additionally could put at risk our or our licensors’ patents of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could increase the risk of our or our licensors’ patent applications not issuing, or could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, while damages or other remedies may be awarded to the adverse party, which may be commercially significant. If we prevail, damages or other remedies awarded to us, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets. If we or our licensors encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition in those jurisdictions.

112

In some jurisdictions including European countries, compulsory licensing laws compel patent owners to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some 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 any of our licensors are forced to grant a license to third parties under patents relevant to our business, or if we or our licensors are prevented from enforcing patent rights against third parties, our competitive position may be substantially impaired in such jurisdictions.

We may rely on trade secret and proprietary know-how which can be difficult to trace and enforce and, if we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and current product candidates or any future product candidates, we may also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. Elements of our current product candidates or any future product candidates, including processes for their preparation and manufacture, as well as our T-win technology platform, may involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by patents, and thus for these aspects we may consider trade secrets and know-how to be our primary intellectual property. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share our facilities or third party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We require our employees to enter into written employment agreements containing provisions of confidentiality and obligations to assign to us any inventions generated in the course of their employment. We enter into written agreements that include confidentiality and intellectual property obligations to protect each party’s property, potential trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and information. We further seek to protect our potential trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and information in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who are given access to them, such as our corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors and other third parties. With our consultants, contractors, and outside scientific collaborators, these agreements typically include invention assignment obligations. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be harmed.

We may become subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Our licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we may in-license in the future. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

113

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our current or future trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or descriptive or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections of our applications by the USPTO or in other foreign jurisdictions. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and tradenames to third parties, such as distributors. Although these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and tradenames may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with our product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, it may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Risks Related to Common Stock

The stock price of our common stock may be volatile or may decline regardless of our operating performance and you may lose all or part of your investment.

The trading price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, these factors include:

114